Citește Biblia

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":11383,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Christ*, Exaltation","title_en":"of Christ*, Exaltation","content_ro":"<h3>EXALTATION OF CHRIST*<\/h3>\n<p>The glory and dominion which Jesus attained subsequent to the completion of his earthly work of suffering and death. It is at one and the same time the consummation of his redemptive sacrifice and the reward of his full obedience to the will of the Father. The exaltation thus includes the biblical doctrines of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and heavenly enthronement.<\/p>\n<p>During his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted not only that he would suffer, die, and be buried (Mt 20:28; Jn 3:14; 6:51; 10:11; etc.) but also that he would thereafter be exalted by the power of the Father to heavenly dominion and glory (Lk 24:26; Jn 17:5). This humiliation-exaltation pattern was plainly indicated by Jesus on the occasion of his encounter with a delegation of proselytes who sought to meet with the Lord (Jn 12:20-36). Jesus far exceeded the expectations of these Greeks by declaring that fellowship with his Father would be extended to the Gentiles in consequence of his imminent passion and resurrection. By affirming, “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified” (Jn 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>), Jesus indicated that he would be endowed with honor and splendor at his exaltation to the presence of the Father in heaven. Jesus’ teaching in respect to his exaltation to heaven provided the foundation for the church’s more explicit teaching on the subject.<\/p>\n<p>The resurrection, the initial event in the exaltation of Jesus, is one of the central affirmations of NT teaching (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:4). From apostolic times Christians have consistently affirmed that at a particular moment in time and in a given place its founder literally passed from a state of death to a state of endless life. The absolute uniqueness of Christ’s exaltation via bodily resurrection from the dead sets Christianity in a class by itself among the religions of the world. A reading of the NT plainly indicates that Jesus openly predicted that death was unable to defeat him. To the skeptical Jews who demanded from Jesus a sign of the authority by which he purged the temple, the Lord answered: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19, <span>rsv<\/span>). After Peter’s crucial confession of Christ’s divine sonship at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus gave to his followers a more detailed account of the divine plan whereby he would be raised from the dead on the third day (Mt 16:21). To the disciples who assembled in Galilee shortly after his transfiguration, Jesus spoke plainly of his forthcoming exaltation: “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day” (17:22-23, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the NT, the apostolic teaching about Christ’s death is almost always accompanied by an emphasis upon the certainty of his physical resurrection after three days.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the NT writers were careful to spell out the profound theological significance of Christ’s exaltation in resurrection: (1) it demonstrates Christ’s certain power over death and the grave (Acts 2:24; 1 Cor 15:54-56); (2) it confirms the validity of Christ’s teachings, particularly his claims to divine Sonship (Acts 2:36; Rom 1:4); (3) it represents God’s ultimate vindication of his obedient, suffering servant (Phil 2:8-9); (4) it is the means of the justification (Rom 4:25) and regeneration (1 Pt 1:3) of the believer; and (5) it is the guarantee of the future resurrection of the Christian (Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15:22-24). The effective cause of Christ’s resurrection is declared to be, on one hand, God (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:32; Eph 1:19-20) and, on the other hand, our Lord himself (Jn 2:19; 10:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>The ascension represents the second phase of the exaltation of Christ. According to the two NT historical accounts (Lk 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11), 40 days after his death Jesus left his disciples for the last time and ascended into heaven. Jesus, who several times in John’s Gospel specifically refers to his ascension (Jn 3:13; 6:62; 14:12; 20:17), regarded the place to which he would depart as an actual locality in the heavenly realm (14:2). In his reflection upon this second stage of the exaltation intimated by Psalm 68:18, the apostle Paul associates the ascension with Christ’s triumph over his foes and the bestowal of spiritual gifts to the church (Eph 4:8). The victor triumphantly returned to his Father’s throne in order to bless his people. In what may be part of an early Christian hymn, Paul explicates what he regards as the supreme “mystery” of the Christian faith, namely, that Christ Jesus who “was manifested in the flesh” was at the close of his life “taken up into glory” (1 Tm 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Alone among the writings of the NT, the Epistle to the Hebrews associates Christ’s ascension with his high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. He who steadfastly withstood every earthly trial, having “passed through the heavens,” is fully able to empathize with his people and impart grace to the tempted and distraught (Heb 4:14ff.). Employing the symbolism of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary, the writer conceptualizes the Ascension as the event whereby Christ enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain (6:19), bringing with him his own blood (9:12), to the end that he might appear in the presence of God on our behalf (v 24).<\/p>\n<p>The NT thus attributes considerable theological significance to this phase of Christ’s exaltation. By virtue of his exaltation to the Father, Christ (1) demonstrated his defeat of every earthly enemy (Eph 4:8); (2) sent the promised Holy Spirit (Jn 16:7; Acts 2:33), which awaited his glorification (Jn 7:39); and (3) formally undertook his heavenly priestly ministry (Heb 6:20).<\/p>\n<p>The third stage of Christ’s exaltation is his heavenly enthronement at the right hand of the Father. Following his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension to the heavenly realm, Christ is represented in Scripture as having taken his seat at the Father’s right hand. The biblical phrase “right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56), which has been preserved in many later Christian creeds and confessions, is an anthropomorphism that figuratively describes Christ’s universal dominion, authority, and power in the presence of the Father. This aspect of Christ’s exaltation represents the fulfillment of his prayer recorded in John 17:5: “Now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory I had with you before the world was made.”<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the description of God seated on the throne of the universe is a sign of his sovereignty (1 Kgs 22:19; Ps 99:1), majesty (Is 6:1-4) and holiness (Ps 47:8). That one should be invited to take a seat on the right hand of the sovereign in Eastern cultures was a token of extraordinary honor and authority (1 Kgs 2:19). The fact that the exalted Christ would be accorded this particular privilege was anticipated in the Scriptures of the OT (see Ps 8:5, quoted in Heb 2:8; and see Ps 110:1).<\/p>\n<p>The Epistle to the Hebrews, which shows unusual interest in the doctrine of Christ’s exaltation, represents Christ’s heavenly enthronement both as the sequel to his completed earthly sacrifice and as the commencement of his High Priestly ministration in the sanctuary on high. Affirming the superiority of Christ as High Priest of the new covenant, Hebrews 8:1-2 portrays Christ as seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the heavenlies. Christ’s enthronement affirms not only the finality of his earthly work of self-sacrifice but also his newly acquired status as mediator of the new and better covenant. Hebrews 10:11-18 pointedly contrasts the ineffectual sacrifices of the legal priests who <em>stand<\/em> in the performance of their ritual sacrifices with the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now <em>seated<\/em> at the right hand of God as intercessor for the saints.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EXALTATION OF CHRIST*<\/h3>\n<p>The glory and dominion which Jesus attained subsequent to the completion of his earthly work of suffering and death. It is at one and the same time the consummation of his redemptive sacrifice and the reward of his full obedience to the will of the Father. The exaltation thus includes the biblical doctrines of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and heavenly enthronement.<\/p>\n<p>During his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted not only that he would suffer, die, and be buried (Mt 20:28; Jn 3:14; 6:51; 10:11; etc.) but also that he would thereafter be exalted by the power of the Father to heavenly dominion and glory (Lk 24:26; Jn 17:5). This humiliation-exaltation pattern was plainly indicated by Jesus on the occasion of his encounter with a delegation of proselytes who sought to meet with the Lord (Jn 12:20-36). Jesus far exceeded the expectations of these Greeks by declaring that fellowship with his Father would be extended to the Gentiles in consequence of his imminent passion and resurrection. By affirming, “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified” (Jn 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>), Jesus indicated that he would be endowed with honor and splendor at his exaltation to the presence of the Father in heaven. Jesus’ teaching in respect to his exaltation to heaven provided the foundation for the church’s more explicit teaching on the subject.<\/p>\n<p>The resurrection, the initial event in the exaltation of Jesus, is one of the central affirmations of NT teaching (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:4). From apostolic times Christians have consistently affirmed that at a particular moment in time and in a given place its founder literally passed from a state of death to a state of endless life. The absolute uniqueness of Christ’s exaltation via bodily resurrection from the dead sets Christianity in a class by itself among the religions of the world. A reading of the NT plainly indicates that Jesus openly predicted that death was unable to defeat him. To the skeptical Jews who demanded from Jesus a sign of the authority by which he purged the temple, the Lord answered: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19, <span>rsv<\/span>). After Peter’s crucial confession of Christ’s divine sonship at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus gave to his followers a more detailed account of the divine plan whereby he would be raised from the dead on the third day (Mt 16:21). To the disciples who assembled in Galilee shortly after his transfiguration, Jesus spoke plainly of his forthcoming exaltation: “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day” (17:22-23, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the NT, the apostolic teaching about Christ’s death is almost always accompanied by an emphasis upon the certainty of his physical resurrection after three days.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the NT writers were careful to spell out the profound theological significance of Christ’s exaltation in resurrection: (1) it demonstrates Christ’s certain power over death and the grave (Acts 2:24; 1 Cor 15:54-56); (2) it confirms the validity of Christ’s teachings, particularly his claims to divine Sonship (Acts 2:36; Rom 1:4); (3) it represents God’s ultimate vindication of his obedient, suffering servant (Phil 2:8-9); (4) it is the means of the justification (Rom 4:25) and regeneration (1 Pt 1:3) of the believer; and (5) it is the guarantee of the future resurrection of the Christian (Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15:22-24). The effective cause of Christ’s resurrection is declared to be, on one hand, God (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:32; Eph 1:19-20) and, on the other hand, our Lord himself (Jn 2:19; 10:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>The ascension represents the second phase of the exaltation of Christ. According to the two NT historical accounts (Lk 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11), 40 days after his death Jesus left his disciples for the last time and ascended into heaven. Jesus, who several times in John’s Gospel specifically refers to his ascension (Jn 3:13; 6:62; 14:12; 20:17), regarded the place to which he would depart as an actual locality in the heavenly realm (14:2). In his reflection upon this second stage of the exaltation intimated by Psalm 68:18, the apostle Paul associates the ascension with Christ’s triumph over his foes and the bestowal of spiritual gifts to the church (Eph 4:8). The victor triumphantly returned to his Father’s throne in order to bless his people. In what may be part of an early Christian hymn, Paul explicates what he regards as the supreme “mystery” of the Christian faith, namely, that Christ Jesus who “was manifested in the flesh” was at the close of his life “taken up into glory” (1 Tm 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Alone among the writings of the NT, the Epistle to the Hebrews associates Christ’s ascension with his high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. He who steadfastly withstood every earthly trial, having “passed through the heavens,” is fully able to empathize with his people and impart grace to the tempted and distraught (Heb 4:14ff.). Employing the symbolism of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary, the writer conceptualizes the Ascension as the event whereby Christ enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain (6:19), bringing with him his own blood (9:12), to the end that he might appear in the presence of God on our behalf (v 24).<\/p>\n<p>The NT thus attributes considerable theological significance to this phase of Christ’s exaltation. By virtue of his exaltation to the Father, Christ (1) demonstrated his defeat of every earthly enemy (Eph 4:8); (2) sent the promised Holy Spirit (Jn 16:7; Acts 2:33), which awaited his glorification (Jn 7:39); and (3) formally undertook his heavenly priestly ministry (Heb 6:20).<\/p>\n<p>The third stage of Christ’s exaltation is his heavenly enthronement at the right hand of the Father. Following his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension to the heavenly realm, Christ is represented in Scripture as having taken his seat at the Father’s right hand. The biblical phrase “right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56), which has been preserved in many later Christian creeds and confessions, is an anthropomorphism that figuratively describes Christ’s universal dominion, authority, and power in the presence of the Father. This aspect of Christ’s exaltation represents the fulfillment of his prayer recorded in John 17:5: “Now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory I had with you before the world was made.”<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the description of God seated on the throne of the universe is a sign of his sovereignty (1 Kgs 22:19; Ps 99:1), majesty (Is 6:1-4) and holiness (Ps 47:8). That one should be invited to take a seat on the right hand of the sovereign in Eastern cultures was a token of extraordinary honor and authority (1 Kgs 2:19). The fact that the exalted Christ would be accorded this particular privilege was anticipated in the Scriptures of the OT (see Ps 8:5, quoted in Heb 2:8; and see Ps 110:1).<\/p>\n<p>The Epistle to the Hebrews, which shows unusual interest in the doctrine of Christ’s exaltation, represents Christ’s heavenly enthronement both as the sequel to his completed earthly sacrifice and as the commencement of his High Priestly ministration in the sanctuary on high. Affirming the superiority of Christ as High Priest of the new covenant, Hebrews 8:1-2 portrays Christ as seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the heavenlies. Christ’s enthronement affirms not only the finality of his earthly work of self-sacrifice but also his newly acquired status as mediator of the new and better covenant. Hebrews 10:11-18 pointedly contrasts the ineffectual sacrifices of the legal priests who <em>stand<\/em> in the performance of their ritual sacrifices with the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now <em>seated<\/em> at the right hand of God as intercessor for the saints.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EXALTATION OF CHRIST* The glory and dominion which Jesus attained subsequent to the completion of his earthly work of suffering and death. It is at one and the same time the consummation of his redemptive sacrifice and the reward of his full obedience to the will of the Father. The exaltation thus includes the biblical doctrines of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and heavenly enthronement. During his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted not only that he would suffer, die, and be buried (Mt 20:28...","summary_en":"EXALTATION OF CHRIST* The glory and dominion which Jesus attained subsequent to the completion of his earthly work of suffering and death. It is at one and the same time the consummation of his redemptive sacrifice and the reward of his full obedience to the will of the Father. The exaltation thus includes the biblical doctrines of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and heavenly enthronement. During his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted not only that he would suffer, die, and be buried (Mt 20:28...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15809,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heaven","title_en":"Heaven","content_ro":"<h3>HEAVEN<\/h3>\n<p>Realm (or realms) designated by a Hebrew term used to represent the sky and air and also heaven. The form of the word in Hebrew is dual (implying two of something). Although this dual form may only represent an ancient device for expressing the plural, it is supposed by some to imply the existence of a lower and an upper heaven—a physical and a spiritual heaven.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT writers viewed the physical heavens as a “firmament” appearing as a great arch supported on foundations and pillars (2 Sm 22:8) and spread out above the earth, with rain descending through its doors (Ps 78:23). The keynote of the OT revelation about the physical heavens is set forth in Psalms 8 and 19:1-6. Elsewhere the OT speaks of the atmospheric heavens as the region of the clouds (Ps 147:8), winds (Zec 2:6), rain (Dt 11:11), thunder (1 Sm 2:10), dew (Dt 33:13), frost (Jb 38:29), and the abode of birds (Gn 1:26, 30). It is also the locale of such destructive forces as hail (Jos 10:11), fire, and brimstone (Gn 19:24). In the NT this notion of the vaulted expanse of the sky as the region in which the elements, clouds, and tempests gather (Mt 16:2; Lk 4:25) and birds fly (Lk 9:58) is continued.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the atmospheric regions, the Hebrew idea of the physical heavens includes stellar space, which ultimately embraces the universe. The heavenly bodies of the stellar heavens were viewed by the Hebrews as inexpressibly glorious manifestations of God’s handiwork without having any power or vitality of their own. These include the sun, moon, planets, and stars, which were but lights in the firmament of the heavens (Gn 1:14; 15:5). As such, they were regarded as unworthy of worship because God had, by his own will and grace, made humans superior to them. In fact, the Hebrews were expressly forbidden to worship the stellar bodies (Ex 20:4), the gods and goddesses who represented them (Jer 44:17-25), or to participate in astrological speculation (Is 47:13). Hence, this unique theological ordinance differentiated the Hebrews, who viewed the heavenly bodies as made and moved by the will of God, from the superstitious heathen, who worshiped them.<\/p>\n<p>The term “heaven of heavens” (Dt 10:14; see also <span>kjv<\/span> 1 Kgs 8:27; Pss 68:33; 148:4) is the literal English rendition of the Hebrew idiom for the superlative “the highest heaven.” Some have thought this the counterpart to Paul’s expression “the third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2), which parallels the classical Greek conception of three heavens. This notion was subsequently adopted by the Roman Catholic medieval church and in the Latin form of <em>Coelum Aqueum, Coelum Sidereum,<\/em> and <em>Coelum Empyreum.<\/em> The basic concept followed the Greek view, and it coincides with the OT view of the physical and spiritual heavens as indicated earlier. Those who follow this approach tend to regard this third heaven as the place reached by the souls of the blessed as they pass through the two lower regions of the atmosphere and outer space containing the celestial bodies, and enter into the uttermost reaches of the universe.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Lord Jesus indicated that heaven is the dwelling place of God (Mt 6:9). Jesus, during his earthly ministry, repeatedly claimed that he had come from heaven (Jn 3:13; 6:33-51); and on at least three occasions utterances from heaven confirmed these claims (Mt 3:16-17; 17:5; Jn 12:28). There is where the true tabernacle stands, of which the earthly tabernacle was merely a shadow (cf. Heb 8:1-5). That abode of God was in view when the apostle Paul wrote of “the third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2). As such, it is often seen as a synonym for God himself (cf. Mt 23:22; Lk 15:18).<\/p>\n<p>After Jesus’ ascension, recorded in Acts 1:6-11, two angels reminded the disciples that Jesus would return again from heaven. This was later confirmed by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 15:1-11; Eph 4:7-16; 1 Tm 3:16) and reiterated in the summary of the teachings of the NT known as the Apostles’ Creed. In all, the relationship of Jesus Christ to the heavenly abode of God is inextricably interwoven in the NT and is inseparable from the gospel message itself. Indeed, it is from the “right hand of God” that Christ forever lives to make intercession for those who have come to him by faith (Heb 7:25; cf. Mk 14:62).<\/p>\n<p>Paul asserts that the believer’s body will be made conformable to the glorious body of Jesus Christ when Christ returns from heaven (Phil 3:20-21). The believers need such a heavenly body to match their heavenly citizenship. The term “citizenship” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “commonwealth” (<span>rsv<\/span>) implies a colony of individuals who live in a foreign country while observing the laws of their homeland instead of the land in which they reside (cf. Acts 22:28). The implication for believers is quite clear: They are to live according to the moral and ethical principles of God as revealed from heaven regardless of the standards proclaimed by the world. They have been raised together with Christ and have been instructed to “seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (Col 3:1). From there Christ has blessed his followers “with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:3). The expression “in the heavenly places” is peculiar to Ephesians (see 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12), suggesting that the blessings of the spiritual world are not relegated to some remote future time or place but can be perceived by faith here and now. That is why believers are said to have been made partakers already in the heavenly calling (Heb 3:1; 6:4).<\/p>\n<p>In the meanwhile, believers look forward to a new heaven and a new earth with the new Jerusalem. There will be no tears, sorrow, pain, death, and night there because the Son of God will be there (Rv 21:1-4, 27; 22:1-5), and in the resurrected state there will be no marrying or giving in marriage (Lk 20:27-38). At least two OT saints, Enoch (Gn 5:22-24; Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11), were translated directly into the presence of God—into heaven. In addition to Paul’s statement about the third heaven, John was called into heaven (Rv 4:1), a heaven that is intended to be populated (cf. 19:1). All believers will ultimately dwell in heaven in their resurrection bodies, which they will receive when the Lord comes for them from heaven (1 Thes 4:16-17; Rv 19:1-4). The Lord will also give treasures and rewards at that time (Mt 5:12; 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Cor 5:1; 2 Tm 4:8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pt 1:4; 5:4; Rv 2:10; 4:10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> “Abraham’s Bosom”; New Heavens and New Earth; Paradise.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEAVEN<\/h3>\n<p>Realm (or realms) designated by a Hebrew term used to represent the sky and air and also heaven. The form of the word in Hebrew is dual (implying two of something). Although this dual form may only represent an ancient device for expressing the plural, it is supposed by some to imply the existence of a lower and an upper heaven—a physical and a spiritual heaven.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT writers viewed the physical heavens as a “firmament” appearing as a great arch supported on foundations and pillars (2 Sm 22:8) and spread out above the earth, with rain descending through its doors (Ps 78:23). The keynote of the OT revelation about the physical heavens is set forth in Psalms 8 and 19:1-6. Elsewhere the OT speaks of the atmospheric heavens as the region of the clouds (Ps 147:8), winds (Zec 2:6), rain (Dt 11:11), thunder (1 Sm 2:10), dew (Dt 33:13), frost (Jb 38:29), and the abode of birds (Gn 1:26, 30). It is also the locale of such destructive forces as hail (Jos 10:11), fire, and brimstone (Gn 19:24). In the NT this notion of the vaulted expanse of the sky as the region in which the elements, clouds, and tempests gather (Mt 16:2; Lk 4:25) and birds fly (Lk 9:58) is continued.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the atmospheric regions, the Hebrew idea of the physical heavens includes stellar space, which ultimately embraces the universe. The heavenly bodies of the stellar heavens were viewed by the Hebrews as inexpressibly glorious manifestations of God’s handiwork without having any power or vitality of their own. These include the sun, moon, planets, and stars, which were but lights in the firmament of the heavens (Gn 1:14; 15:5). As such, they were regarded as unworthy of worship because God had, by his own will and grace, made humans superior to them. In fact, the Hebrews were expressly forbidden to worship the stellar bodies (Ex 20:4), the gods and goddesses who represented them (Jer 44:17-25), or to participate in astrological speculation (Is 47:13). Hence, this unique theological ordinance differentiated the Hebrews, who viewed the heavenly bodies as made and moved by the will of God, from the superstitious heathen, who worshiped them.<\/p>\n<p>The term “heaven of heavens” (Dt 10:14; see also <span>kjv<\/span> 1 Kgs 8:27; Pss 68:33; 148:4) is the literal English rendition of the Hebrew idiom for the superlative “the highest heaven.” Some have thought this the counterpart to Paul’s expression “the third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2), which parallels the classical Greek conception of three heavens. This notion was subsequently adopted by the Roman Catholic medieval church and in the Latin form of <em>Coelum Aqueum, Coelum Sidereum,<\/em> and <em>Coelum Empyreum.<\/em> The basic concept followed the Greek view, and it coincides with the OT view of the physical and spiritual heavens as indicated earlier. Those who follow this approach tend to regard this third heaven as the place reached by the souls of the blessed as they pass through the two lower regions of the atmosphere and outer space containing the celestial bodies, and enter into the uttermost reaches of the universe.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Lord Jesus indicated that heaven is the dwelling place of God (Mt 6:9). Jesus, during his earthly ministry, repeatedly claimed that he had come from heaven (Jn 3:13; 6:33-51); and on at least three occasions utterances from heaven confirmed these claims (Mt 3:16-17; 17:5; Jn 12:28). There is where the true tabernacle stands, of which the earthly tabernacle was merely a shadow (cf. Heb 8:1-5). That abode of God was in view when the apostle Paul wrote of “the third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2). As such, it is often seen as a synonym for God himself (cf. Mt 23:22; Lk 15:18).<\/p>\n<p>After Jesus’ ascension, recorded in Acts 1:6-11, two angels reminded the disciples that Jesus would return again from heaven. This was later confirmed by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 15:1-11; Eph 4:7-16; 1 Tm 3:16) and reiterated in the summary of the teachings of the NT known as the Apostles’ Creed. In all, the relationship of Jesus Christ to the heavenly abode of God is inextricably interwoven in the NT and is inseparable from the gospel message itself. Indeed, it is from the “right hand of God” that Christ forever lives to make intercession for those who have come to him by faith (Heb 7:25; cf. Mk 14:62).<\/p>\n<p>Paul asserts that the believer’s body will be made conformable to the glorious body of Jesus Christ when Christ returns from heaven (Phil 3:20-21). The believers need such a heavenly body to match their heavenly citizenship. The term “citizenship” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “commonwealth” (<span>rsv<\/span>) implies a colony of individuals who live in a foreign country while observing the laws of their homeland instead of the land in which they reside (cf. Acts 22:28). The implication for believers is quite clear: They are to live according to the moral and ethical principles of God as revealed from heaven regardless of the standards proclaimed by the world. They have been raised together with Christ and have been instructed to “seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (Col 3:1). From there Christ has blessed his followers “with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:3). The expression “in the heavenly places” is peculiar to Ephesians (see 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12), suggesting that the blessings of the spiritual world are not relegated to some remote future time or place but can be perceived by faith here and now. That is why believers are said to have been made partakers already in the heavenly calling (Heb 3:1; 6:4).<\/p>\n<p>In the meanwhile, believers look forward to a new heaven and a new earth with the new Jerusalem. There will be no tears, sorrow, pain, death, and night there because the Son of God will be there (Rv 21:1-4, 27; 22:1-5), and in the resurrected state there will be no marrying or giving in marriage (Lk 20:27-38). At least two OT saints, Enoch (Gn 5:22-24; Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11), were translated directly into the presence of God—into heaven. In addition to Paul’s statement about the third heaven, John was called into heaven (Rv 4:1), a heaven that is intended to be populated (cf. 19:1). All believers will ultimately dwell in heaven in their resurrection bodies, which they will receive when the Lord comes for them from heaven (1 Thes 4:16-17; Rv 19:1-4). The Lord will also give treasures and rewards at that time (Mt 5:12; 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Cor 5:1; 2 Tm 4:8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pt 1:4; 5:4; Rv 2:10; 4:10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> “Abraham’s Bosom”; New Heavens and New Earth; Paradise.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEAVEN Realm (or realms) designated by a Hebrew term used to represent the sky and air and also heaven. The form of the word in Hebrew is dual (implying two of something). Although this dual form may only represent an ancient device for expressing the plural, it is supposed by some to imply the existence of a lower and an upper heaven—a physical and a spiritual heaven. In the Old Testament The OT writers viewed the physical heavens as a “firmament” appearing as a great arch supported on found...","summary_en":"HEAVEN Realm (or realms) designated by a Hebrew term used to represent the sky and air and also heaven. The form of the word in Hebrew is dual (implying two of something). Although this dual form may only represent an ancient device for expressing the plural, it is supposed by some to imply the existence of a lower and an upper heaven—a physical and a spiritual heaven. In the Old Testament The OT writers viewed the physical heavens as a “firmament” appearing as a great arch supported on found...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15922,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Hebrews","title_en":"Letter to the Hebrews","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","summary_en":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23507,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Lord’s Supper","title_en":"the Lord’s Supper","content_ro":"<h3>LORD’S SUPPER, The<\/h3>\n<p>The supper Jesus shared with his disciples a few hours before he was arrested and taken to his trial and death (thus often called “The Last Supper”); the ceremony of partaking of the bread and wine that Christians have come to call the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20), the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7), Holy Communion (from the expression of 1 Cor 10:16), the Eucharist (the Greek word for “thanksgiving,” see Mk 14:23), or the Mass. The apostle Paul speaks of handing on what he had “received from the Lord” concerning the institution of this supper “on the night when he was betrayed.” Like Luke, Paul gives the Lord’s command to his disciples: “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:24-25). According to Acts 2, the early Christians from the beginning of the life of the church met regularly for “the breaking of bread.”<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Accounts of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Time of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• Words and Actions of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Practice of the Early Church<\/p>\n<p>• Paul’s Teaching<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheAccountsoftheInstitution\">The Accounts of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>The institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded in Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; and Luke 22:14-20. John’s Gospel (ch 13) tells of the Last Supper Jesus shared with his disciples, of his washing the disciples’ feet and the teaching associated with that, but does not mention his institution of Communion. Many see the Lord’s Supper reflected in the teaching of John 6, following the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus’ speaking of himself as “the bread of life,” but this is open to question. First Corinthians 11:23-26 gives Paul’s version of the institution, which he speaks of as “receiving” and “delivering” to the Corinthian Christians.<\/p>\n<p>In Luke 22:17-18 Jesus is said to have passed the cup to the disciples with the words “Take this, and divide it among yourselves” before taking the bread and giving it to them. In most early manuscripts there is then a second cup after the giving of the bread. This difference of Luke from the other Gospels and from Paul has been variously explained, but whether there are two cups of wine at the supper or a different order in the giving of the bread and the wine, it makes no essential difference to the fact and the meaning of the institution.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTimeoftheInstitution\">The Time of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>All of the narratives—the three Gospels and 1 Corinthians—speak of the Last Supper when the Eucharist was instituted as taking place a few hours before Jesus’ arrest. All four Gospels tell, in this context, of Jesus’ words to his disciples, about Judas’s betrayal, and about Jesus telling Peter that he would deny his Master. Matthew (Mt 26:17-20), Mark (Mk 14:12-17), and Luke (Lk 22:7-14) all say clearly that this Last Supper was prepared by the disciples and kept by Jesus with them as a Passover meal. John speaks of it as happening “before the feast of the Passover” and then says that at the time of the trial of Jesus before Pilate the Jewish leaders “did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover” (Jn 13:1; 18:28, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Various explanations of this difference between John and the other Gospels have been suggested, such as that different groups of the Jews kept the Passover at different times, that the meal in the upper room was not strictly a Passover but a fellowship meal at the Passover season, or that Jesus deliberately chose for his own special reasons to celebrate the Passover before the normal time. Luke 22:15 gives his words, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (<span>rsv<\/span>). However the differences between the Gospels may be explained, and whenever the gathering around the table took place, it is clear that the Last Supper had the significance of a Passover meal.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, there is an inevitable similarity between the celebration of the Passover as a feast of the old covenant and the Lord’s Supper as a feast of the new. The former looks back with thankful remembrance to the people’s redemption and liberation from Egypt by the act of God, associated with the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. The latter looks back with thankful remembrance to redemption by the act of God through the sacrifice of Christ. The apostle Paul links the two: “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WordsandActionsoftheInstitution\">Words and Actions of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>The association of the Last Supper with the Passover points to the importance of the OT background for our understanding of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. This OT background is equally important in understanding the words and actions of Jesus in the upper room.<\/p>\n<h5>“This is my body.”<\/h5>\n<p>The actions of Jesus in taking the bread are described similarly in Matthew (Mt 26:26), Mark (Mk 14:22), Luke (Lk 22:19), and 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 11:23-24). Jesus took the bread, gave thanks to God (“blessing” has the same meaning in the biblical context), and broke it. It is noteworthy that the same three actions are described in the records of the feeding of the 5,000 and of the 4,000 (Mk 6:41; 8:6). What he said, according to all four accounts of the Last Supper, was “This is my body.” Christians in Catholic, Orthodox, and various Protestant traditions have differed in their understanding of the precise meaning of those words. What is clear is that in the taking of the bread there is the realization of Jesus’ giving himself, his body to be broken on the cross, his life offered that we, in and through him, might have life. First Corinthians 11:24 gives the words as “This is my body which is for you,” and some early manuscripts have “broken for you.”<\/p>\n<h5>“Do this in remembrance of me.”<\/h5>\n<p>This specific instruction is found only in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24. Some have argued that the absence of the words in the other Gospel records indicates that it was not the explicit intention of the Lord that what he did at the Last Supper was to be repeated as a Christian sacrament. Yet all the Gospels were written when the breaking of bread had been a regular practice in the life of the church for years. Matthew and Mark, therefore, may have thought it unnecessary to express Jesus’ intention with those words. They were taken for granted.<\/p>\n<p>It must also be said that these words have been interpreted differently in various Christian traditions. Many Protestant Christians have understood them to mean that in the Holy Communion we are to recall with great thankfulness that Christ loved us and gave himself to die for us. In the Roman Catholic Church the word “remembrance” has been understood as a memorial before God, a representing of the sacrifice of Christ before the Father. “This do” has been interpreted as meaning “offer this,” and even in the second century Christian writers spoke of the Eucharist as a “sacrifice.” Protestant Christians generally have felt the danger of this way of speaking; it can detract from, or even deny, the biblical understanding of the sacrifice of Christ having been offered once and for all, sufficiently atoning for the sins of the world (cf. Heb 7:27; 9:12). It must be said, however, that many Roman Catholic statements today stress the sufficiency and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; and many Protestant scholars, while not wishing to introduce a sacrificial understanding of the Lord’s Supper, stress that “remembrance” is more than simply calling to mind a past action. In biblical thinking “remembrance” often involves a realization and appropriation in the present of what has been done or what has proved true in the past (see Pss 98:3; 106:45; 112:6; Eccl 12:1; Is 57:11).<\/p>\n<h5>“This is my blood of the [new] covenant.”<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus took the cup of wine, gave thanks, and handed it to his disciples for them all to drink. In essence the four accounts of the institution agree. Matthew (Mt 26:28) and Mark (Mk 14:24) give the words of Jesus as “This is my blood of the [new] covenant.” Luke 22:20 has “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood,” and 1 Corinthians 11:25 is similar to this. This refers back to the ritual of making a covenant with the offering of sacrifice, as the covenant between God and Israel after the exodus (Ex 24:1-8). Implied also is that the prophetic hope of the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) was fulfilled in Jesus, as Hebrews 8–9 describes.<\/p>\n<h5>“Poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”<\/h5>\n<p>The meaning of the death of Jesus as a sacrifice is linked with the understanding of the Passover and of the covenant. It is also linked with what Isaiah 53 says of the suffering Servant making himself “an offering for sin” (Is 53:10). Luke 22:37 includes among the words of Jesus in the upper room the statement, “This scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors.’ ” That verse, Isaiah 53:12, also says, “he poured out his soul to death” and “he bore the sin of many.” Mark 14:24 appears to allude to these Scriptures when Jesus speaks of his blood “poured out for many,” and Matthew 26:28 adds “for the forgiveness of sins.”<\/p>\n<h5>Expectation for the Future<\/h5>\n<p>All four accounts of the Last Supper associate, though in different ways, an expectation for the future with the institution of the Eucharist. In Mark 14:25 it comes in the words of Jesus, “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (<span>rsv<\/span>). In Matthew 26:29 that future drinking of the fruit of the vine is said to be “with you in my Father’s kingdom.” In Luke 22:18 there are similar words, and two verses earlier the statement about fulfilling the Passover “in the kingdom of God.” All of these can be understood as the ultimate realization of another hope that both OT and later Jewish apocalyptic writings set forward: the messianic banquet, the feast on the mountain of the Lord of which Isaiah 25:6 speaks. In 1 Corinthians 11:26 that future hope is quite explicitly that of Christ’s second coming; for, says the apostle, “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePracticeoftheEarlyChurch\">The Practice of the Early Church<\/p>\n<p>In Acts 2:42, after the record of what happened at Pentecost, it says “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Further, “day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts” (Acts 2:46, <span>rsv<\/span>). Two questions are raised about these words and the practice that lay behind them. Do they simply mean that the Christians shared fellowship meals together? Acts 2:46 seems to speak of breaking bread and partaking of food as two separate actions. Moreover, Acts 20:7 in speaking of Christians at Troas “on the first day of the week . . . gathered together to break bread” seems clearly to allude to a Christian service and not just a meal. From 1 Corinthians 10 and perhaps from the reference to “love feasts” in Jude 12, we may reasonably deduce that a meal in Christian fellowship and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper often took place together. A second question is whether the earliest “breaking of bread,” as in the Jerusalem church, may have been a different rite from that with the bread and wine, the former recalling the fellowship of the disciples with the risen Lord, the latter especially recalling his sacrificial death. There is no direct evidence to support such a view. The Lord’s Supper to which the Gospels bear witness involved the breaking of bread and the sharing of the cup in remembrance of the blood of Christ “poured out for many.” We may assume, too, that the tradition that the apostle Paul received, followed, and passed on to others went back to his earliest years as a Christian and so involved the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup in remembrance of Christ, and thus proclaiming the Lord’s death until his return.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaulsTeaching\">Paul’s Teaching<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s teaching, as in the Gospels, the Lord’s Supper clearly involves the backward look in thankful remembrance for the sacrifice of Christ offered once for all for the sins of the world, the realization of the Lord being with his people in the present, and the look forward in hope. Other aspects of teaching relating to the Eucharist are brought out in 1 Corinthians 10–11. The teaching arises from practical aspects of the situation in the Corinthian church; the need to be aware of the danger of turning back in any way to the worship of idols; and the potential divisions in the Christian fellowship, including that between rich and poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship with Christ<\/h5>\n<p>To partake of the bread and to drink of the cup is spoken of as having part with Christ, as sharing in sacrificial meals would mean partaking at “the table of demons” (1 Cor 10:21). “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (v 16, <span>rsv<\/span>). “Participation” is the translation of the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span><em>,<\/em> so often rendered “fellowship” in NT passages. When the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, there must often have been a recalling not only of the Last Supper on the night before Jesus died, but also of his presence with his disciples on the first Easter and his making himself known to them in the breaking of the bread (Lk 24:30-35). They continued to experience that fellowship with him.<\/p>\n<h5>Feeding on Christ<\/h5>\n<p>Of the two Christian sacraments, baptism has a once-for-all nature, while Holy Communion is repeated. The life of Christ has been offered for sins once for all on the cross, and we find life in turning to him—baptism signifies that. At the same time that life is also offered to us constantly for the nourishing of our spiritual lives day by day—of this regular feeding on Christ the Eucharist speaks. First Corinthians 10:3-4 speaks of “supernatural food” and “supernatural drink” and finds in the events at the sea and in the wilderness in the days of Moses foreshadowings of what Christians find in Christ. Christ said, “I am the bread of life,” and “My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”; thus what we have in John’s Gospel (Jn 6:35, 55, <span>rsv<\/span>) is close to what Paul implies about the Lord’s Supper expressing the truth of Christians spiritually feeding on Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LORD’S SUPPER, The<\/h3>\n<p>The supper Jesus shared with his disciples a few hours before he was arrested and taken to his trial and death (thus often called “The Last Supper”); the ceremony of partaking of the bread and wine that Christians have come to call the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20), the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7), Holy Communion (from the expression of 1 Cor 10:16), the Eucharist (the Greek word for “thanksgiving,” see Mk 14:23), or the Mass. The apostle Paul speaks of handing on what he had “received from the Lord” concerning the institution of this supper “on the night when he was betrayed.” Like Luke, Paul gives the Lord’s command to his disciples: “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:24-25). According to Acts 2, the early Christians from the beginning of the life of the church met regularly for “the breaking of bread.”<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Accounts of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Time of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• Words and Actions of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Practice of the Early Church<\/p>\n<p>• Paul’s Teaching<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheAccountsoftheInstitution\">The Accounts of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>The institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded in Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; and Luke 22:14-20. John’s Gospel (ch 13) tells of the Last Supper Jesus shared with his disciples, of his washing the disciples’ feet and the teaching associated with that, but does not mention his institution of Communion. Many see the Lord’s Supper reflected in the teaching of John 6, following the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus’ speaking of himself as “the bread of life,” but this is open to question. First Corinthians 11:23-26 gives Paul’s version of the institution, which he speaks of as “receiving” and “delivering” to the Corinthian Christians.<\/p>\n<p>In Luke 22:17-18 Jesus is said to have passed the cup to the disciples with the words “Take this, and divide it among yourselves” before taking the bread and giving it to them. In most early manuscripts there is then a second cup after the giving of the bread. This difference of Luke from the other Gospels and from Paul has been variously explained, but whether there are two cups of wine at the supper or a different order in the giving of the bread and the wine, it makes no essential difference to the fact and the meaning of the institution.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTimeoftheInstitution\">The Time of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>All of the narratives—the three Gospels and 1 Corinthians—speak of the Last Supper when the Eucharist was instituted as taking place a few hours before Jesus’ arrest. All four Gospels tell, in this context, of Jesus’ words to his disciples, about Judas’s betrayal, and about Jesus telling Peter that he would deny his Master. Matthew (Mt 26:17-20), Mark (Mk 14:12-17), and Luke (Lk 22:7-14) all say clearly that this Last Supper was prepared by the disciples and kept by Jesus with them as a Passover meal. John speaks of it as happening “before the feast of the Passover” and then says that at the time of the trial of Jesus before Pilate the Jewish leaders “did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover” (Jn 13:1; 18:28, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Various explanations of this difference between John and the other Gospels have been suggested, such as that different groups of the Jews kept the Passover at different times, that the meal in the upper room was not strictly a Passover but a fellowship meal at the Passover season, or that Jesus deliberately chose for his own special reasons to celebrate the Passover before the normal time. Luke 22:15 gives his words, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (<span>rsv<\/span>). However the differences between the Gospels may be explained, and whenever the gathering around the table took place, it is clear that the Last Supper had the significance of a Passover meal.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, there is an inevitable similarity between the celebration of the Passover as a feast of the old covenant and the Lord’s Supper as a feast of the new. The former looks back with thankful remembrance to the people’s redemption and liberation from Egypt by the act of God, associated with the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. The latter looks back with thankful remembrance to redemption by the act of God through the sacrifice of Christ. The apostle Paul links the two: “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WordsandActionsoftheInstitution\">Words and Actions of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>The association of the Last Supper with the Passover points to the importance of the OT background for our understanding of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. This OT background is equally important in understanding the words and actions of Jesus in the upper room.<\/p>\n<h5>“This is my body.”<\/h5>\n<p>The actions of Jesus in taking the bread are described similarly in Matthew (Mt 26:26), Mark (Mk 14:22), Luke (Lk 22:19), and 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 11:23-24). Jesus took the bread, gave thanks to God (“blessing” has the same meaning in the biblical context), and broke it. It is noteworthy that the same three actions are described in the records of the feeding of the 5,000 and of the 4,000 (Mk 6:41; 8:6). What he said, according to all four accounts of the Last Supper, was “This is my body.” Christians in Catholic, Orthodox, and various Protestant traditions have differed in their understanding of the precise meaning of those words. What is clear is that in the taking of the bread there is the realization of Jesus’ giving himself, his body to be broken on the cross, his life offered that we, in and through him, might have life. First Corinthians 11:24 gives the words as “This is my body which is for you,” and some early manuscripts have “broken for you.”<\/p>\n<h5>“Do this in remembrance of me.”<\/h5>\n<p>This specific instruction is found only in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24. Some have argued that the absence of the words in the other Gospel records indicates that it was not the explicit intention of the Lord that what he did at the Last Supper was to be repeated as a Christian sacrament. Yet all the Gospels were written when the breaking of bread had been a regular practice in the life of the church for years. Matthew and Mark, therefore, may have thought it unnecessary to express Jesus’ intention with those words. They were taken for granted.<\/p>\n<p>It must also be said that these words have been interpreted differently in various Christian traditions. Many Protestant Christians have understood them to mean that in the Holy Communion we are to recall with great thankfulness that Christ loved us and gave himself to die for us. In the Roman Catholic Church the word “remembrance” has been understood as a memorial before God, a representing of the sacrifice of Christ before the Father. “This do” has been interpreted as meaning “offer this,” and even in the second century Christian writers spoke of the Eucharist as a “sacrifice.” Protestant Christians generally have felt the danger of this way of speaking; it can detract from, or even deny, the biblical understanding of the sacrifice of Christ having been offered once and for all, sufficiently atoning for the sins of the world (cf. Heb 7:27; 9:12). It must be said, however, that many Roman Catholic statements today stress the sufficiency and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; and many Protestant scholars, while not wishing to introduce a sacrificial understanding of the Lord’s Supper, stress that “remembrance” is more than simply calling to mind a past action. In biblical thinking “remembrance” often involves a realization and appropriation in the present of what has been done or what has proved true in the past (see Pss 98:3; 106:45; 112:6; Eccl 12:1; Is 57:11).<\/p>\n<h5>“This is my blood of the [new] covenant.”<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus took the cup of wine, gave thanks, and handed it to his disciples for them all to drink. In essence the four accounts of the institution agree. Matthew (Mt 26:28) and Mark (Mk 14:24) give the words of Jesus as “This is my blood of the [new] covenant.” Luke 22:20 has “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood,” and 1 Corinthians 11:25 is similar to this. This refers back to the ritual of making a covenant with the offering of sacrifice, as the covenant between God and Israel after the exodus (Ex 24:1-8). Implied also is that the prophetic hope of the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) was fulfilled in Jesus, as Hebrews 8–9 describes.<\/p>\n<h5>“Poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”<\/h5>\n<p>The meaning of the death of Jesus as a sacrifice is linked with the understanding of the Passover and of the covenant. It is also linked with what Isaiah 53 says of the suffering Servant making himself “an offering for sin” (Is 53:10). Luke 22:37 includes among the words of Jesus in the upper room the statement, “This scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors.’ ” That verse, Isaiah 53:12, also says, “he poured out his soul to death” and “he bore the sin of many.” Mark 14:24 appears to allude to these Scriptures when Jesus speaks of his blood “poured out for many,” and Matthew 26:28 adds “for the forgiveness of sins.”<\/p>\n<h5>Expectation for the Future<\/h5>\n<p>All four accounts of the Last Supper associate, though in different ways, an expectation for the future with the institution of the Eucharist. In Mark 14:25 it comes in the words of Jesus, “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (<span>rsv<\/span>). In Matthew 26:29 that future drinking of the fruit of the vine is said to be “with you in my Father’s kingdom.” In Luke 22:18 there are similar words, and two verses earlier the statement about fulfilling the Passover “in the kingdom of God.” All of these can be understood as the ultimate realization of another hope that both OT and later Jewish apocalyptic writings set forward: the messianic banquet, the feast on the mountain of the Lord of which Isaiah 25:6 speaks. In 1 Corinthians 11:26 that future hope is quite explicitly that of Christ’s second coming; for, says the apostle, “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePracticeoftheEarlyChurch\">The Practice of the Early Church<\/p>\n<p>In Acts 2:42, after the record of what happened at Pentecost, it says “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Further, “day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts” (Acts 2:46, <span>rsv<\/span>). Two questions are raised about these words and the practice that lay behind them. Do they simply mean that the Christians shared fellowship meals together? Acts 2:46 seems to speak of breaking bread and partaking of food as two separate actions. Moreover, Acts 20:7 in speaking of Christians at Troas “on the first day of the week . . . gathered together to break bread” seems clearly to allude to a Christian service and not just a meal. From 1 Corinthians 10 and perhaps from the reference to “love feasts” in Jude 12, we may reasonably deduce that a meal in Christian fellowship and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper often took place together. A second question is whether the earliest “breaking of bread,” as in the Jerusalem church, may have been a different rite from that with the bread and wine, the former recalling the fellowship of the disciples with the risen Lord, the latter especially recalling his sacrificial death. There is no direct evidence to support such a view. The Lord’s Supper to which the Gospels bear witness involved the breaking of bread and the sharing of the cup in remembrance of the blood of Christ “poured out for many.” We may assume, too, that the tradition that the apostle Paul received, followed, and passed on to others went back to his earliest years as a Christian and so involved the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup in remembrance of Christ, and thus proclaiming the Lord’s death until his return.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaulsTeaching\">Paul’s Teaching<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s teaching, as in the Gospels, the Lord’s Supper clearly involves the backward look in thankful remembrance for the sacrifice of Christ offered once for all for the sins of the world, the realization of the Lord being with his people in the present, and the look forward in hope. Other aspects of teaching relating to the Eucharist are brought out in 1 Corinthians 10–11. The teaching arises from practical aspects of the situation in the Corinthian church; the need to be aware of the danger of turning back in any way to the worship of idols; and the potential divisions in the Christian fellowship, including that between rich and poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship with Christ<\/h5>\n<p>To partake of the bread and to drink of the cup is spoken of as having part with Christ, as sharing in sacrificial meals would mean partaking at “the table of demons” (1 Cor 10:21). “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (v 16, <span>rsv<\/span>). “Participation” is the translation of the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span><em>,<\/em> so often rendered “fellowship” in NT passages. When the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, there must often have been a recalling not only of the Last Supper on the night before Jesus died, but also of his presence with his disciples on the first Easter and his making himself known to them in the breaking of the bread (Lk 24:30-35). They continued to experience that fellowship with him.<\/p>\n<h5>Feeding on Christ<\/h5>\n<p>Of the two Christian sacraments, baptism has a once-for-all nature, while Holy Communion is repeated. The life of Christ has been offered for sins once for all on the cross, and we find life in turning to him—baptism signifies that. At the same time that life is also offered to us constantly for the nourishing of our spiritual lives day by day—of this regular feeding on Christ the Eucharist speaks. First Corinthians 10:3-4 speaks of “supernatural food” and “supernatural drink” and finds in the events at the sea and in the wilderness in the days of Moses foreshadowings of what Christians find in Christ. Christ said, “I am the bread of life,” and “My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”; thus what we have in John’s Gospel (Jn 6:35, 55, <span>rsv<\/span>) is close to what Paul implies about the Lord’s Supper expressing the truth of Christians spiritually feeding on Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LORD’S SUPPER, The The supper Jesus shared with his disciples a few hours before he was arrested and taken to his trial and death (thus often called “The Last Supper”); the ceremony of partaking of the bread and wine that Christians have come to call the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20), the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7), Holy Communion (from the expression of 1 Cor 10:16), the Eucharist (the Greek word for “thanksgiving,” see Mk 14:23), or the Mass. The apostle Paul speaks of handing on...","summary_en":"LORD’S SUPPER, The The supper Jesus shared with his disciples a few hours before he was arrested and taken to his trial and death (thus often called “The Last Supper”); the ceremony of partaking of the bread and wine that Christians have come to call the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:20), the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7), Holy Communion (from the expression of 1 Cor 10:16), the Eucharist (the Greek word for “thanksgiving,” see Mk 14:23), or the Mass. The apostle Paul speaks of handing on...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58818,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:1","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:1–10:18<\/strong> This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:1–10:18<\/strong> This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:1–10:18 This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.","summary_en":"8:1–10:18 This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58819,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:1","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:1-2<\/strong> The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • <em>Here is the main point:<\/em> The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • <em>he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle<\/em> (or <em>tent;<\/em> also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, Jesus’ sacrifice is superior because he serves in <em>the true place of worship<\/em><em>,<\/em> the very presence of God in heaven (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:1-2<\/strong> The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • <em>Here is the main point:<\/em> The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • <em>he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle<\/em> (or <em>tent;<\/em> also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, Jesus’ sacrifice is superior because he serves in <em>the true place of worship<\/em><em>,<\/em> the very presence of God in heaven (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:1-2 The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • Here is the main point: The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle (or tent; also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, ...","summary_en":"8:1-2 The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • Here is the main point: The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle (or tent; also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86444,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:1","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:1–10:18<\/strong> This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:1–10:18<\/strong> This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:1–10:18 This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.","summary_en":"8:1–10:18 This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86445,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:1","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:1-2<\/strong> The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • <em>Here is the main point:<\/em> The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • <em>he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle<\/em> (or <em>tent;<\/em> also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, Jesus’ sacrifice is superior because he serves in <em>the true place of worship<\/em><em>,<\/em> the very presence of God in heaven (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:1-2<\/strong> The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • <em>Here is the main point:<\/em> The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • <em>he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle<\/em> (or <em>tent;<\/em> also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, Jesus’ sacrifice is superior because he serves in <em>the true place of worship<\/em><em>,<\/em> the very presence of God in heaven (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:1-2 The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • Here is the main point: The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle (or tent; also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, ...","summary_en":"8:1-2 The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • Here is the main point: The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle (or tent; also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114070,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:1","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:1–10:18<\/strong> This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:1–10:18<\/strong> This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:1–10:18 This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.","summary_en":"8:1–10:18 This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114071,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:1","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:1-2<\/strong> The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • <em>Here is the main point:<\/em> The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • <em>he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle<\/em> (or <em>tent;<\/em> also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, Jesus’ sacrifice is superior because he serves in <em>the true place of worship<\/em><em>,<\/em> the very presence of God in heaven (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:1-2<\/strong> The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • <em>Here is the main point:<\/em> The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • <em>he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle<\/em> (or <em>tent;<\/em> also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, Jesus’ sacrifice is superior because he serves in <em>the true place of worship<\/em><em>,<\/em> the very presence of God in heaven (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:1-2 The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • Here is the main point: The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle (or tent; also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, ...","summary_en":"8:1-2 The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • Here is the main point: The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle (or tent; also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141696,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:1","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:1–10:18<\/strong> This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:1–10:18<\/strong> This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:1–10:18 This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.","summary_en":"8:1–10:18 This passage on Jesus’ superior offering argues that his ministry as the heavenly High Priest is superior to that of earthly priests.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141697,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:1","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:1-2<\/strong> The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • <em>Here is the main point:<\/em> The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • <em>he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle<\/em> (or <em>tent;<\/em> also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, Jesus’ sacrifice is superior because he serves in <em>the true place of worship<\/em><em>,<\/em> the very presence of God in heaven (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:1-2<\/strong> The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • <em>Here is the main point:<\/em> The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • <em>he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle<\/em> (or <em>tent;<\/em> also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, Jesus’ sacrifice is superior because he serves in <em>the true place of worship<\/em><em>,<\/em> the very presence of God in heaven (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:1-2 The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • Here is the main point: The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle (or tent; also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, ...","summary_en":"8:1-2 The first two verses of ch 8 transition from the discussion just completed and anticipate the discussion to come. • Here is the main point: The author is referring back to the appointment of Jesus as a superior High Priest (5:1-10; 7:1-28). • he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle (or tent; also in 8:5): This anticipates the theme of Jesus’ superior offering that is covered in the rest of this section (8:3–10:18). Unlike the Levitical priests who served in an earthly tent or building, ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":15976,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Hebrews","title_en":"Letter to the Hebrews","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","summary_en":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23414,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lord","title_en":"Lord","content_ro":"<h3>LORD<\/h3>\n<p>“Lord” in English is the rendering of the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘adonai<\/span> or of the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kurios<\/span><em>.<\/em> The Hebrew YHWH is usually rendered “<span>Lord<\/span>”; <em>See<\/em> Yahweh (YHWH).<\/p>\n<p>God’s rule and authority as Lord rests ultimately upon his creation and ownership of all things and people (Ps 24:1-2). God’s total supremacy over nature is emphasized by his being called the Lord over earthquakes, wind, fire (1 Kgs 19:10-14), stars (Is 40:26), beasts and sea monsters (Jb 40–41), and primeval chaos (Pss 74:12-14; 89:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets indicated that God is Lord or King of history because he directs the affairs of humans and nations (1 Kgs 19:15-18; Is 10:5-9; Am 9:7) and he is the Lord of universal morality (Ez 25–32; Am 1:3–2:16). But he is especially the Lord of Israel; his expressed will represents their civil and religious constitution and demands absolute obedience (Ex 20:2). The divine sovereignty was, however, Israel’s comfort under oppression and hope for the future, when a triumphant Day of the Lord would right its wrongs, punish its oppressors, and restore its glory (Is 2:2-4, 11-12; 34:8; Ez 30:1-5; Jl 2:31–3:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Septuagint, the regular expression for “Lord\/ lord\/master” is <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kurios<\/span><em>,<\/em> which in the Greek NT also is used of masters, husbands, and rulers (Mt 25:11; Lk 14:21; Acts 25:26; 1 Pt 3:6); of God (Mt 11:25; Heb 8:2); and of pagan gods (1 Cor 8:5). It is used of Jesus as a customary title of respect (“sir,” Mt 8:2; 15:25); it also retains its Septuagint associations of faith, reverence, and worship (Mt 3:3; Lk 7:13; Acts 5:14; 9:10; 1 Cor 6:13-14; Heb 2:3; Jas 5:7); it appears in phrases like “the Lord Jesus,” “the Lord’s Day,” “the Lord’s Table,” “the Spirit of the Lord” (who is also “Lord,” 2 Cor 3:17), “in the Lord,” “from the Lord,” “light in the Lord,” “boast in the Lord.” Sometimes it is not clear whether God or Christ is intended (Acts 9:31; 2 Cor 8:21). The title is attributed to Jesus himself in John 13:13-14; in John 20:28 Jesus accepts the title “My Lord and my God!”<\/p>\n<p>In the first Christian sermon Jesus’ lordship is made central to salvation (Acts 2:21). It appears that the public confession of Jesus as Lord was the approved focus and expression of Christian faith, and the basis of membership in the apostolic church (Acts 16:31; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11). Thus, it could become more a formal statement than a sincere expression of belief—hence, the warnings in Matthew 7:21 and Luke 6:46.<\/p>\n<p>From the first, such a confession was fraught with meaning. In common usage “lord” reflected the slave system and implied the absolute power exercised by the master over the purchased slave. So Paul unhesitatingly expounds the moral implications of Christian redemption (1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:22-23; <em>see<\/em> photo). To Jewish minds, the title had messianic overtones of kingship and authority (Lk 20:41-44), offending both Jews and Romans. Politically, “Lord” was a title claimed by Caesar. Therefore, it is significant that Jesus is called “King of kings and Lord of lords” during the age of Domitian when Caesar worship was mandated (Rv 17:14; 19:16).<\/p>\n\n<p>Among Greek-speaking Jews of the dispersion, familiar with the Septuagint, as among Gentiles, for whom “Lord” was the customary title for the many gods of polytheism, the application to Jesus of the epithet belonging to godhead was blasphemous, especially when associated with “Son of God,” prayer, praise, total devotion, and hope (1 Cor 8:5-6; Phil 2:9-11; 1 Thes 4:14-17). On every level, therefore, the adoring tribute given to Jesus was loaded not only with spiritual meaning but with positive and imminent danger.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; God, Being and Attributes of; God, Names of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LORD<\/h3>\n<p>“Lord” in English is the rendering of the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘adonai<\/span> or of the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kurios<\/span><em>.<\/em> The Hebrew YHWH is usually rendered “<span>Lord<\/span>”; <em>See<\/em> Yahweh (YHWH).<\/p>\n<p>God’s rule and authority as Lord rests ultimately upon his creation and ownership of all things and people (Ps 24:1-2). God’s total supremacy over nature is emphasized by his being called the Lord over earthquakes, wind, fire (1 Kgs 19:10-14), stars (Is 40:26), beasts and sea monsters (Jb 40–41), and primeval chaos (Pss 74:12-14; 89:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets indicated that God is Lord or King of history because he directs the affairs of humans and nations (1 Kgs 19:15-18; Is 10:5-9; Am 9:7) and he is the Lord of universal morality (Ez 25–32; Am 1:3–2:16). But he is especially the Lord of Israel; his expressed will represents their civil and religious constitution and demands absolute obedience (Ex 20:2). The divine sovereignty was, however, Israel’s comfort under oppression and hope for the future, when a triumphant Day of the Lord would right its wrongs, punish its oppressors, and restore its glory (Is 2:2-4, 11-12; 34:8; Ez 30:1-5; Jl 2:31–3:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Septuagint, the regular expression for “Lord\/ lord\/master” is <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kurios<\/span><em>,<\/em> which in the Greek NT also is used of masters, husbands, and rulers (Mt 25:11; Lk 14:21; Acts 25:26; 1 Pt 3:6); of God (Mt 11:25; Heb 8:2); and of pagan gods (1 Cor 8:5). It is used of Jesus as a customary title of respect (“sir,” Mt 8:2; 15:25); it also retains its Septuagint associations of faith, reverence, and worship (Mt 3:3; Lk 7:13; Acts 5:14; 9:10; 1 Cor 6:13-14; Heb 2:3; Jas 5:7); it appears in phrases like “the Lord Jesus,” “the Lord’s Day,” “the Lord’s Table,” “the Spirit of the Lord” (who is also “Lord,” 2 Cor 3:17), “in the Lord,” “from the Lord,” “light in the Lord,” “boast in the Lord.” Sometimes it is not clear whether God or Christ is intended (Acts 9:31; 2 Cor 8:21). The title is attributed to Jesus himself in John 13:13-14; in John 20:28 Jesus accepts the title “My Lord and my God!”<\/p>\n<p>In the first Christian sermon Jesus’ lordship is made central to salvation (Acts 2:21). It appears that the public confession of Jesus as Lord was the approved focus and expression of Christian faith, and the basis of membership in the apostolic church (Acts 16:31; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11). Thus, it could become more a formal statement than a sincere expression of belief—hence, the warnings in Matthew 7:21 and Luke 6:46.<\/p>\n<p>From the first, such a confession was fraught with meaning. In common usage “lord” reflected the slave system and implied the absolute power exercised by the master over the purchased slave. So Paul unhesitatingly expounds the moral implications of Christian redemption (1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:22-23; <em>see<\/em> photo). To Jewish minds, the title had messianic overtones of kingship and authority (Lk 20:41-44), offending both Jews and Romans. Politically, “Lord” was a title claimed by Caesar. Therefore, it is significant that Jesus is called “King of kings and Lord of lords” during the age of Domitian when Caesar worship was mandated (Rv 17:14; 19:16).<\/p>\n\n<p>Among Greek-speaking Jews of the dispersion, familiar with the Septuagint, as among Gentiles, for whom “Lord” was the customary title for the many gods of polytheism, the application to Jesus of the epithet belonging to godhead was blasphemous, especially when associated with “Son of God,” prayer, praise, total devotion, and hope (1 Cor 8:5-6; Phil 2:9-11; 1 Thes 4:14-17). On every level, therefore, the adoring tribute given to Jesus was loaded not only with spiritual meaning but with positive and imminent danger.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; God, Being and Attributes of; God, Names of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LORD “Lord” in English is the rendering of the Hebrew ‘adonai or of the Greek kurios. The Hebrew YHWH is usually rendered “Lord”; See Yahweh (YHWH). God’s rule and authority as Lord rests ultimately upon his creation and ownership of all things and people (Ps 24:1-2). God’s total supremacy over nature is emphasized by his being called the Lord over earthquakes, wind, fire (1 Kgs 19:10-14), stars (Is 40:26), beasts and sea monsters (Jb 40–41), and primeval chaos (Pss 74:12-14; 89:8-10). The la...","summary_en":"LORD “Lord” in English is the rendering of the Hebrew ‘adonai or of the Greek kurios. The Hebrew YHWH is usually rendered “Lord”; See Yahweh (YHWH). God’s rule and authority as Lord rests ultimately upon his creation and ownership of all things and people (Ps 24:1-2). God’s total supremacy over nature is emphasized by his being called the Lord over earthquakes, wind, fire (1 Kgs 19:10-14), stars (Is 40:26), beasts and sea monsters (Jb 40–41), and primeval chaos (Pss 74:12-14; 89:8-10). The la...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60800,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Central Sanctuary","title_en":"The Central Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","summary_en":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88426,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Central Sanctuary","title_en":"The Central Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","summary_en":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116052,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Central Sanctuary","title_en":"The Central Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","summary_en":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143678,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Central Sanctuary","title_en":"The Central Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","summary_en":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":15977,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Hebrews","title_en":"Letter to the Hebrews","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","summary_en":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58820,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:3","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:3<\/strong> <em>every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices:<\/em> Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:3<\/strong> <em>every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices:<\/em> Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:3 every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices: Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.","summary_en":"8:3 every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices: Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86446,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:3","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:3<\/strong> <em>every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices:<\/em> Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:3<\/strong> <em>every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices:<\/em> Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:3 every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices: Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.","summary_en":"8:3 every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices: Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114072,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:3","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:3<\/strong> <em>every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices:<\/em> Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:3<\/strong> <em>every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices:<\/em> Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:3 every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices: Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.","summary_en":"8:3 every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices: Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141698,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:3","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:3<\/strong> <em>every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices:<\/em> Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:3<\/strong> <em>every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices:<\/em> Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:3 every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices: Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.","summary_en":"8:3 every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices: Making offerings is a general requirement of priests, so Jesus also had to offer a sacrifice. • This verse reiterates what is stated in the first verse of the previous discussion (5:1), indicating another major movement in the book.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":58821,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:4","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:4<\/strong> <em>If he were here on earth:<\/em> Under the old order Jesus <em>would not even be a priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:4<\/strong> <em>If he were here on earth:<\/em> Under the old order Jesus <em>would not even be a priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:4 If he were here on earth: Under the old order Jesus would not even be a priest, as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).","summary_en":"8:4 If he were here on earth: Under the old order Jesus would not even be a priest, as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86447,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:4","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:4<\/strong> <em>If he were here on earth:<\/em> Under the old order Jesus <em>would not even be a priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:4<\/strong> <em>If he were here on earth:<\/em> Under the old order Jesus <em>would not even be a priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:4 If he were here on earth: Under the old order Jesus would not even be a priest, as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).","summary_en":"8:4 If he were here on earth: Under the old order Jesus would not even be a priest, as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114073,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:4","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:4<\/strong> <em>If he were here on earth:<\/em> Under the old order Jesus <em>would not even be a priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:4<\/strong> <em>If he were here on earth:<\/em> Under the old order Jesus <em>would not even be a priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:4 If he were here on earth: Under the old order Jesus would not even be a priest, as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).","summary_en":"8:4 If he were here on earth: Under the old order Jesus would not even be a priest, as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141699,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:4","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:4<\/strong> <em>If he were here on earth:<\/em> Under the old order Jesus <em>would not even be a priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:4<\/strong> <em>If he were here on earth:<\/em> Under the old order Jesus <em>would not even be a priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:4 If he were here on earth: Under the old order Jesus would not even be a priest, as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).","summary_en":"8:4 If he were here on earth: Under the old order Jesus would not even be a priest, as previously discussed (see 7:13-14). But Jesus is in heaven, which makes his priestly service distinct from and superior to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":41012,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Moses","title_en":"Moses","content_ro":"<h3>Moses<\/h3>\n<p>Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, entrusted her infant son to God and set him afloat in the Nile in a reed basket. Pharaoh’s daughter found him and took him into the palace to raise as her own child (Exod 2:3-10).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known about Moses’ upbringing. Jewish tradition holds that he received both administrative and military training in Pharaoh’s household. When he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian to rescue a Hebrew slave, and then he fled to Midian (2:11-15; cp. Acts 7:23-29). There he rescued some young women who were being harassed as they watered their flocks. Their father (Jethro) invited him home. Moses married one of the women, Zipporah, and began a family as he cared for his father-in-law’s flocks.<\/p>\n<p>About forty years later, God revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush and commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to rescue his people from slavery (Exod 3:1–4:17). Moses hesitated, fearful that the Israelites would not accept him as their leader. So God revealed to Moses his covenant name, Yahweh, and assigned Aaron as Moses’ spokesman.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and Aaron went to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh, who stubbornly resisted Moses' demand that he free the Israelite slaves. Moses then announced a series of plagues, which eventually convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. After they had left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them to the edge of the Red Sea. God enabled the Israelites to cross safely to the other side by dividing the waters; the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed when the waters closed over them.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had encountered God at the burning bush. God again revealed himself to Moses on that mountain, giving him the law (including the Ten Commandments; Exod 20:1–23:19) and directions for building the Tabernacle. But when Moses came down from the mountain, he found that the people had already deserted the true God by worshiping a gold calf (Exod 32). Moses threw down and broke the two tablets of the law and rallied the Levites to execute some of the offenders. After praying for the people, he received a new copy of the law and led the people in building the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led a grumbling, rebellious, and distrustful people through the wilderness. Even his own brother and sister challenged his leadership, using his marriage to a Cushite woman as an excuse (Num 12). Moses responded with great humility, and God affirmed that Moses was his spokesman and confidant.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was a great man, but not a perfect one. When the people stretched his patience by complaining about a lack of water, Moses failed to follow God’s instructions and struck a certain rock rather than speaking to it (Num 20:1-13). His actions failed to demonstrate God’s holiness, and by what he said, Moses implied that he had brought the water by his own power (Num 20:10; cp. Ps 106:32-33). As a result, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Before his death, Moses delivered a final sermon, known to us as the book of Deuteronomy. The first generation of Israelites, who had come out of Egypt, had died in the wilderness, so Moses was addressing a new generation. Moses renewed the covenant with this generation, reminded them of its terms, and encouraged them to obey it and serve the Lord alone.<\/p>\n<p>After giving this sermon and before Israel entered Canaan, Moses climbed Pisgah Peak on Mount Nebo, where he died. “There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Only Jesus surpassed Moses as a mediator between God and human beings (Acts 3:17-26; Heb 3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses is mentioned in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament figure, and he appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration. The New Testament emphasizes his role as lawgiver and draws from Moses’ experiences to show patterns of life under the new covenant. Like Moses, Jesus was rescued as an infant from the evil designs of a human despot (Matt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) parallels the giving of the law at Sinai and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God’s will. The letter to the Hebrews compares Christ with Moses, while Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the Gospel of John contrast the law of Moses with a believer’s new relationship with God (see John 1:17; Gal 3:1-5; Heb 3:5-6; 9:11–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 2:1-22; 3:1–19:25; 20:19-21; 24:1-18; 31:18; 32:1–34:35; 39:42-43; 40:16; Lev 8:1-36; 10:1-20; 24:10-23; Num 7:1-11, 89; 9:1-14; 10:29–14:45; 15:32-36; 16:1–17:13; 20:1-29; 21:4-9; 25:1-5; 27:1-23; 31:1–32:33; 33:1-2; Deut 1:1-5; 31:1–34:12; 1 Chr 23:13-17; Pss 77:20; 90:1-17; 103:7; 105:26-27; 106:32-33; Mark 9:2-13; Acts 7:17-44; 1 Cor 10:1-14; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Gal 3:19; Heb 3:1-19; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-28; 12:18-29<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Moses<\/h3>\n<p>Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, entrusted her infant son to God and set him afloat in the Nile in a reed basket. Pharaoh’s daughter found him and took him into the palace to raise as her own child (Exod 2:3-10).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known about Moses’ upbringing. Jewish tradition holds that he received both administrative and military training in Pharaoh’s household. When he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian to rescue a Hebrew slave, and then he fled to Midian (2:11-15; cp. Acts 7:23-29). There he rescued some young women who were being harassed as they watered their flocks. Their father (Jethro) invited him home. Moses married one of the women, Zipporah, and began a family as he cared for his father-in-law’s flocks.<\/p>\n<p>About forty years later, God revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush and commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to rescue his people from slavery (Exod 3:1–4:17). Moses hesitated, fearful that the Israelites would not accept him as their leader. So God revealed to Moses his covenant name, Yahweh, and assigned Aaron as Moses’ spokesman.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and Aaron went to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh, who stubbornly resisted Moses' demand that he free the Israelite slaves. Moses then announced a series of plagues, which eventually convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. After they had left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them to the edge of the Red Sea. God enabled the Israelites to cross safely to the other side by dividing the waters; the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed when the waters closed over them.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had encountered God at the burning bush. God again revealed himself to Moses on that mountain, giving him the law (including the Ten Commandments; Exod 20:1–23:19) and directions for building the Tabernacle. But when Moses came down from the mountain, he found that the people had already deserted the true God by worshiping a gold calf (Exod 32). Moses threw down and broke the two tablets of the law and rallied the Levites to execute some of the offenders. After praying for the people, he received a new copy of the law and led the people in building the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led a grumbling, rebellious, and distrustful people through the wilderness. Even his own brother and sister challenged his leadership, using his marriage to a Cushite woman as an excuse (Num 12). Moses responded with great humility, and God affirmed that Moses was his spokesman and confidant.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was a great man, but not a perfect one. When the people stretched his patience by complaining about a lack of water, Moses failed to follow God’s instructions and struck a certain rock rather than speaking to it (Num 20:1-13). His actions failed to demonstrate God’s holiness, and by what he said, Moses implied that he had brought the water by his own power (Num 20:10; cp. Ps 106:32-33). As a result, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Before his death, Moses delivered a final sermon, known to us as the book of Deuteronomy. The first generation of Israelites, who had come out of Egypt, had died in the wilderness, so Moses was addressing a new generation. Moses renewed the covenant with this generation, reminded them of its terms, and encouraged them to obey it and serve the Lord alone.<\/p>\n<p>After giving this sermon and before Israel entered Canaan, Moses climbed Pisgah Peak on Mount Nebo, where he died. “There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Only Jesus surpassed Moses as a mediator between God and human beings (Acts 3:17-26; Heb 3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses is mentioned in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament figure, and he appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration. The New Testament emphasizes his role as lawgiver and draws from Moses’ experiences to show patterns of life under the new covenant. Like Moses, Jesus was rescued as an infant from the evil designs of a human despot (Matt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) parallels the giving of the law at Sinai and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God’s will. The letter to the Hebrews compares Christ with Moses, while Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the Gospel of John contrast the law of Moses with a believer’s new relationship with God (see John 1:17; Gal 3:1-5; Heb 3:5-6; 9:11–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 2:1-22; 3:1–19:25; 20:19-21; 24:1-18; 31:18; 32:1–34:35; 39:42-43; 40:16; Lev 8:1-36; 10:1-20; 24:10-23; Num 7:1-11, 89; 9:1-14; 10:29–14:45; 15:32-36; 16:1–17:13; 20:1-29; 21:4-9; 25:1-5; 27:1-23; 31:1–32:33; 33:1-2; Deut 1:1-5; 31:1–34:12; 1 Chr 23:13-17; Pss 77:20; 90:1-17; 103:7; 105:26-27; 106:32-33; Mark 9:2-13; Acts 7:17-44; 1 Cor 10:1-14; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Gal 3:19; Heb 3:1-19; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-28; 12:18-29<\/p>","summary_ro":"Moses Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture. The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Mos...","summary_en":"Moses Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture. The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Mos...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68638,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Moses","title_en":"Moses","content_ro":"<h3>Moses<\/h3>\n<p>Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, entrusted her infant son to God and set him afloat in the Nile in a reed basket. Pharaoh’s daughter found him and took him into the palace to raise as her own child (Exod 2:3-10).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known about Moses’ upbringing. Jewish tradition holds that he received both administrative and military training in Pharaoh’s household. When he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian to rescue a Hebrew slave, and then he fled to Midian (2:11-15; cp. Acts 7:23-29). There he rescued some young women who were being harassed as they watered their flocks. Their father (Jethro) invited him home. Moses married one of the women, Zipporah, and began a family as he cared for his father-in-law’s flocks.<\/p>\n<p>About forty years later, God revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush and commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to rescue his people from slavery (Exod 3:1–4:17). Moses hesitated, fearful that the Israelites would not accept him as their leader. So God revealed to Moses his covenant name, Yahweh, and assigned Aaron as Moses’ spokesman.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and Aaron went to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh, who stubbornly resisted Moses' demand that he free the Israelite slaves. Moses then announced a series of plagues, which eventually convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. After they had left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them to the edge of the Red Sea. God enabled the Israelites to cross safely to the other side by dividing the waters; the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed when the waters closed over them.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had encountered God at the burning bush. God again revealed himself to Moses on that mountain, giving him the law (including the Ten Commandments; Exod 20:1–23:19) and directions for building the Tabernacle. But when Moses came down from the mountain, he found that the people had already deserted the true God by worshiping a gold calf (Exod 32). Moses threw down and broke the two tablets of the law and rallied the Levites to execute some of the offenders. After praying for the people, he received a new copy of the law and led the people in building the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led a grumbling, rebellious, and distrustful people through the wilderness. Even his own brother and sister challenged his leadership, using his marriage to a Cushite woman as an excuse (Num 12). Moses responded with great humility, and God affirmed that Moses was his spokesman and confidant.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was a great man, but not a perfect one. When the people stretched his patience by complaining about a lack of water, Moses failed to follow God’s instructions and struck a certain rock rather than speaking to it (Num 20:1-13). His actions failed to demonstrate God’s holiness, and by what he said, Moses implied that he had brought the water by his own power (Num 20:10; cp. Ps 106:32-33). As a result, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Before his death, Moses delivered a final sermon, known to us as the book of Deuteronomy. The first generation of Israelites, who had come out of Egypt, had died in the wilderness, so Moses was addressing a new generation. Moses renewed the covenant with this generation, reminded them of its terms, and encouraged them to obey it and serve the Lord alone.<\/p>\n<p>After giving this sermon and before Israel entered Canaan, Moses climbed Pisgah Peak on Mount Nebo, where he died. “There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Only Jesus surpassed Moses as a mediator between God and human beings (Acts 3:17-26; Heb 3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses is mentioned in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament figure, and he appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration. The New Testament emphasizes his role as lawgiver and draws from Moses’ experiences to show patterns of life under the new covenant. Like Moses, Jesus was rescued as an infant from the evil designs of a human despot (Matt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) parallels the giving of the law at Sinai and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God’s will. The letter to the Hebrews compares Christ with Moses, while Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the Gospel of John contrast the law of Moses with a believer’s new relationship with God (see John 1:17; Gal 3:1-5; Heb 3:5-6; 9:11–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 2:1-22; 3:1–19:25; 20:19-21; 24:1-18; 31:18; 32:1–34:35; 39:42-43; 40:16; Lev 8:1-36; 10:1-20; 24:10-23; Num 7:1-11, 89; 9:1-14; 10:29–14:45; 15:32-36; 16:1–17:13; 20:1-29; 21:4-9; 25:1-5; 27:1-23; 31:1–32:33; 33:1-2; Deut 1:1-5; 31:1–34:12; 1 Chr 23:13-17; Pss 77:20; 90:1-17; 103:7; 105:26-27; 106:32-33; Mark 9:2-13; Acts 7:17-44; 1 Cor 10:1-14; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Gal 3:19; Heb 3:1-19; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-28; 12:18-29<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Moses<\/h3>\n<p>Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, entrusted her infant son to God and set him afloat in the Nile in a reed basket. Pharaoh’s daughter found him and took him into the palace to raise as her own child (Exod 2:3-10).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known about Moses’ upbringing. Jewish tradition holds that he received both administrative and military training in Pharaoh’s household. When he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian to rescue a Hebrew slave, and then he fled to Midian (2:11-15; cp. Acts 7:23-29). There he rescued some young women who were being harassed as they watered their flocks. Their father (Jethro) invited him home. Moses married one of the women, Zipporah, and began a family as he cared for his father-in-law’s flocks.<\/p>\n<p>About forty years later, God revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush and commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to rescue his people from slavery (Exod 3:1–4:17). Moses hesitated, fearful that the Israelites would not accept him as their leader. So God revealed to Moses his covenant name, Yahweh, and assigned Aaron as Moses’ spokesman.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and Aaron went to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh, who stubbornly resisted Moses' demand that he free the Israelite slaves. Moses then announced a series of plagues, which eventually convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. After they had left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them to the edge of the Red Sea. God enabled the Israelites to cross safely to the other side by dividing the waters; the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed when the waters closed over them.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had encountered God at the burning bush. God again revealed himself to Moses on that mountain, giving him the law (including the Ten Commandments; Exod 20:1–23:19) and directions for building the Tabernacle. But when Moses came down from the mountain, he found that the people had already deserted the true God by worshiping a gold calf (Exod 32). Moses threw down and broke the two tablets of the law and rallied the Levites to execute some of the offenders. After praying for the people, he received a new copy of the law and led the people in building the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led a grumbling, rebellious, and distrustful people through the wilderness. Even his own brother and sister challenged his leadership, using his marriage to a Cushite woman as an excuse (Num 12). Moses responded with great humility, and God affirmed that Moses was his spokesman and confidant.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was a great man, but not a perfect one. When the people stretched his patience by complaining about a lack of water, Moses failed to follow God’s instructions and struck a certain rock rather than speaking to it (Num 20:1-13). His actions failed to demonstrate God’s holiness, and by what he said, Moses implied that he had brought the water by his own power (Num 20:10; cp. Ps 106:32-33). As a result, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Before his death, Moses delivered a final sermon, known to us as the book of Deuteronomy. The first generation of Israelites, who had come out of Egypt, had died in the wilderness, so Moses was addressing a new generation. Moses renewed the covenant with this generation, reminded them of its terms, and encouraged them to obey it and serve the Lord alone.<\/p>\n<p>After giving this sermon and before Israel entered Canaan, Moses climbed Pisgah Peak on Mount Nebo, where he died. “There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Only Jesus surpassed Moses as a mediator between God and human beings (Acts 3:17-26; Heb 3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses is mentioned in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament figure, and he appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration. The New Testament emphasizes his role as lawgiver and draws from Moses’ experiences to show patterns of life under the new covenant. Like Moses, Jesus was rescued as an infant from the evil designs of a human despot (Matt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) parallels the giving of the law at Sinai and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God’s will. The letter to the Hebrews compares Christ with Moses, while Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the Gospel of John contrast the law of Moses with a believer’s new relationship with God (see John 1:17; Gal 3:1-5; Heb 3:5-6; 9:11–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 2:1-22; 3:1–19:25; 20:19-21; 24:1-18; 31:18; 32:1–34:35; 39:42-43; 40:16; Lev 8:1-36; 10:1-20; 24:10-23; Num 7:1-11, 89; 9:1-14; 10:29–14:45; 15:32-36; 16:1–17:13; 20:1-29; 21:4-9; 25:1-5; 27:1-23; 31:1–32:33; 33:1-2; Deut 1:1-5; 31:1–34:12; 1 Chr 23:13-17; Pss 77:20; 90:1-17; 103:7; 105:26-27; 106:32-33; Mark 9:2-13; Acts 7:17-44; 1 Cor 10:1-14; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Gal 3:19; Heb 3:1-19; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-28; 12:18-29<\/p>","summary_ro":"Moses Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture. The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Mos...","summary_en":"Moses Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture. The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Mos...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96264,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Moses","title_en":"Moses","content_ro":"<h3>Moses<\/h3>\n<p>Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, entrusted her infant son to God and set him afloat in the Nile in a reed basket. Pharaoh’s daughter found him and took him into the palace to raise as her own child (Exod 2:3-10).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known about Moses’ upbringing. Jewish tradition holds that he received both administrative and military training in Pharaoh’s household. When he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian to rescue a Hebrew slave, and then he fled to Midian (2:11-15; cp. Acts 7:23-29). There he rescued some young women who were being harassed as they watered their flocks. Their father (Jethro) invited him home. Moses married one of the women, Zipporah, and began a family as he cared for his father-in-law’s flocks.<\/p>\n<p>About forty years later, God revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush and commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to rescue his people from slavery (Exod 3:1–4:17). Moses hesitated, fearful that the Israelites would not accept him as their leader. So God revealed to Moses his covenant name, Yahweh, and assigned Aaron as Moses’ spokesman.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and Aaron went to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh, who stubbornly resisted Moses' demand that he free the Israelite slaves. Moses then announced a series of plagues, which eventually convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. After they had left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them to the edge of the Red Sea. God enabled the Israelites to cross safely to the other side by dividing the waters; the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed when the waters closed over them.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had encountered God at the burning bush. God again revealed himself to Moses on that mountain, giving him the law (including the Ten Commandments; Exod 20:1–23:19) and directions for building the Tabernacle. But when Moses came down from the mountain, he found that the people had already deserted the true God by worshiping a gold calf (Exod 32). Moses threw down and broke the two tablets of the law and rallied the Levites to execute some of the offenders. After praying for the people, he received a new copy of the law and led the people in building the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led a grumbling, rebellious, and distrustful people through the wilderness. Even his own brother and sister challenged his leadership, using his marriage to a Cushite woman as an excuse (Num 12). Moses responded with great humility, and God affirmed that Moses was his spokesman and confidant.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was a great man, but not a perfect one. When the people stretched his patience by complaining about a lack of water, Moses failed to follow God’s instructions and struck a certain rock rather than speaking to it (Num 20:1-13). His actions failed to demonstrate God’s holiness, and by what he said, Moses implied that he had brought the water by his own power (Num 20:10; cp. Ps 106:32-33). As a result, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Before his death, Moses delivered a final sermon, known to us as the book of Deuteronomy. The first generation of Israelites, who had come out of Egypt, had died in the wilderness, so Moses was addressing a new generation. Moses renewed the covenant with this generation, reminded them of its terms, and encouraged them to obey it and serve the Lord alone.<\/p>\n<p>After giving this sermon and before Israel entered Canaan, Moses climbed Pisgah Peak on Mount Nebo, where he died. “There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Only Jesus surpassed Moses as a mediator between God and human beings (Acts 3:17-26; Heb 3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses is mentioned in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament figure, and he appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration. The New Testament emphasizes his role as lawgiver and draws from Moses’ experiences to show patterns of life under the new covenant. Like Moses, Jesus was rescued as an infant from the evil designs of a human despot (Matt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) parallels the giving of the law at Sinai and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God’s will. The letter to the Hebrews compares Christ with Moses, while Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the Gospel of John contrast the law of Moses with a believer’s new relationship with God (see John 1:17; Gal 3:1-5; Heb 3:5-6; 9:11–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 2:1-22; 3:1–19:25; 20:19-21; 24:1-18; 31:18; 32:1–34:35; 39:42-43; 40:16; Lev 8:1-36; 10:1-20; 24:10-23; Num 7:1-11, 89; 9:1-14; 10:29–14:45; 15:32-36; 16:1–17:13; 20:1-29; 21:4-9; 25:1-5; 27:1-23; 31:1–32:33; 33:1-2; Deut 1:1-5; 31:1–34:12; 1 Chr 23:13-17; Pss 77:20; 90:1-17; 103:7; 105:26-27; 106:32-33; Mark 9:2-13; Acts 7:17-44; 1 Cor 10:1-14; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Gal 3:19; Heb 3:1-19; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-28; 12:18-29<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Moses<\/h3>\n<p>Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, entrusted her infant son to God and set him afloat in the Nile in a reed basket. Pharaoh’s daughter found him and took him into the palace to raise as her own child (Exod 2:3-10).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known about Moses’ upbringing. Jewish tradition holds that he received both administrative and military training in Pharaoh’s household. When he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian to rescue a Hebrew slave, and then he fled to Midian (2:11-15; cp. Acts 7:23-29). There he rescued some young women who were being harassed as they watered their flocks. Their father (Jethro) invited him home. Moses married one of the women, Zipporah, and began a family as he cared for his father-in-law’s flocks.<\/p>\n<p>About forty years later, God revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush and commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to rescue his people from slavery (Exod 3:1–4:17). Moses hesitated, fearful that the Israelites would not accept him as their leader. So God revealed to Moses his covenant name, Yahweh, and assigned Aaron as Moses’ spokesman.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and Aaron went to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh, who stubbornly resisted Moses' demand that he free the Israelite slaves. Moses then announced a series of plagues, which eventually convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. After they had left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them to the edge of the Red Sea. God enabled the Israelites to cross safely to the other side by dividing the waters; the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed when the waters closed over them.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had encountered God at the burning bush. God again revealed himself to Moses on that mountain, giving him the law (including the Ten Commandments; Exod 20:1–23:19) and directions for building the Tabernacle. But when Moses came down from the mountain, he found that the people had already deserted the true God by worshiping a gold calf (Exod 32). Moses threw down and broke the two tablets of the law and rallied the Levites to execute some of the offenders. After praying for the people, he received a new copy of the law and led the people in building the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led a grumbling, rebellious, and distrustful people through the wilderness. Even his own brother and sister challenged his leadership, using his marriage to a Cushite woman as an excuse (Num 12). Moses responded with great humility, and God affirmed that Moses was his spokesman and confidant.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was a great man, but not a perfect one. When the people stretched his patience by complaining about a lack of water, Moses failed to follow God’s instructions and struck a certain rock rather than speaking to it (Num 20:1-13). His actions failed to demonstrate God’s holiness, and by what he said, Moses implied that he had brought the water by his own power (Num 20:10; cp. Ps 106:32-33). As a result, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Before his death, Moses delivered a final sermon, known to us as the book of Deuteronomy. The first generation of Israelites, who had come out of Egypt, had died in the wilderness, so Moses was addressing a new generation. Moses renewed the covenant with this generation, reminded them of its terms, and encouraged them to obey it and serve the Lord alone.<\/p>\n<p>After giving this sermon and before Israel entered Canaan, Moses climbed Pisgah Peak on Mount Nebo, where he died. “There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Only Jesus surpassed Moses as a mediator between God and human beings (Acts 3:17-26; Heb 3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses is mentioned in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament figure, and he appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration. The New Testament emphasizes his role as lawgiver and draws from Moses’ experiences to show patterns of life under the new covenant. Like Moses, Jesus was rescued as an infant from the evil designs of a human despot (Matt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) parallels the giving of the law at Sinai and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God’s will. The letter to the Hebrews compares Christ with Moses, while Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the Gospel of John contrast the law of Moses with a believer’s new relationship with God (see John 1:17; Gal 3:1-5; Heb 3:5-6; 9:11–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 2:1-22; 3:1–19:25; 20:19-21; 24:1-18; 31:18; 32:1–34:35; 39:42-43; 40:16; Lev 8:1-36; 10:1-20; 24:10-23; Num 7:1-11, 89; 9:1-14; 10:29–14:45; 15:32-36; 16:1–17:13; 20:1-29; 21:4-9; 25:1-5; 27:1-23; 31:1–32:33; 33:1-2; Deut 1:1-5; 31:1–34:12; 1 Chr 23:13-17; Pss 77:20; 90:1-17; 103:7; 105:26-27; 106:32-33; Mark 9:2-13; Acts 7:17-44; 1 Cor 10:1-14; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Gal 3:19; Heb 3:1-19; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-28; 12:18-29<\/p>","summary_ro":"Moses Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture. The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Mos...","summary_en":"Moses Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture. The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Mos...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123890,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Moses","title_en":"Moses","content_ro":"<h3>Moses<\/h3>\n<p>Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, entrusted her infant son to God and set him afloat in the Nile in a reed basket. Pharaoh’s daughter found him and took him into the palace to raise as her own child (Exod 2:3-10).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known about Moses’ upbringing. Jewish tradition holds that he received both administrative and military training in Pharaoh’s household. When he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian to rescue a Hebrew slave, and then he fled to Midian (2:11-15; cp. Acts 7:23-29). There he rescued some young women who were being harassed as they watered their flocks. Their father (Jethro) invited him home. Moses married one of the women, Zipporah, and began a family as he cared for his father-in-law’s flocks.<\/p>\n<p>About forty years later, God revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush and commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to rescue his people from slavery (Exod 3:1–4:17). Moses hesitated, fearful that the Israelites would not accept him as their leader. So God revealed to Moses his covenant name, Yahweh, and assigned Aaron as Moses’ spokesman.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and Aaron went to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh, who stubbornly resisted Moses' demand that he free the Israelite slaves. Moses then announced a series of plagues, which eventually convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. After they had left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them to the edge of the Red Sea. God enabled the Israelites to cross safely to the other side by dividing the waters; the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed when the waters closed over them.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had encountered God at the burning bush. God again revealed himself to Moses on that mountain, giving him the law (including the Ten Commandments; Exod 20:1–23:19) and directions for building the Tabernacle. But when Moses came down from the mountain, he found that the people had already deserted the true God by worshiping a gold calf (Exod 32). Moses threw down and broke the two tablets of the law and rallied the Levites to execute some of the offenders. After praying for the people, he received a new copy of the law and led the people in building the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led a grumbling, rebellious, and distrustful people through the wilderness. Even his own brother and sister challenged his leadership, using his marriage to a Cushite woman as an excuse (Num 12). Moses responded with great humility, and God affirmed that Moses was his spokesman and confidant.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was a great man, but not a perfect one. When the people stretched his patience by complaining about a lack of water, Moses failed to follow God’s instructions and struck a certain rock rather than speaking to it (Num 20:1-13). His actions failed to demonstrate God’s holiness, and by what he said, Moses implied that he had brought the water by his own power (Num 20:10; cp. Ps 106:32-33). As a result, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Before his death, Moses delivered a final sermon, known to us as the book of Deuteronomy. The first generation of Israelites, who had come out of Egypt, had died in the wilderness, so Moses was addressing a new generation. Moses renewed the covenant with this generation, reminded them of its terms, and encouraged them to obey it and serve the Lord alone.<\/p>\n<p>After giving this sermon and before Israel entered Canaan, Moses climbed Pisgah Peak on Mount Nebo, where he died. “There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Only Jesus surpassed Moses as a mediator between God and human beings (Acts 3:17-26; Heb 3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses is mentioned in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament figure, and he appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration. The New Testament emphasizes his role as lawgiver and draws from Moses’ experiences to show patterns of life under the new covenant. Like Moses, Jesus was rescued as an infant from the evil designs of a human despot (Matt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) parallels the giving of the law at Sinai and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God’s will. The letter to the Hebrews compares Christ with Moses, while Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the Gospel of John contrast the law of Moses with a believer’s new relationship with God (see John 1:17; Gal 3:1-5; Heb 3:5-6; 9:11–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 2:1-22; 3:1–19:25; 20:19-21; 24:1-18; 31:18; 32:1–34:35; 39:42-43; 40:16; Lev 8:1-36; 10:1-20; 24:10-23; Num 7:1-11, 89; 9:1-14; 10:29–14:45; 15:32-36; 16:1–17:13; 20:1-29; 21:4-9; 25:1-5; 27:1-23; 31:1–32:33; 33:1-2; Deut 1:1-5; 31:1–34:12; 1 Chr 23:13-17; Pss 77:20; 90:1-17; 103:7; 105:26-27; 106:32-33; Mark 9:2-13; Acts 7:17-44; 1 Cor 10:1-14; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Gal 3:19; Heb 3:1-19; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-28; 12:18-29<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Moses<\/h3>\n<p>Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, entrusted her infant son to God and set him afloat in the Nile in a reed basket. Pharaoh’s daughter found him and took him into the palace to raise as her own child (Exod 2:3-10).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known about Moses’ upbringing. Jewish tradition holds that he received both administrative and military training in Pharaoh’s household. When he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian to rescue a Hebrew slave, and then he fled to Midian (2:11-15; cp. Acts 7:23-29). There he rescued some young women who were being harassed as they watered their flocks. Their father (Jethro) invited him home. Moses married one of the women, Zipporah, and began a family as he cared for his father-in-law’s flocks.<\/p>\n<p>About forty years later, God revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush and commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to rescue his people from slavery (Exod 3:1–4:17). Moses hesitated, fearful that the Israelites would not accept him as their leader. So God revealed to Moses his covenant name, Yahweh, and assigned Aaron as Moses’ spokesman.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and Aaron went to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh, who stubbornly resisted Moses' demand that he free the Israelite slaves. Moses then announced a series of plagues, which eventually convinced Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. After they had left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and pursued them to the edge of the Red Sea. God enabled the Israelites to cross safely to the other side by dividing the waters; the pursuing Egyptian army was destroyed when the waters closed over them.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had encountered God at the burning bush. God again revealed himself to Moses on that mountain, giving him the law (including the Ten Commandments; Exod 20:1–23:19) and directions for building the Tabernacle. But when Moses came down from the mountain, he found that the people had already deserted the true God by worshiping a gold calf (Exod 32). Moses threw down and broke the two tablets of the law and rallied the Levites to execute some of the offenders. After praying for the people, he received a new copy of the law and led the people in building the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Moses led a grumbling, rebellious, and distrustful people through the wilderness. Even his own brother and sister challenged his leadership, using his marriage to a Cushite woman as an excuse (Num 12). Moses responded with great humility, and God affirmed that Moses was his spokesman and confidant.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was a great man, but not a perfect one. When the people stretched his patience by complaining about a lack of water, Moses failed to follow God’s instructions and struck a certain rock rather than speaking to it (Num 20:1-13). His actions failed to demonstrate God’s holiness, and by what he said, Moses implied that he had brought the water by his own power (Num 20:10; cp. Ps 106:32-33). As a result, God did not allow him to enter the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Before his death, Moses delivered a final sermon, known to us as the book of Deuteronomy. The first generation of Israelites, who had come out of Egypt, had died in the wilderness, so Moses was addressing a new generation. Moses renewed the covenant with this generation, reminded them of its terms, and encouraged them to obey it and serve the Lord alone.<\/p>\n<p>After giving this sermon and before Israel entered Canaan, Moses climbed Pisgah Peak on Mount Nebo, where he died. “There has never been another prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Only Jesus surpassed Moses as a mediator between God and human beings (Acts 3:17-26; Heb 3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses is mentioned in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament figure, and he appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration. The New Testament emphasizes his role as lawgiver and draws from Moses’ experiences to show patterns of life under the new covenant. Like Moses, Jesus was rescued as an infant from the evil designs of a human despot (Matt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) parallels the giving of the law at Sinai and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God’s will. The letter to the Hebrews compares Christ with Moses, while Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the Gospel of John contrast the law of Moses with a believer’s new relationship with God (see John 1:17; Gal 3:1-5; Heb 3:5-6; 9:11–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 2:1-22; 3:1–19:25; 20:19-21; 24:1-18; 31:18; 32:1–34:35; 39:42-43; 40:16; Lev 8:1-36; 10:1-20; 24:10-23; Num 7:1-11, 89; 9:1-14; 10:29–14:45; 15:32-36; 16:1–17:13; 20:1-29; 21:4-9; 25:1-5; 27:1-23; 31:1–32:33; 33:1-2; Deut 1:1-5; 31:1–34:12; 1 Chr 23:13-17; Pss 77:20; 90:1-17; 103:7; 105:26-27; 106:32-33; Mark 9:2-13; Acts 7:17-44; 1 Cor 10:1-14; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Gal 3:19; Heb 3:1-19; 8:5; 9:19-22; 11:23-28; 12:18-29<\/p>","summary_ro":"Moses Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture. The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Mos...","summary_en":"Moses Moses was the founding leader of Israel as a nation. God used Moses at a critical juncture in the history of his people. He was the prophet who received the law and mediated God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:3-6). He was also the first known writer of Scripture. The younger brother of Miriam and Aaron, Moses was born in Egypt under dangerous circumstances (Exod 1:15–2:2). The Egyptian pharaoh, fearing a rebellion, had decreed that all Hebrew boys be killed at birth. Mos...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33885,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sanctuary","title_en":"Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>SANCTUARY<\/h3>\n<p>Translation of two Hebrew words, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kodesh<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">midkosh<\/span><em>,<\/em> both of which are derived from the verb “to be clean” and\/or “to be holy.” It appears approximately 60 times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers where the building, moving, and initial use of the tabernacle is reported. Places of revelation, sacrifice, and worship are referred to in Deuteronomy but not by the term “sanctuary.” The term appears over 60 times in Ezekiel, Daniel, and postexilic writings because of the importance the sanctuary had in the life of Israel during and after the exile.<\/p>\n<p>“Sanctuary” refers to the place where God appeared and\/or dwelt, as indicated by the presence of the ark. God’s Word was kept there and issued forth from it. There God’s people gathered for sacrifice, for hearing the covenant word, for worship and prayer, and for the celebration of the major feasts.<\/p>\n<p>The patriarchs had places of worship (Gn 26:24-25; 28:16-22) but no actual sanctuary. The first reference to sanctuary (Ex 15:17) speaks of it as a symbol of God’s dwelling among his people and ruling over them from within it. The tabernacle, moved from place to place, was the central sanctuary until the time when Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem. It must be emphatically stressed that God’s people were to have one central sanctuary (Dt 12:4-7; 16:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>The NT refers to the OT sanctuary as a type of a foreshadowing of God’s eternal dwelling with and among his people (Heb 8:5-6; 9:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SANCTUARY<\/h3>\n<p>Translation of two Hebrew words, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kodesh<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">midkosh<\/span><em>,<\/em> both of which are derived from the verb “to be clean” and\/or “to be holy.” It appears approximately 60 times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers where the building, moving, and initial use of the tabernacle is reported. Places of revelation, sacrifice, and worship are referred to in Deuteronomy but not by the term “sanctuary.” The term appears over 60 times in Ezekiel, Daniel, and postexilic writings because of the importance the sanctuary had in the life of Israel during and after the exile.<\/p>\n<p>“Sanctuary” refers to the place where God appeared and\/or dwelt, as indicated by the presence of the ark. God’s Word was kept there and issued forth from it. There God’s people gathered for sacrifice, for hearing the covenant word, for worship and prayer, and for the celebration of the major feasts.<\/p>\n<p>The patriarchs had places of worship (Gn 26:24-25; 28:16-22) but no actual sanctuary. The first reference to sanctuary (Ex 15:17) speaks of it as a symbol of God’s dwelling among his people and ruling over them from within it. The tabernacle, moved from place to place, was the central sanctuary until the time when Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem. It must be emphatically stressed that God’s people were to have one central sanctuary (Dt 12:4-7; 16:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>The NT refers to the OT sanctuary as a type of a foreshadowing of God’s eternal dwelling with and among his people (Heb 8:5-6; 9:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SANCTUARY Translation of two Hebrew words, kodesh and midkosh, both of which are derived from the verb “to be clean” and\/or “to be holy.” It appears approximately 60 times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers where the building, moving, and initial use of the tabernacle is reported. Places of revelation, sacrifice, and worship are referred to in Deuteronomy but not by the term “sanctuary.” The term appears over 60 times in Ezekiel, Daniel, and postexilic writings because of the importance the sa...","summary_en":"SANCTUARY Translation of two Hebrew words, kodesh and midkosh, both of which are derived from the verb “to be clean” and\/or “to be holy.” It appears approximately 60 times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers where the building, moving, and initial use of the tabernacle is reported. Places of revelation, sacrifice, and worship are referred to in Deuteronomy but not by the term “sanctuary.” The term appears over 60 times in Ezekiel, Daniel, and postexilic writings because of the importance the sa...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37775,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Type","title_en":"Type","content_ro":"<h3>TYPE<\/h3>\n<p>The English word “type” is derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">tupos<\/span><em>,<\/em> which has the basic meaning of “a visible impression or mark made by a blow or by pressure.” In the Greek NT, the word occurs 16 times, with various meanings. A type is formed as a copy, print, or a form cast in a mold. In Acts 7:43 it is applied to “figures” of idols or false gods. A type can be a pattern according to which something is made (e.g., the tabernacle, Acts 7:44; Heb 8:5). It is an example or model, whether of evil to be avoided (1 Cor 10:6-11) or of good to be emulated (Phil 3:17; 2 Thes 3:9; 1 Tm 4:12; Ti 2:7; 1 Pt 5:3). It is like a form for pouring concrete, which determines both the shape and content of what is made.<\/p>\n<p>A type is also an entity found in the OT that prefigures one found in the NT. The initial one is called the “type” and the fulfillment is designated the “antetype.” Either type or antetype may be a person, thing, or event, but often the type is messianic and frequently refers to salvation.<\/p>\n<p> A type can be distinguished from a symbol in that a symbol is a timeless sign. It can refer to past, present, or future, while a type always foreshadows that which is to come.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples help to identify some biblical types and antetypes. The serpent lifted up on a pole in the wilderness to give healing to the Israelites was a type of Jesus being lifted up on a cross to give salvation to the world (Jn 3:14; cf. Nm 21:9). The Passover lamb (Ex 12:1-13) is a type of Christ (1 Cor 5:7). The rock from which Israel drank in the wilderness (Ex 17:6) prefigures Christ (1 Cor 10:3-4). In Romans 5:14 Adam is called “a type of the one who was to come,” that is, of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Hebrews is full of examples of types that represent the Messiah. All of the sacrifices ordained by the ritual law that God gave at Sinai typify some aspect of the person and work of Jesus. The blood that was sprinkled on the altar spoke of the blood of the one who was slain once for all (Heb 9:12-22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TYPE<\/h3>\n<p>The English word “type” is derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">tupos<\/span><em>,<\/em> which has the basic meaning of “a visible impression or mark made by a blow or by pressure.” In the Greek NT, the word occurs 16 times, with various meanings. A type is formed as a copy, print, or a form cast in a mold. In Acts 7:43 it is applied to “figures” of idols or false gods. A type can be a pattern according to which something is made (e.g., the tabernacle, Acts 7:44; Heb 8:5). It is an example or model, whether of evil to be avoided (1 Cor 10:6-11) or of good to be emulated (Phil 3:17; 2 Thes 3:9; 1 Tm 4:12; Ti 2:7; 1 Pt 5:3). It is like a form for pouring concrete, which determines both the shape and content of what is made.<\/p>\n<p>A type is also an entity found in the OT that prefigures one found in the NT. The initial one is called the “type” and the fulfillment is designated the “antetype.” Either type or antetype may be a person, thing, or event, but often the type is messianic and frequently refers to salvation.<\/p>\n<p> A type can be distinguished from a symbol in that a symbol is a timeless sign. It can refer to past, present, or future, while a type always foreshadows that which is to come.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples help to identify some biblical types and antetypes. The serpent lifted up on a pole in the wilderness to give healing to the Israelites was a type of Jesus being lifted up on a cross to give salvation to the world (Jn 3:14; cf. Nm 21:9). The Passover lamb (Ex 12:1-13) is a type of Christ (1 Cor 5:7). The rock from which Israel drank in the wilderness (Ex 17:6) prefigures Christ (1 Cor 10:3-4). In Romans 5:14 Adam is called “a type of the one who was to come,” that is, of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Hebrews is full of examples of types that represent the Messiah. All of the sacrifices ordained by the ritual law that God gave at Sinai typify some aspect of the person and work of Jesus. The blood that was sprinkled on the altar spoke of the blood of the one who was slain once for all (Heb 9:12-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TYPE The English word “type” is derived from the Greek tupos, which has the basic meaning of “a visible impression or mark made by a blow or by pressure.” In the Greek NT, the word occurs 16 times, with various meanings. A type is formed as a copy, print, or a form cast in a mold. In Acts 7:43 it is applied to “figures” of idols or false gods. A type can be a pattern according to which something is made (e.g., the tabernacle, Acts 7:44; Heb 8:5). It is an example or model, whether of evil to ...","summary_en":"TYPE The English word “type” is derived from the Greek tupos, which has the basic meaning of “a visible impression or mark made by a blow or by pressure.” In the Greek NT, the word occurs 16 times, with various meanings. A type is formed as a copy, print, or a form cast in a mold. In Acts 7:43 it is applied to “figures” of idols or false gods. A type can be a pattern according to which something is made (e.g., the tabernacle, Acts 7:44; Heb 8:5). It is an example or model, whether of evil to ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58822,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:5","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:5<\/strong> <em>a copy, a shadow:<\/em> The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to <em>the real one in heaven<\/em>. That is why <em>God<\/em> warned <em>Moses<\/em> to make it <em>according to the pattern<\/em> (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacle. It is the heavenly Temple, however, in which Jesus ministers as High Priest.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:5<\/strong> <em>a copy, a shadow:<\/em> The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to <em>the real one in heaven<\/em>. That is why <em>God<\/em> warned <em>Moses<\/em> to make it <em>according to the pattern<\/em> (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacle. It is the heavenly Temple, however, in which Jesus ministers as High Priest.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:5 a copy, a shadow: The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to the real one in heaven. That is why God warned Moses to make it according to the pattern (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacl...","summary_en":"8:5 a copy, a shadow: The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to the real one in heaven. That is why God warned Moses to make it according to the pattern (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacl...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86448,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:5","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:5<\/strong> <em>a copy, a shadow:<\/em> The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to <em>the real one in heaven<\/em>. That is why <em>God<\/em> warned <em>Moses<\/em> to make it <em>according to the pattern<\/em> (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacle. It is the heavenly Temple, however, in which Jesus ministers as High Priest.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:5<\/strong> <em>a copy, a shadow:<\/em> The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to <em>the real one in heaven<\/em>. That is why <em>God<\/em> warned <em>Moses<\/em> to make it <em>according to the pattern<\/em> (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacle. It is the heavenly Temple, however, in which Jesus ministers as High Priest.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:5 a copy, a shadow: The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to the real one in heaven. That is why God warned Moses to make it according to the pattern (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacl...","summary_en":"8:5 a copy, a shadow: The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to the real one in heaven. That is why God warned Moses to make it according to the pattern (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacl...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114074,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:5","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:5<\/strong> <em>a copy, a shadow:<\/em> The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to <em>the real one in heaven<\/em>. That is why <em>God<\/em> warned <em>Moses<\/em> to make it <em>according to the pattern<\/em> (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacle. It is the heavenly Temple, however, in which Jesus ministers as High Priest.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:5<\/strong> <em>a copy, a shadow:<\/em> The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to <em>the real one in heaven<\/em>. That is why <em>God<\/em> warned <em>Moses<\/em> to make it <em>according to the pattern<\/em> (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacle. It is the heavenly Temple, however, in which Jesus ministers as High Priest.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:5 a copy, a shadow: The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to the real one in heaven. That is why God warned Moses to make it according to the pattern (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacl...","summary_en":"8:5 a copy, a shadow: The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to the real one in heaven. That is why God warned Moses to make it according to the pattern (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacl...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141700,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:5","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:5<\/strong> <em>a copy, a shadow:<\/em> The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to <em>the real one in heaven<\/em>. That is why <em>God<\/em> warned <em>Moses<\/em> to make it <em>according to the pattern<\/em> (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacle. It is the heavenly Temple, however, in which Jesus ministers as High Priest.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:5<\/strong> <em>a copy, a shadow:<\/em> The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to <em>the real one in heaven<\/em>. That is why <em>God<\/em> warned <em>Moses<\/em> to make it <em>according to the pattern<\/em> (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacle. It is the heavenly Temple, however, in which Jesus ministers as High Priest.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:5 a copy, a shadow: The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to the real one in heaven. That is why God warned Moses to make it according to the pattern (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacl...","summary_en":"8:5 a copy, a shadow: The earthly place of worship was an imitation that pointed to the real one in heaven. That is why God warned Moses to make it according to the pattern (see Exod 25:40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44). Judaism and early Christianity both spoke of a heavenly Temple within a heavenly Jerusalem, which would come down to earth at the end of the age (see Rev 21:2). Hebrews suggests that this heavenly place of worship was shown to Moses so he would know how to build the earthly Tabernacl...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60801,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Central Sanctuary","title_en":"The Central Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","summary_en":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88427,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Central Sanctuary","title_en":"The Central Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","summary_en":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116053,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Central Sanctuary","title_en":"The Central Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","summary_en":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143679,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Central Sanctuary","title_en":"The Central Sanctuary","content_ro":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Central Sanctuary<\/h3>\n<p>God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>God is <em>transcendent<\/em> (above all things) and <em>omnipresent<\/em> (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple belonged to him and bore his name, so they were, in a sense, his dwelling places. In the ancient Near East, names were more than labels. They represented the character and nature of the named individuals (e.g., Jacob, Gen 27:36; Jesus, Matt 1:21; Barnabas, Acts 4:36; Peter, Matt 16:17-19). Thus Solomon could advise, “Choose a good reputation [<em>name<\/em>] over great riches” (Prov 22:1).<\/p>\n<p>God made his home in a sanctuary that bore his name. His glorious presence manifested in fire and cloud during the wilderness wanderings served as a constant reminder that he was at home among his people (Exod 40:34-35); likewise, upon the completion of the Temple, his presence was evidenced (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>God would later come to dwell among his people in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), thereby eliminating the need for a central sanctuary (see John 4:19-24). And now, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, all believers are able to house God’s presence (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:8-9, 22, 40; 26:30; 33:7-11; 40:34-35; Num 7:1; 11:16; Deut 12:4-7; 31:14-15; 1 Kgs 8:10-11, 27; John 1:14; 2:19-21; Acts 7:44; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2, 5; Rev 21:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","summary_en":"The Central Sanctuary God wanted worship to be carried out in the place where he had established his name. For Israel, this place was the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem. God is transcendent (above all things) and omnipresent (present everywhere), yet he chose a specific place for Israel to worship him. Solomon later asked how the God of heaven could be housed in a human structure (1 Kgs 8:27). The answer is that God’s name stands in his place. The Tabernacle and then the Temple ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":7944,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Covenant, the New","title_en":"Covenant, the New","content_ro":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\n<p>A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, <span>rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ANewCovenant\">A New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\n<p>Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SuperiorityoftheNewCovenant\">Superiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n<p>1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\n<p>A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, <span>rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ANewCovenant\">A New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\n<p>Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SuperiorityoftheNewCovenant\">Superiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n<p>1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","summary_en":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14715,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Grace","title_en":"Grace","content_ro":"<h3>GRACE<\/h3>\n<p>The gift of God as expressed in his actions of extending mercy, loving-kindness, and salvation to people.<\/p>\n<p>Grace is the dimension of divine activity that enables God to confront human indifference and rebellion with an inexhaustible capacity to forgive and to bless. God is gracious in action. The doctrine of divine grace underlies the thought of both the OT and NT. However, the OT merely anticipates and prepares for the full expression of grace that becomes manifest in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GraceintheOldTestament\">Grace in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Early in the narrative of the OT, God reveals himself as a “God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6, <span>rsv<\/span>). As a result, it becomes possible for undeserving humans to approach him with the prayer, “If now I have found favor [or grace] in thy sight, O Lord, . . .” (Ex 34:9, <span>rsv<\/span>). Through divine initiative, human alienation from God is turned by him into a state of unmerited acceptance that opens the way for reconciliation and redemptive usefulness.<\/p>\n<p>Divine grace was already operative in the Garden of Eden when God responded to the debacle of the fall with the promise of redemption (Gn 3:15) and solicitous care rather than with abandonment or retributive annihilation. The call to Abraham was an extension of grace, not only to him as an individual, but through him as a means of universal outreach. As an inseparable part of God’s promise of individual blessing to Abraham and of a national blessing to his descendants, the indication was given that the individual and the national blessings would be instrumental in bringing about a universal blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Gn 12:2-3). Consequently, both the election of Abraham and the promise of universal blessing find expression in a God-given covenant, the object of which is to extend God’s grace to the whole human race. In a solemn confirmation of the promise to Abraham, God affirmed, “My covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. . . . And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant” (Gn 17:4, 7, <span>rsv<\/span>). This promise was to be understood as finding fulfillment on the basis of grace, not of race, so that it would become applicable to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to Jewish believers, his racial descendants, but also to his spiritual descendants, believers from all nations who profess a faith like Abraham’s (Rom 4:16). Thus, from the perspective of divine grace, the election of Abraham and of national Israel was not an end in itself. It was God’s plan for extending his redemptive designs to all believers, from all nations. In extending his grace to Abraham, God was establishing the beginnings of the church, the community of grace.<\/p>\n<p>The divine particularism evidenced in the election of Abraham and in his becoming the recipient of God’s grace provides a model for the selection of all the individuals used by God in the history of redemption. Beyond the benefits of grace accorded to individuals such as Abraham, David, the prophets, and later the apostles, by virtue of their call, loomed the potential of their contributions to the fulfillment of the covenant of God on behalf of the community of those who share the faith of Abraham—the church. In the gracious dealings of God with Israel, with its patriarchs and its leaders, God was laying the basis for his outreach of grace to the church universal. God’s gracious interventions in the old covenant were intended to manifest the ultimacy of the church in his redemptive purposes. In the exercise of their ministries, the prophets of the old covenant knew that they were serving not themselves but the church (1 Pt 1:10-12).<\/p>\n<p>As a transitional, mediatory expression of divine grace, the institutions of the old covenant possessed only a temporary validity that has been superseded by the ultimate manifestations of God’s grace in the new covenant (Heb 8:6-7). Consequently, the old covenant was to become obsolete and replaced by a new covenant that would display the full manifestation of God’s grace. The proverbial tension between law and grace becomes intelligible in this perspective. Like the election of racial Israel, the law (as one of the most visible institutions of the old covenant) was a temporary measure of divine grace accorded to anticipate and prepare the covenant of justification through grace by faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:23-29; Heb 10:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GraceintheNewTestament\">Grace in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The concept of grace defined as God’s active involvement on behalf of his people receives a sharper focus in the NT. Divine grace becomes embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrates visibly the dynamic nature of God’s grace and fulfills in his ministry of redemption the old covenant promises relative to God’s gracious dealings with humanity (Jn 1:14, 17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s grace manifested in Jesus Christ makes it possible for God to forgive sinners and to gather them in the church, the new covenant community. During his ministry, Jesus repeatedly pronounced the words of forgiveness on a great number of sinners and ministered God’s benevolent succor to a variety of desperate human needs. Through teachings such as the father’s forgiveness of the prodigal son and the search for the lost sheep, Jesus made it clear that he had come to seek and save those who were lost. But ultimately it was his redemptive death on the cross that opened wide the gate of salvation for repentant sinners to find access to God’s forgiving and restorative grace. This simple truth is formulated in the doctrine of justification by faith through grace (Rom 3:23; Ti 3:7). According to this teaching, God’s gracious provision of the substitutionary death of Christ enables him to pronounce a verdict of “just” or “not guilty” on repentant sinners and to include them in his eternal purposes. As a result, they enter into the realm of God’s gracious activity, which enables them to implement the process of individual sanctification in cooperation with the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>God’s grace manifested in Jesus Christ also makes it possible for God to bestow on believers undeserved benefits that enrich their lives and unite them together in the church, the body of Christ. Their acceptance on the basis of grace endows them with a new status as children of God, members of the household of God, so that they relate to him as to their heavenly Father (Gal 4:4-6). Consequently, they become members of a community where race, class, and sex distinctions are irrelevant, since they all became equal inheritors of God’s age-long promise to Abraham of universal blessing (3:28-29). In order to enrich their individual lives and to assure the usefulness of their participation in the life of the new community, the Holy Spirit graciously energizes believers with a variety of gifts for the performance of ministries designed to benefit the church (Rom 12:6-8). Foremost among those ministries is that of apostle, itself closely linked to God’s gracious provision (1:5; 15:15-16) since it combines with the ministry of the prophets of old to provide the foundational structure of the church (Eph 2:20). Because the riches of divine grace are freely lavished upon believers in their community life upon earth (1:7-8), the church translated into eternity will demonstrate, by its very existence, the immeasurable riches of God’s grace in Jesus Christ (2:6).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, God’s grace manifested in Jesus Christ makes it possible for God to cause believers to reflect his grace in their character and relationships. The irreducible condition for receiving God’s grace is humility (Jas 4:6; 1 Pt 5:5). Such humility in relation to God enables believers to practice humility in regard to other people. From a position of grace, they can set aside selfishness and conceit in order to treat others with deference (Phil 2:3-4) in an attitude of mutual servanthood (Eph 5:21), and in a spirit of mutual forgiveness (Mt 18:23-35) so that even their communication can exhibit divine grace (Col 4:6). Since the grace of Jesus Christ constitutes the existential context of the lives and relationships of believers, they are exhorted not to pervert the grace of God into ungodly practice (Jude 1:4) but instead to grow in the grace of the Lord (2 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>The essential meaning of grace in the Bible refers to God’s disposition to exercise goodwill toward his creatures. This favorable disposition of God finds its supreme expression in Jesus Christ. By its very definition, this grace is rendered fully accessible to all humans with no other precondition than a repentant desire to receive it (Ti 2:11-12). As a result, the human condition of alienation from God and from his purposes becomes replaced with access to the otherwise unapproachable majesty of God represented by a throne, so that his grace may become available to meet human need (Heb 4:16). The tragic alternative to receiving God’s grace is to remain in hopeless alienation or to pursue sterile attempts to merit God’s favor through human efforts doomed to futility (Rom 1:21). God’s unconditional acceptance of sinners may be conditioned only by their rejection of his acceptance.<\/p>\n<p>Because Christ represents the fulfillment, the embodiment, and the dispenser of divine grace, the early Christians freely referred to God’s grace as “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This grace was conceived as being so basic and so pervasive to their individual lives and to the existence of their communities of faith that they naturally coupled the traditional greeting of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span> (“peace”) with a reference to the grace of Jesus Christ. This is the reason for the ubiquitous repetition of numerous variations on the basic greeting formula found in almost every book of the NT, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all” (2 Thes 3:18).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> God, Being and Attributes of; Love; Mercy.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GRACE<\/h3>\n<p>The gift of God as expressed in his actions of extending mercy, loving-kindness, and salvation to people.<\/p>\n<p>Grace is the dimension of divine activity that enables God to confront human indifference and rebellion with an inexhaustible capacity to forgive and to bless. God is gracious in action. The doctrine of divine grace underlies the thought of both the OT and NT. However, the OT merely anticipates and prepares for the full expression of grace that becomes manifest in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GraceintheOldTestament\">Grace in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Early in the narrative of the OT, God reveals himself as a “God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6, <span>rsv<\/span>). As a result, it becomes possible for undeserving humans to approach him with the prayer, “If now I have found favor [or grace] in thy sight, O Lord, . . .” (Ex 34:9, <span>rsv<\/span>). Through divine initiative, human alienation from God is turned by him into a state of unmerited acceptance that opens the way for reconciliation and redemptive usefulness.<\/p>\n<p>Divine grace was already operative in the Garden of Eden when God responded to the debacle of the fall with the promise of redemption (Gn 3:15) and solicitous care rather than with abandonment or retributive annihilation. The call to Abraham was an extension of grace, not only to him as an individual, but through him as a means of universal outreach. As an inseparable part of God’s promise of individual blessing to Abraham and of a national blessing to his descendants, the indication was given that the individual and the national blessings would be instrumental in bringing about a universal blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Gn 12:2-3). Consequently, both the election of Abraham and the promise of universal blessing find expression in a God-given covenant, the object of which is to extend God’s grace to the whole human race. In a solemn confirmation of the promise to Abraham, God affirmed, “My covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. . . . And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant” (Gn 17:4, 7, <span>rsv<\/span>). This promise was to be understood as finding fulfillment on the basis of grace, not of race, so that it would become applicable to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to Jewish believers, his racial descendants, but also to his spiritual descendants, believers from all nations who profess a faith like Abraham’s (Rom 4:16). Thus, from the perspective of divine grace, the election of Abraham and of national Israel was not an end in itself. It was God’s plan for extending his redemptive designs to all believers, from all nations. In extending his grace to Abraham, God was establishing the beginnings of the church, the community of grace.<\/p>\n<p>The divine particularism evidenced in the election of Abraham and in his becoming the recipient of God’s grace provides a model for the selection of all the individuals used by God in the history of redemption. Beyond the benefits of grace accorded to individuals such as Abraham, David, the prophets, and later the apostles, by virtue of their call, loomed the potential of their contributions to the fulfillment of the covenant of God on behalf of the community of those who share the faith of Abraham—the church. In the gracious dealings of God with Israel, with its patriarchs and its leaders, God was laying the basis for his outreach of grace to the church universal. God’s gracious interventions in the old covenant were intended to manifest the ultimacy of the church in his redemptive purposes. In the exercise of their ministries, the prophets of the old covenant knew that they were serving not themselves but the church (1 Pt 1:10-12).<\/p>\n<p>As a transitional, mediatory expression of divine grace, the institutions of the old covenant possessed only a temporary validity that has been superseded by the ultimate manifestations of God’s grace in the new covenant (Heb 8:6-7). Consequently, the old covenant was to become obsolete and replaced by a new covenant that would display the full manifestation of God’s grace. The proverbial tension between law and grace becomes intelligible in this perspective. Like the election of racial Israel, the law (as one of the most visible institutions of the old covenant) was a temporary measure of divine grace accorded to anticipate and prepare the covenant of justification through grace by faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:23-29; Heb 10:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GraceintheNewTestament\">Grace in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The concept of grace defined as God’s active involvement on behalf of his people receives a sharper focus in the NT. Divine grace becomes embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrates visibly the dynamic nature of God’s grace and fulfills in his ministry of redemption the old covenant promises relative to God’s gracious dealings with humanity (Jn 1:14, 17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s grace manifested in Jesus Christ makes it possible for God to forgive sinners and to gather them in the church, the new covenant community. During his ministry, Jesus repeatedly pronounced the words of forgiveness on a great number of sinners and ministered God’s benevolent succor to a variety of desperate human needs. Through teachings such as the father’s forgiveness of the prodigal son and the search for the lost sheep, Jesus made it clear that he had come to seek and save those who were lost. But ultimately it was his redemptive death on the cross that opened wide the gate of salvation for repentant sinners to find access to God’s forgiving and restorative grace. This simple truth is formulated in the doctrine of justification by faith through grace (Rom 3:23; Ti 3:7). According to this teaching, God’s gracious provision of the substitutionary death of Christ enables him to pronounce a verdict of “just” or “not guilty” on repentant sinners and to include them in his eternal purposes. As a result, they enter into the realm of God’s gracious activity, which enables them to implement the process of individual sanctification in cooperation with the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>God’s grace manifested in Jesus Christ also makes it possible for God to bestow on believers undeserved benefits that enrich their lives and unite them together in the church, the body of Christ. Their acceptance on the basis of grace endows them with a new status as children of God, members of the household of God, so that they relate to him as to their heavenly Father (Gal 4:4-6). Consequently, they become members of a community where race, class, and sex distinctions are irrelevant, since they all became equal inheritors of God’s age-long promise to Abraham of universal blessing (3:28-29). In order to enrich their individual lives and to assure the usefulness of their participation in the life of the new community, the Holy Spirit graciously energizes believers with a variety of gifts for the performance of ministries designed to benefit the church (Rom 12:6-8). Foremost among those ministries is that of apostle, itself closely linked to God’s gracious provision (1:5; 15:15-16) since it combines with the ministry of the prophets of old to provide the foundational structure of the church (Eph 2:20). Because the riches of divine grace are freely lavished upon believers in their community life upon earth (1:7-8), the church translated into eternity will demonstrate, by its very existence, the immeasurable riches of God’s grace in Jesus Christ (2:6).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, God’s grace manifested in Jesus Christ makes it possible for God to cause believers to reflect his grace in their character and relationships. The irreducible condition for receiving God’s grace is humility (Jas 4:6; 1 Pt 5:5). Such humility in relation to God enables believers to practice humility in regard to other people. From a position of grace, they can set aside selfishness and conceit in order to treat others with deference (Phil 2:3-4) in an attitude of mutual servanthood (Eph 5:21), and in a spirit of mutual forgiveness (Mt 18:23-35) so that even their communication can exhibit divine grace (Col 4:6). Since the grace of Jesus Christ constitutes the existential context of the lives and relationships of believers, they are exhorted not to pervert the grace of God into ungodly practice (Jude 1:4) but instead to grow in the grace of the Lord (2 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>The essential meaning of grace in the Bible refers to God’s disposition to exercise goodwill toward his creatures. This favorable disposition of God finds its supreme expression in Jesus Christ. By its very definition, this grace is rendered fully accessible to all humans with no other precondition than a repentant desire to receive it (Ti 2:11-12). As a result, the human condition of alienation from God and from his purposes becomes replaced with access to the otherwise unapproachable majesty of God represented by a throne, so that his grace may become available to meet human need (Heb 4:16). The tragic alternative to receiving God’s grace is to remain in hopeless alienation or to pursue sterile attempts to merit God’s favor through human efforts doomed to futility (Rom 1:21). God’s unconditional acceptance of sinners may be conditioned only by their rejection of his acceptance.<\/p>\n<p>Because Christ represents the fulfillment, the embodiment, and the dispenser of divine grace, the early Christians freely referred to God’s grace as “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This grace was conceived as being so basic and so pervasive to their individual lives and to the existence of their communities of faith that they naturally coupled the traditional greeting of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span> (“peace”) with a reference to the grace of Jesus Christ. This is the reason for the ubiquitous repetition of numerous variations on the basic greeting formula found in almost every book of the NT, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all” (2 Thes 3:18).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> God, Being and Attributes of; Love; Mercy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GRACE The gift of God as expressed in his actions of extending mercy, loving-kindness, and salvation to people. Grace is the dimension of divine activity that enables God to confront human indifference and rebellion with an inexhaustible capacity to forgive and to bless. God is gracious in action. The doctrine of divine grace underlies the thought of both the OT and NT. However, the OT merely anticipates and prepares for the full expression of grace that becomes manifest in the NT. Grace in t...","summary_en":"GRACE The gift of God as expressed in his actions of extending mercy, loving-kindness, and salvation to people. Grace is the dimension of divine activity that enables God to confront human indifference and rebellion with an inexhaustible capacity to forgive and to bless. God is gracious in action. The doctrine of divine grace underlies the thought of both the OT and NT. However, the OT merely anticipates and prepares for the full expression of grace that becomes manifest in the NT. Grace in t...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15978,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Hebrews","title_en":"Letter to the Hebrews","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","summary_en":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24938,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mediator Mediate","title_en":"Mediator Mediate","content_ro":"<h3>MEDIATE, MEDIATOR<\/h3>\n<p>The act of an intermediary, go-between, or expert in divine things, not to negotiate agreement or compromise but to approach God on behalf of others, and so to convey desired knowledge and reassurance with divine authority.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Job voices longing for such a mediator (translated here from the LXX): “God is not a mortal like me, so I cannot argue with him or take him to trial. If only there were a mediator who could bring us together, but there is none. The mediator could make God stop beating me, and I would no longer live in terror of his punishment. Then I could speak to him without fear, but I cannot do that in my own strength” (Jb 9:32-35).<\/p>\n<p>More familiar is the mediation of instruction concerning the divine character and will. The Mosaic covenant was given through the mediation of angels and of Moses (Ex 20:18-21; Dt 33:2; Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19; contrast Heb 6:13-17, where God, acting alone, “mediated” an oath). The terms of the covenant law were expounded by prophets who “stood in God’s council,” and by priests who communicated God’s mind by oracle, sacred lot, and pronounced blessing (Dt 10:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 15:3; Jer 23:10-11, 18-22, 31-34; Mi 3:11; Mal 2:7).<\/p>\n<p>Most familiar is the liturgical mediation of the priest, whether by Moses (Ex 24:4-8) or by an appointed person trained in the rituals of worship (28:1). Because of Israel’s emphasis upon the holiness of God, sacrificial expiation, or “covering,” of sin figured largely in priestly mediation. The priest represented before God the people’s penitence, confession, and prayers for forgiveness, bearing the tribes’ names on shoulders and breastplate, and represented God, in turn, assuring his favor, forgiveness, and protection (see Heb 5:1-4; 7:27–10:11).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>It was natural that the mission of Jesus should be described in mediatorial terms, and first as that of a prophet speaking for God to humans, making God known (Mk 6:15; 8:28). Where applied to Jesus, the actual title “mediator” refers mainly to his institution of a new covenant, establishing God’s new relationship with people (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). The one other instance is 1 Timothy 2:5, where the unity of God requires a sole, unrivaled mediator, namely, Christ.<\/p>\n<p>This last reference mentions Christ’s giving himself as “a ransom for all.” This essentially priestly function is the theme of Hebrews. Christ as Son of God, divinely appointed, sinless, suffering, tempted, sympathizing, and obedient, is uniquely qualified to be High Priest of his people. As priest, he offers a perfect sacrifice and lives forever to intercede for those who draw near to God through him. This mediatorial ministry places Jesus at “the right hand of God.” His intercession for people is mentioned also in Romans 8:34 and probably in 1 John 2:1, where ancient Greek commentators, <span>neb<\/span>, and other authoritative sources so understand “paraclete,” here applied to Jesus. His mediatorial sacrifice is mentioned in Matthew (Mt 26:28), John (Jn 1:29), Romans (Rom 3:25), and 1 John (1 Jn 1:7; 2:2; 4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Still more significant is the insistence, everywhere in the NT, that man’s knowledge of God, salvation, and hope come through Christ alone. Made poor for our sakes, he died and rose “for us”; our peace, access to God, reconciliation, expiation of sin, grace, truth, prayer, and “all spiritual blessings” are “through him,” “in him,” “through his blood,” and “in his name.” The purpose of God focuses in him; he mediated at Creation and at redemption (Col 1:15, 22); in him all the fullness of God dwells, and the face of Christ reveals God’s glory. No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him; no one comes to the Father but by him; neither is there salvation in any other.<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s mediation is the fulfillment and end of all mediation between God and humankind. The book of Hebrews opens with the assertion that Christ surpasses all other mediators—angels, Moses, the Aaronic priesthood. His is a timeless priesthood, like Melchizedek’s. His sacrifice is unrepeatable, “once for all time,” and by it we have been consecrated to God “for all time.” The covenant he established between God and people offers better promises, sacrifice, sanctuary, and hope (Heb 7:19; 8:6; 9:1, 11-15). Christ’s mediation so far excels all others that it can never be superseded; he is priest without rival and forever (cf. 1 Tm 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>Without using the priestly analogy, John emphasizes the same truth. The gulf between divine and human has been crossed, decisively and finally, by the Incarnation. Instead of standing between God and man, Christ unites both within himself by becoming man. Mediating in the beginning at Creation, Christ is himself the Word, which from God’s side mediates God’s mind, embodies God’s message, and conveys God’s power. No one has seen God at any time, but as unique Son and divine, Jesus “expounds” God (Jn 1:18). From the human side, Jesus prays for the disciples (ch 17), offers perfect obedience, lays down his life for his flock, and offers the unblemished sacrifice that bears away the sin of the world.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Reconciliation.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MEDIATE, MEDIATOR<\/h3>\n<p>The act of an intermediary, go-between, or expert in divine things, not to negotiate agreement or compromise but to approach God on behalf of others, and so to convey desired knowledge and reassurance with divine authority.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Job voices longing for such a mediator (translated here from the LXX): “God is not a mortal like me, so I cannot argue with him or take him to trial. If only there were a mediator who could bring us together, but there is none. The mediator could make God stop beating me, and I would no longer live in terror of his punishment. Then I could speak to him without fear, but I cannot do that in my own strength” (Jb 9:32-35).<\/p>\n<p>More familiar is the mediation of instruction concerning the divine character and will. The Mosaic covenant was given through the mediation of angels and of Moses (Ex 20:18-21; Dt 33:2; Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19; contrast Heb 6:13-17, where God, acting alone, “mediated” an oath). The terms of the covenant law were expounded by prophets who “stood in God’s council,” and by priests who communicated God’s mind by oracle, sacred lot, and pronounced blessing (Dt 10:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 15:3; Jer 23:10-11, 18-22, 31-34; Mi 3:11; Mal 2:7).<\/p>\n<p>Most familiar is the liturgical mediation of the priest, whether by Moses (Ex 24:4-8) or by an appointed person trained in the rituals of worship (28:1). Because of Israel’s emphasis upon the holiness of God, sacrificial expiation, or “covering,” of sin figured largely in priestly mediation. The priest represented before God the people’s penitence, confession, and prayers for forgiveness, bearing the tribes’ names on shoulders and breastplate, and represented God, in turn, assuring his favor, forgiveness, and protection (see Heb 5:1-4; 7:27–10:11).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>It was natural that the mission of Jesus should be described in mediatorial terms, and first as that of a prophet speaking for God to humans, making God known (Mk 6:15; 8:28). Where applied to Jesus, the actual title “mediator” refers mainly to his institution of a new covenant, establishing God’s new relationship with people (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). The one other instance is 1 Timothy 2:5, where the unity of God requires a sole, unrivaled mediator, namely, Christ.<\/p>\n<p>This last reference mentions Christ’s giving himself as “a ransom for all.” This essentially priestly function is the theme of Hebrews. Christ as Son of God, divinely appointed, sinless, suffering, tempted, sympathizing, and obedient, is uniquely qualified to be High Priest of his people. As priest, he offers a perfect sacrifice and lives forever to intercede for those who draw near to God through him. This mediatorial ministry places Jesus at “the right hand of God.” His intercession for people is mentioned also in Romans 8:34 and probably in 1 John 2:1, where ancient Greek commentators, <span>neb<\/span>, and other authoritative sources so understand “paraclete,” here applied to Jesus. His mediatorial sacrifice is mentioned in Matthew (Mt 26:28), John (Jn 1:29), Romans (Rom 3:25), and 1 John (1 Jn 1:7; 2:2; 4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Still more significant is the insistence, everywhere in the NT, that man’s knowledge of God, salvation, and hope come through Christ alone. Made poor for our sakes, he died and rose “for us”; our peace, access to God, reconciliation, expiation of sin, grace, truth, prayer, and “all spiritual blessings” are “through him,” “in him,” “through his blood,” and “in his name.” The purpose of God focuses in him; he mediated at Creation and at redemption (Col 1:15, 22); in him all the fullness of God dwells, and the face of Christ reveals God’s glory. No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him; no one comes to the Father but by him; neither is there salvation in any other.<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s mediation is the fulfillment and end of all mediation between God and humankind. The book of Hebrews opens with the assertion that Christ surpasses all other mediators—angels, Moses, the Aaronic priesthood. His is a timeless priesthood, like Melchizedek’s. His sacrifice is unrepeatable, “once for all time,” and by it we have been consecrated to God “for all time.” The covenant he established between God and people offers better promises, sacrifice, sanctuary, and hope (Heb 7:19; 8:6; 9:1, 11-15). Christ’s mediation so far excels all others that it can never be superseded; he is priest without rival and forever (cf. 1 Tm 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>Without using the priestly analogy, John emphasizes the same truth. The gulf between divine and human has been crossed, decisively and finally, by the Incarnation. Instead of standing between God and man, Christ unites both within himself by becoming man. Mediating in the beginning at Creation, Christ is himself the Word, which from God’s side mediates God’s mind, embodies God’s message, and conveys God’s power. No one has seen God at any time, but as unique Son and divine, Jesus “expounds” God (Jn 1:18). From the human side, Jesus prays for the disciples (ch 17), offers perfect obedience, lays down his life for his flock, and offers the unblemished sacrifice that bears away the sin of the world.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Reconciliation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MEDIATE, MEDIATOR The act of an intermediary, go-between, or expert in divine things, not to negotiate agreement or compromise but to approach God on behalf of others, and so to convey desired knowledge and reassurance with divine authority. In the Old Testament Job voices longing for such a mediator (translated here from the LXX): “God is not a mortal like me, so I cannot argue with him or take him to trial. If only there were a mediator who could bring us together, but there is none. The me...","summary_en":"MEDIATE, MEDIATOR The act of an intermediary, go-between, or expert in divine things, not to negotiate agreement or compromise but to approach God on behalf of others, and so to convey desired knowledge and reassurance with divine authority. In the Old Testament Job voices longing for such a mediator (translated here from the LXX): “God is not a mortal like me, so I cannot argue with him or take him to trial. If only there were a mediator who could bring us together, but there is none. The me...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25437,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Messiah","title_en":"Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>MESSIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Title derived from the Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiach<\/span><em>,<\/em> a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashach<\/span><em>)<\/em> conveys this idea as well.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). While there is evidence for a literal anointing of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), this does not appear to have been a standard practice. The anointing of Saul and David by Samuel established the act as a significant prerequisite for Hebrew kings before they assumed their positions of royal leadership. The king was especially considered to be the Lord’s anointed and as such was viewed to hold a secure position before men (1 Sm 12:14; 2 Sm 19:21) and God (Pss 2:2; 20:6). Along with numerous messianic prophecies, these proceedings helped inform the Jews of the Anointed One, par excellence, who would eventually come to bring salvation to Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Concluding the 13 articles of Hebraic faith attributed to Moses Maimonides (13th century <span>AD<\/span>) is the statement still found in many Hebrew prayer books: “I believe with a perfect heart that the Messiah will come; and although his coming be delayed, I will still wait patiently for his speedy appearance.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheOldTestament\">Messiah in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jewish hope for the advent of the Messiah developed dynamically from the period of David’s reign, when it was prophesied that his kingdom would endure to the end of time (2 Sm 7:16). Israel was told that, through David’s descendants, his throne would exert a never-ending dominion over all the earth (2 Sm 22:48-51; Jer 33). It is with this aspect of messianic salvation that Jewish minds have traditionally been preoccupied (cf. Acts 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>Among Orthodox rabbis there has never been a lack of conjecture respecting the details of the Messiah’s ministry. At one time the rabbis applied no less than 456 passages of Scripture to his person and salvation. Preoccupation with the Messiah is evident in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> (Babylonian Talmud), where passages state that the world was created for him and that all the prophets prophesied of his days (<em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, 99a). By and large, Orthodoxy still retains its time-worn belief in the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reestablishment of both priesthood and sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>While later Judaism looked for the Messiah as an eschatological figure who will reign at the end of time, modern Jewish thought has largely jettisoned the traditional notion of a personal Messiah in favor of belief in a messianic age. Prevalent liberal Judaism envisions the world ultimately perfected through the influence of the twin Judaic ideals of justice and compassion. Such conviction, ignoring the plight of fallen humans and the teaching of Scripture, substitutes humanistic thinking for miraculous heavenly intervention.<\/p>\n<p>While the Messiah’s origin is linked firmly to the house of David (2 Sm 7:14; Hos 3:5), the promise for a Messiah was given long before David lived. In fact, the hope for the Messiah is implicit in the first promise of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Addressed to Satan, Genesis 3:15 declares that God will place hostility between the serpent and the woman until, in the fullness of time, the “seed” of the woman inflicts a fatal blow to the head of the serpent.<\/p>\n<p>The nature of messianic prophecy is progressive; each prophecy casts more light on the subject. This occurs, for example, respecting the concept of the “seed”: Messiah is to be born of a woman (Gn 3:15), through the line of Shem (9:26) and specifically through Abraham (22:18). Yet even as late as Genesis 22:18, the “seed” is not clearly presented as a person, since <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">zerah<\/span> (seed) may indicate a singular or plural object. Still less apparent in these early stages of messianic prophecy is the nature of the “bruising” that is to occur. Yet the idea of the Messiah being crushed for sin is implicit in the Genesis pronouncement, as is the violence associated with that act. Chief among the messianic prophets, Isaiah gives full range to the axiom that the Anointed One must endure extensive suffering (Is 53:1). Under the figure “the Servant of the Lord,” four “servant songs” delineate the mission of the future deliverer (Is 42:1-7; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable. Both figures are uniquely anointed (61:1); each brings light to the Gentiles (55:4; cf. 49:6); neither is pretentious in his first appearance (7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1); and the title of Davidic “branch” rests upon them both (11:1-4). Equally significant are the dual facts of their humiliation and exaltation (49:7; 52:13-15). Jewish scholars of the early Christian era in the Aramaic Targum on the prophets paraphrase Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant Messiah” and begin Isaiah 53, “Behold my Servant Messiah will prosper.” While Cyrus may be spoken of as “anointed,” no final salvific work is attributed to him (45:1-5). Israel, although elect and loved by God (41:8), is ill-equipped as God’s servant to bring his redeeming work to mankind (42:18). The collapse of David’s dynasty points eloquently to Israel’s need for an anointed monarch who will heal the apostasy and disobedience (Ex 33:5; Hos 4:1). More and more, OT history presents Israel’s comprehensive moral failure. Her problem, which she shares with mankind, can only be solved by the making of a covenant whose surety and focal point is both a personal Savior and sovereign Lord (Jer 31:31-34). The advent of such a champion lives in the recorded promise of a shoot from the stump of Jesse’s fallen tree, who will bring the light of life to God’s benighted people (Is 9:2; 11:1).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to get away from the idea that the concept of servanthood and lowliness belongs within the sphere of royalty (Zec 9:9). The concept of the Messiah filling the complementary offices of priest and king is incontrovertible (Ps 110:1-4); a suffering priest-king is far less obvious. Some among the Talmudic writers apparently recognized the likelihood that the Messiah would have to suffer. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, the Messiah is said to bear sicknesses and pain. Among the prayers for the Day of Atonement may be found the words of Eleazar ben Qalir (perhaps as late as <span>AD<\/span> 1000): “Our righteous Messiah has departed from us; we are horror-stricken, and there is none to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he carries, and is wounded for our transgressions. He bears on his shoulders our sins to find pardon for our iniquities. May we be healed by his stripes.” In a similar vein Rabbi Eliyya de Vidas writes, “The meaning of ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities,’ is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for them himself.” For all this, it is highly doubtful that anyone imagined the Messiah would accomplish his salvational work by means of his own death (cf. Is 53:12). When rabbinic speculation failed to satisfactorily harmonize the paradoxical facts of humiliation and exaltation, some hypothesized that God would send a Messiah to suffer as well as a Messiah to reign. Biblically, it is evident that the Anointed One’s terrible ordeal of suffering is but the necessary prelude to infinite glory. He is pictured not only as a great king (52:13; 53:12) but also as humble (53:2), humiliated (52:14), rejected (53:3), and bearing the consequences of mankind’s rebellion (vv 5-6). Yet he is raised up to intercede for, and richly bless, his people (v 12). The Messiah, having accomplished that full obedience that Adam and Israel failed to achieve, will bring Israel and the nations back to God (42:18-19; 49:3, 6).<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Daniel contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of “Messiah the Prince” (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the “Son of Man” (7:13), and says he suffers (“cut off,” 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e., death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24). The doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement is the only doctrine of atonement found in the Bible (cf. Lv 17:11). Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 22:1 records the plaintive cry of the Messiah bearing man’s penalty for sin (cf. Mt 27:46) as he becomes sin on behalf of his people (2 Cor 5:21). Yet his cry, “My God,” indicates an intimate relationship that cannot be radically severed. Once again the motif of messianic humiliation prior to great exaltation is in view (Ps 22:27). In the so-called “royal psalms” (e.g., 2; 72; 110) it is the priestly intercessor who is also ordained to function as monarch and judge.<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah brings the portrait a step further. The one who will enable humans to enter into a salvational covenant with God conveys God’s imputed righteousness: the Messiah, God’s righteous branch, becomes “the Lord our Righteousness.” Paradoxically, under the law no one could be crucified who was not guilty of sin (Dt 21:22). But it is Christ the righteous one who was crucified, thereby forever undermining any supposed legalistic confidence (Dt 21:23; Gal 3:13). More than forgiven, believers are deemed righteous in him (Jer 23:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>While the birthplace of the Messiah was well established (Mi 5:2), his deity was a hotly contested matter. Although few in ancient Israel disputed the belief in a superhuman Messiah, it is doubtful that anyone imagined him to be “God with us” in the fullest sense of the expression (cf. Heb 1:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheNewTestament\">Messiah in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT writers present the picture that he who was the child of supernatural origins (Is 7:14; Mi 5:2) carried the full weight of divinity (Is 9:6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19). He is the Son of God, worthy to receive the worship of all people (Ps 45:6-7; cf. Heb 1:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Jews of first-century Palestine knew that the messianic promise would be fulfilled in the coming of one like Moses (Dt 18:18). Parallels between Jesus and Moses are abundant. As mediators, innovators, and propagators of new phases of spiritual life for the people, they are unexcelled. Specifically, both are miraculously spared in infancy (Ex 2; Mt 2:13-23); both renounce a royal court for the sake of serving the people of God (Phil 2:5-8; Heb 11:24-28); both exhibit intense compassion for others (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36); both commune “face to face” with God (Ex 34:29-30; 2 Cor 3:7); and each mediates a covenant of redemption (Dt 29:1; Heb 8:6-7). But, as Luther observes, “Christ is no Moses.” In the final analysis Moses is but a household servant; the Messiah is the maker and master of all things (Heb 3:3-6; cf. Jn 1:1-2, 18).<\/p>\n<p>Family genealogies are important in Scripture. Rabbis agreed upon the absolute necessity of the Messiah’s Davidic lineage based on Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 30:9. The angelic announcement immediately establishes the correct lineage for Jesus (Lk 1:32-33; cf. 2:4), as does Matthew’s (Mt 1:1-17). The Lukan list, like that of Matthew, sets forth the exclusive kingly descent verifying Jesus as Messiah (Lk 3:23-38). Although variations occur between the two genealogies, there is a firm solidarity emphasizing an ancestry within the unique messianic stock. Fully aware of the messianic focus of Scripture (Jn 5:46; 8:56), Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ on numerous occasions. He accepted the title from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-48); from the crowds when he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:9); from the children at the temple (v 15); and in other contexts as well (Mt 16:16-18; Mk 14:61-62; Lk 4:21; Jn 4:25-26). Nonetheless, he warned his disciples not to broadcast his mighty acts as Messiah prior to his resurrection (Mt 17:9; cf. Lk 9:20-21). Owing to the commonly held (but false) notion that the Messiah’s role was primarily that of a political liberator, Jesus actually avoided use of that term and preferred to identify himself as “the Son of Man.” It was by no means assumed that both designations referred to the same person (cf. Mk 14:61-62). Borrowing essentially from Daniel’s vision of a heavenly conqueror (Dn 7:13-14), Jesus consistently employed this less-known title and filled it with the true character and scope of messianic salvation. Jesus’ teaching in this regard enabled his disciples to correct their erroneous views concerning his mission (Mt 16:21-23). In the fullness of time they would come to see him not only as Messiah but also as the theme of the entire OT (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27, 44; Jn 5:39; cf. Heb 10:7). When Jesus expounded the Scriptures beginning with the Torah (Lk 24:27), he did so as the living exegesis of God, the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14, 18). Legitimate messianic exposition is found in a host of texts, such as Psalms 2; 16; 22; 40; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:1; 40:10-11; 50:6; 52:13–53:12; 61:1; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:25; Daniel 9:24-27; Hosea 11:1; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7; Malachi 3:1; 4:2.<\/p>\n<p>The messiahship of Jesus is firmly proclaimed by all four evangelists (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Lk 24:26; Jn 20:31). Peter on Pentecost, Philip before the Ethiopian eunuch, and Apollos in open debate all argue convincingly that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 8:35; 28:28). Peter says he was “made” both Lord and Christ (2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Rom 1:4). For the ex-Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, “Jesus the Christ” is the very heart and soul of Paul’s preaching. Nothing is worthy to be compared to the glory of the Messiah; everything pales by comparison (Phil 3:5-10). The apostle’s all-consuming passion is for others to know the fullness of God in the person of his only Son (Eph 3:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Holy Spirit in Scripture speaks of Jesus with wide-ranging appellatives—Holy One, Judge, Righteous One, King, Son of God, and Lord—but these are not exhaustive. In him all the lines of messianic prediction converge; he is the touchstone whereby their validity is firmly established. The Lord Jesus Christ is himself the heart and substance of that covenant through which sinful people may be reconciled to a holy God (Is 42:6; Jn 14:6). That Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, God incarnate, exhaustively fulfills prophecy, type, and symbol—all shadows of his coming. Therefore, all should trust in him, the source of all grace, the only abiding treasure (Mt 12:21; Jn 1:16-17; Col 2:3). Anointed as prophet, he leads us into all truth (Jn 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Heb 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Phil 2:9-10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Branch; Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Redeemer, Redemption; Son of God; Son of Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MESSIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Title derived from the Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiach<\/span><em>,<\/em> a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashach<\/span><em>)<\/em> conveys this idea as well.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). While there is evidence for a literal anointing of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), this does not appear to have been a standard practice. The anointing of Saul and David by Samuel established the act as a significant prerequisite for Hebrew kings before they assumed their positions of royal leadership. The king was especially considered to be the Lord’s anointed and as such was viewed to hold a secure position before men (1 Sm 12:14; 2 Sm 19:21) and God (Pss 2:2; 20:6). Along with numerous messianic prophecies, these proceedings helped inform the Jews of the Anointed One, par excellence, who would eventually come to bring salvation to Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Concluding the 13 articles of Hebraic faith attributed to Moses Maimonides (13th century <span>AD<\/span>) is the statement still found in many Hebrew prayer books: “I believe with a perfect heart that the Messiah will come; and although his coming be delayed, I will still wait patiently for his speedy appearance.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheOldTestament\">Messiah in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jewish hope for the advent of the Messiah developed dynamically from the period of David’s reign, when it was prophesied that his kingdom would endure to the end of time (2 Sm 7:16). Israel was told that, through David’s descendants, his throne would exert a never-ending dominion over all the earth (2 Sm 22:48-51; Jer 33). It is with this aspect of messianic salvation that Jewish minds have traditionally been preoccupied (cf. Acts 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>Among Orthodox rabbis there has never been a lack of conjecture respecting the details of the Messiah’s ministry. At one time the rabbis applied no less than 456 passages of Scripture to his person and salvation. Preoccupation with the Messiah is evident in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> (Babylonian Talmud), where passages state that the world was created for him and that all the prophets prophesied of his days (<em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, 99a). By and large, Orthodoxy still retains its time-worn belief in the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reestablishment of both priesthood and sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>While later Judaism looked for the Messiah as an eschatological figure who will reign at the end of time, modern Jewish thought has largely jettisoned the traditional notion of a personal Messiah in favor of belief in a messianic age. Prevalent liberal Judaism envisions the world ultimately perfected through the influence of the twin Judaic ideals of justice and compassion. Such conviction, ignoring the plight of fallen humans and the teaching of Scripture, substitutes humanistic thinking for miraculous heavenly intervention.<\/p>\n<p>While the Messiah’s origin is linked firmly to the house of David (2 Sm 7:14; Hos 3:5), the promise for a Messiah was given long before David lived. In fact, the hope for the Messiah is implicit in the first promise of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Addressed to Satan, Genesis 3:15 declares that God will place hostility between the serpent and the woman until, in the fullness of time, the “seed” of the woman inflicts a fatal blow to the head of the serpent.<\/p>\n<p>The nature of messianic prophecy is progressive; each prophecy casts more light on the subject. This occurs, for example, respecting the concept of the “seed”: Messiah is to be born of a woman (Gn 3:15), through the line of Shem (9:26) and specifically through Abraham (22:18). Yet even as late as Genesis 22:18, the “seed” is not clearly presented as a person, since <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">zerah<\/span> (seed) may indicate a singular or plural object. Still less apparent in these early stages of messianic prophecy is the nature of the “bruising” that is to occur. Yet the idea of the Messiah being crushed for sin is implicit in the Genesis pronouncement, as is the violence associated with that act. Chief among the messianic prophets, Isaiah gives full range to the axiom that the Anointed One must endure extensive suffering (Is 53:1). Under the figure “the Servant of the Lord,” four “servant songs” delineate the mission of the future deliverer (Is 42:1-7; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable. Both figures are uniquely anointed (61:1); each brings light to the Gentiles (55:4; cf. 49:6); neither is pretentious in his first appearance (7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1); and the title of Davidic “branch” rests upon them both (11:1-4). Equally significant are the dual facts of their humiliation and exaltation (49:7; 52:13-15). Jewish scholars of the early Christian era in the Aramaic Targum on the prophets paraphrase Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant Messiah” and begin Isaiah 53, “Behold my Servant Messiah will prosper.” While Cyrus may be spoken of as “anointed,” no final salvific work is attributed to him (45:1-5). Israel, although elect and loved by God (41:8), is ill-equipped as God’s servant to bring his redeeming work to mankind (42:18). The collapse of David’s dynasty points eloquently to Israel’s need for an anointed monarch who will heal the apostasy and disobedience (Ex 33:5; Hos 4:1). More and more, OT history presents Israel’s comprehensive moral failure. Her problem, which she shares with mankind, can only be solved by the making of a covenant whose surety and focal point is both a personal Savior and sovereign Lord (Jer 31:31-34). The advent of such a champion lives in the recorded promise of a shoot from the stump of Jesse’s fallen tree, who will bring the light of life to God’s benighted people (Is 9:2; 11:1).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to get away from the idea that the concept of servanthood and lowliness belongs within the sphere of royalty (Zec 9:9). The concept of the Messiah filling the complementary offices of priest and king is incontrovertible (Ps 110:1-4); a suffering priest-king is far less obvious. Some among the Talmudic writers apparently recognized the likelihood that the Messiah would have to suffer. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, the Messiah is said to bear sicknesses and pain. Among the prayers for the Day of Atonement may be found the words of Eleazar ben Qalir (perhaps as late as <span>AD<\/span> 1000): “Our righteous Messiah has departed from us; we are horror-stricken, and there is none to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he carries, and is wounded for our transgressions. He bears on his shoulders our sins to find pardon for our iniquities. May we be healed by his stripes.” In a similar vein Rabbi Eliyya de Vidas writes, “The meaning of ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities,’ is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for them himself.” For all this, it is highly doubtful that anyone imagined the Messiah would accomplish his salvational work by means of his own death (cf. Is 53:12). When rabbinic speculation failed to satisfactorily harmonize the paradoxical facts of humiliation and exaltation, some hypothesized that God would send a Messiah to suffer as well as a Messiah to reign. Biblically, it is evident that the Anointed One’s terrible ordeal of suffering is but the necessary prelude to infinite glory. He is pictured not only as a great king (52:13; 53:12) but also as humble (53:2), humiliated (52:14), rejected (53:3), and bearing the consequences of mankind’s rebellion (vv 5-6). Yet he is raised up to intercede for, and richly bless, his people (v 12). The Messiah, having accomplished that full obedience that Adam and Israel failed to achieve, will bring Israel and the nations back to God (42:18-19; 49:3, 6).<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Daniel contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of “Messiah the Prince” (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the “Son of Man” (7:13), and says he suffers (“cut off,” 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e., death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24). The doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement is the only doctrine of atonement found in the Bible (cf. Lv 17:11). Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 22:1 records the plaintive cry of the Messiah bearing man’s penalty for sin (cf. Mt 27:46) as he becomes sin on behalf of his people (2 Cor 5:21). Yet his cry, “My God,” indicates an intimate relationship that cannot be radically severed. Once again the motif of messianic humiliation prior to great exaltation is in view (Ps 22:27). In the so-called “royal psalms” (e.g., 2; 72; 110) it is the priestly intercessor who is also ordained to function as monarch and judge.<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah brings the portrait a step further. The one who will enable humans to enter into a salvational covenant with God conveys God’s imputed righteousness: the Messiah, God’s righteous branch, becomes “the Lord our Righteousness.” Paradoxically, under the law no one could be crucified who was not guilty of sin (Dt 21:22). But it is Christ the righteous one who was crucified, thereby forever undermining any supposed legalistic confidence (Dt 21:23; Gal 3:13). More than forgiven, believers are deemed righteous in him (Jer 23:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>While the birthplace of the Messiah was well established (Mi 5:2), his deity was a hotly contested matter. Although few in ancient Israel disputed the belief in a superhuman Messiah, it is doubtful that anyone imagined him to be “God with us” in the fullest sense of the expression (cf. Heb 1:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheNewTestament\">Messiah in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT writers present the picture that he who was the child of supernatural origins (Is 7:14; Mi 5:2) carried the full weight of divinity (Is 9:6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19). He is the Son of God, worthy to receive the worship of all people (Ps 45:6-7; cf. Heb 1:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Jews of first-century Palestine knew that the messianic promise would be fulfilled in the coming of one like Moses (Dt 18:18). Parallels between Jesus and Moses are abundant. As mediators, innovators, and propagators of new phases of spiritual life for the people, they are unexcelled. Specifically, both are miraculously spared in infancy (Ex 2; Mt 2:13-23); both renounce a royal court for the sake of serving the people of God (Phil 2:5-8; Heb 11:24-28); both exhibit intense compassion for others (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36); both commune “face to face” with God (Ex 34:29-30; 2 Cor 3:7); and each mediates a covenant of redemption (Dt 29:1; Heb 8:6-7). But, as Luther observes, “Christ is no Moses.” In the final analysis Moses is but a household servant; the Messiah is the maker and master of all things (Heb 3:3-6; cf. Jn 1:1-2, 18).<\/p>\n<p>Family genealogies are important in Scripture. Rabbis agreed upon the absolute necessity of the Messiah’s Davidic lineage based on Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 30:9. The angelic announcement immediately establishes the correct lineage for Jesus (Lk 1:32-33; cf. 2:4), as does Matthew’s (Mt 1:1-17). The Lukan list, like that of Matthew, sets forth the exclusive kingly descent verifying Jesus as Messiah (Lk 3:23-38). Although variations occur between the two genealogies, there is a firm solidarity emphasizing an ancestry within the unique messianic stock. Fully aware of the messianic focus of Scripture (Jn 5:46; 8:56), Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ on numerous occasions. He accepted the title from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-48); from the crowds when he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:9); from the children at the temple (v 15); and in other contexts as well (Mt 16:16-18; Mk 14:61-62; Lk 4:21; Jn 4:25-26). Nonetheless, he warned his disciples not to broadcast his mighty acts as Messiah prior to his resurrection (Mt 17:9; cf. Lk 9:20-21). Owing to the commonly held (but false) notion that the Messiah’s role was primarily that of a political liberator, Jesus actually avoided use of that term and preferred to identify himself as “the Son of Man.” It was by no means assumed that both designations referred to the same person (cf. Mk 14:61-62). Borrowing essentially from Daniel’s vision of a heavenly conqueror (Dn 7:13-14), Jesus consistently employed this less-known title and filled it with the true character and scope of messianic salvation. Jesus’ teaching in this regard enabled his disciples to correct their erroneous views concerning his mission (Mt 16:21-23). In the fullness of time they would come to see him not only as Messiah but also as the theme of the entire OT (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27, 44; Jn 5:39; cf. Heb 10:7). When Jesus expounded the Scriptures beginning with the Torah (Lk 24:27), he did so as the living exegesis of God, the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14, 18). Legitimate messianic exposition is found in a host of texts, such as Psalms 2; 16; 22; 40; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:1; 40:10-11; 50:6; 52:13–53:12; 61:1; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:25; Daniel 9:24-27; Hosea 11:1; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7; Malachi 3:1; 4:2.<\/p>\n<p>The messiahship of Jesus is firmly proclaimed by all four evangelists (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Lk 24:26; Jn 20:31). Peter on Pentecost, Philip before the Ethiopian eunuch, and Apollos in open debate all argue convincingly that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 8:35; 28:28). Peter says he was “made” both Lord and Christ (2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Rom 1:4). For the ex-Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, “Jesus the Christ” is the very heart and soul of Paul’s preaching. Nothing is worthy to be compared to the glory of the Messiah; everything pales by comparison (Phil 3:5-10). The apostle’s all-consuming passion is for others to know the fullness of God in the person of his only Son (Eph 3:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Holy Spirit in Scripture speaks of Jesus with wide-ranging appellatives—Holy One, Judge, Righteous One, King, Son of God, and Lord—but these are not exhaustive. In him all the lines of messianic prediction converge; he is the touchstone whereby their validity is firmly established. The Lord Jesus Christ is himself the heart and substance of that covenant through which sinful people may be reconciled to a holy God (Is 42:6; Jn 14:6). That Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, God incarnate, exhaustively fulfills prophecy, type, and symbol—all shadows of his coming. Therefore, all should trust in him, the source of all grace, the only abiding treasure (Mt 12:21; Jn 1:16-17; Col 2:3). Anointed as prophet, he leads us into all truth (Jn 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Heb 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Phil 2:9-10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Branch; Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Redeemer, Redemption; Son of God; Son of Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MESSIAH Title derived from the Hebrew, mashiach, a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (mashach) conveys this idea as well. Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). ...","summary_en":"MESSIAH Title derived from the Hebrew, mashiach, a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (mashach) conveys this idea as well. Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31299,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Priesthood","title_en":"Priesthood","content_ro":"<h3>PRIESTHOOD<\/h3>\n<p>Office or function of a priest. The modern word “priest” (in French <em>prêtre<\/em> and in German <em>priester<\/em>) is used of a clergyman in episcopalian churches (Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican). It is also used in the description of the whole church as “a royal priesthood” (1 Pt 2:9). To ascertain how this usage arose and to see what priesthood means, it is necessary to look briefly at both biblical and theological developments.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the covenant made between God and Israel, the whole people was seen as a “kingdom of priests” and thus a holy people (Ex 19:6). Within this context, specific priestly activities belonged to three orders—high priest, priest, and Levite. “Priests” were male descendants of Aaron, who was a Levite (Nm 3:10), and “Levites” were other male members of the tribe of Levi. The chief functions of the priesthood took place in the temple. Priests looked after the ceremonial vessels and performed the sacrifices. In doing their duties they dressed in special, symbolic vestments. They were also teachers, passing on the sacred traditions of the nation as well as such matters as medical information (Lv 13–15). The high priest was the spiritual head of Israel and he had special functions, such as entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (ch 16). The Levites assisted the priests and served the congregation in the temple. They sang the psalms, kept the temple courts clean, helped to prepare certain sacrifices and offerings, and also had a teaching function. Through this threefold order, the priesthood of the nation was exercised. By it the people offered worship to God, made intercessions and petitions, and learned of God’s will. Thus what occurred in every pious home, as the head of the house guided his family in worship, occurred in a larger and more ceremonial way in the temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>It is remarkable that the term “priest” is never used in the NT of a minister or order in the church. Certainly the usage with reference to Judaism and paganism continues (Acts 4:1, 6; 14:13), but it is never introduced into the church. The Letter to the Hebrews presents the OT priesthood as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. First of all, he has been appointed high priest by God himself (Heb 5:4-6). Yet his is a superior priesthood to that of Aaron (ch 7). Second, being totally sympathetic to the needs of sinful people and tempted in all points like them, he is without sin (4:15; 7:26). Third, instead of offering animal sacrifices to take away sin, he offers himself, as the sinless Lamb, to take away sin. This is a perfect atonement (7:27; 9:24-28; 10:10-19).<\/p>\n<p>Not only was the OT sacrificial system fulfilled; it was also finished by the unique, unrepeatable, and unlimited sacrifice of Christ. Having risen from the dead, he is a priest forever (Heb 7:17) and he remains the same yesterday and today and forever (13:8). Part of his high priesthood is to offer intercession for his people (7:25). He is the mediator of a new and better covenant (7:22; 8:6; 9:15). Only through him are sinful human beings able to enter the holy presence of God and be accepted as children of God (Jn 14:6; 2 Cor 5:18-20; 1 Tm 2:5). Therefore, whatever priesthood Christians have, they have it only in and through Christ, their high priest and Mediator.<\/p>\n<p>The NT (quoted from the <span>rsv<\/span>) describes believers as “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pt 2:5); “priests to his God and Father” (Rv 1:6); “a kingdom and priests to our God” (5:10); “priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years” (20:6).<\/p>\n<p>What, then, does the priesthood of all believers mean in the NT? The high priesthood of Christ may be defined as his complete dedication and obedience to God, his Father, and unlimited compassion for his fellow human beings. At the center is his sacrificial death on the cross. On this basis and in union with him, the priesthood of Christians is their sacrificial obedience to God; this involves spiritual worship and love of God and compassionate activity and prayer for their fellow human beings. Paul wrote, “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1, <span>rsv<\/span>). Each Christian offers his whole body to Christ and each local church offers itself wholly to Christ, and Christ offers his whole body (the church) to God the Father. Thus, in and by Christ, the priesthood of believers is exercised and made effectual. In the hearts of believers is the indwelling Spirit, and it is in his power that acceptable service and worship is offered. Christ is the pattern of priesthood as well as being high priest.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Tabernacle; Temple; Worship.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PRIESTHOOD<\/h3>\n<p>Office or function of a priest. The modern word “priest” (in French <em>prêtre<\/em> and in German <em>priester<\/em>) is used of a clergyman in episcopalian churches (Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican). It is also used in the description of the whole church as “a royal priesthood” (1 Pt 2:9). To ascertain how this usage arose and to see what priesthood means, it is necessary to look briefly at both biblical and theological developments.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the covenant made between God and Israel, the whole people was seen as a “kingdom of priests” and thus a holy people (Ex 19:6). Within this context, specific priestly activities belonged to three orders—high priest, priest, and Levite. “Priests” were male descendants of Aaron, who was a Levite (Nm 3:10), and “Levites” were other male members of the tribe of Levi. The chief functions of the priesthood took place in the temple. Priests looked after the ceremonial vessels and performed the sacrifices. In doing their duties they dressed in special, symbolic vestments. They were also teachers, passing on the sacred traditions of the nation as well as such matters as medical information (Lv 13–15). The high priest was the spiritual head of Israel and he had special functions, such as entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (ch 16). The Levites assisted the priests and served the congregation in the temple. They sang the psalms, kept the temple courts clean, helped to prepare certain sacrifices and offerings, and also had a teaching function. Through this threefold order, the priesthood of the nation was exercised. By it the people offered worship to God, made intercessions and petitions, and learned of God’s will. Thus what occurred in every pious home, as the head of the house guided his family in worship, occurred in a larger and more ceremonial way in the temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>It is remarkable that the term “priest” is never used in the NT of a minister or order in the church. Certainly the usage with reference to Judaism and paganism continues (Acts 4:1, 6; 14:13), but it is never introduced into the church. The Letter to the Hebrews presents the OT priesthood as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. First of all, he has been appointed high priest by God himself (Heb 5:4-6). Yet his is a superior priesthood to that of Aaron (ch 7). Second, being totally sympathetic to the needs of sinful people and tempted in all points like them, he is without sin (4:15; 7:26). Third, instead of offering animal sacrifices to take away sin, he offers himself, as the sinless Lamb, to take away sin. This is a perfect atonement (7:27; 9:24-28; 10:10-19).<\/p>\n<p>Not only was the OT sacrificial system fulfilled; it was also finished by the unique, unrepeatable, and unlimited sacrifice of Christ. Having risen from the dead, he is a priest forever (Heb 7:17) and he remains the same yesterday and today and forever (13:8). Part of his high priesthood is to offer intercession for his people (7:25). He is the mediator of a new and better covenant (7:22; 8:6; 9:15). Only through him are sinful human beings able to enter the holy presence of God and be accepted as children of God (Jn 14:6; 2 Cor 5:18-20; 1 Tm 2:5). Therefore, whatever priesthood Christians have, they have it only in and through Christ, their high priest and Mediator.<\/p>\n<p>The NT (quoted from the <span>rsv<\/span>) describes believers as “a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pt 2:5); “priests to his God and Father” (Rv 1:6); “a kingdom and priests to our God” (5:10); “priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years” (20:6).<\/p>\n<p>What, then, does the priesthood of all believers mean in the NT? The high priesthood of Christ may be defined as his complete dedication and obedience to God, his Father, and unlimited compassion for his fellow human beings. At the center is his sacrificial death on the cross. On this basis and in union with him, the priesthood of Christians is their sacrificial obedience to God; this involves spiritual worship and love of God and compassionate activity and prayer for their fellow human beings. Paul wrote, “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1, <span>rsv<\/span>). Each Christian offers his whole body to Christ and each local church offers itself wholly to Christ, and Christ offers his whole body (the church) to God the Father. Thus, in and by Christ, the priesthood of believers is exercised and made effectual. In the hearts of believers is the indwelling Spirit, and it is in his power that acceptable service and worship is offered. Christ is the pattern of priesthood as well as being high priest.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Tabernacle; Temple; Worship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PRIESTHOOD Office or function of a priest. The modern word “priest” (in French prêtre and in German priester) is used of a clergyman in episcopalian churches (Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican). It is also used in the description of the whole church as “a royal priesthood” (1 Pt 2:9). To ascertain how this usage arose and to see what priesthood means, it is necessary to look briefly at both biblical and theological developments. In the Old Testament In the covenant made between God and Israel, th...","summary_en":"PRIESTHOOD Office or function of a priest. The modern word “priest” (in French prêtre and in German priester) is used of a clergyman in episcopalian churches (Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican). It is also used in the description of the whole church as “a royal priesthood” (1 Pt 2:9). To ascertain how this usage arose and to see what priesthood means, it is necessary to look briefly at both biblical and theological developments. In the Old Testament In the covenant made between God and Israel, th...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31453,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Promise","title_en":"Promise","content_ro":"<h3>PROMISE<\/h3>\n<p>Declaration by one person to another that something will or will not be done, giving the person to whom it is made the right to expect the performance of whatever has been specified.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TypesofPromise\">Types of Promise<\/p>\n<p>In biblical usage there are scattered examples of promises that people give either to one another (e.g., Nm 22:17; Est 4:7) or to God (e.g., Neh 5:12), but the promises that God gives to man are far more significant. These divine promises are absolutely trustworthy because the one who gives them is totally able to perform that which he has promised (Rom 4:21).<\/p>\n<p>Divine promises in Scripture assure their recipients of many spiritual and temporal benefits, including sonship (2 Cor 6:16–7:1), forgiveness of sin (1 Jn 1:9), answer to prayer (Lk 11:9), deliverance from temptations (1 Cor 10:13), sustaining grace for difficult times (2 Cor 12:9), provision for all needs (Phil 4:19), reward for obedience (Jas 1:12), and eternal life (Lk 18:29-30; Jn 3:16; Rom 6:22-23). God’s promises are certain and sure, but participation in their blessing often requires that certain conditions on which they are predicated be met. Divine promises also are not always guarantees of blessing. Indeed, there are promises announcing the certainty of judgment on those who refuse to obey the gospel of the Lord Jesus (2 Thes 1:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the promises of God, which have subjective and individual application to many different people in widely different times and places, there are a great many promises that pertain to the programmatic unfolding of God’s plan of redemption in a grand procession of historical events. These promises have neither repeated applications nor conditional natures. In such cases, promise becomes nearly synonymous with prophecy, and promises of this type, along with their subsequent fulfillment, are intricately intertwined in the entire fabric of redemptive history.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PromisesintheOldTestament\">Promises in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The highlights of the promise theme in the OT can be seen in the promise of what is often termed the protevangelium (i.e., the first announcement of the gospel) given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden immediately after the fall into sin (Gn 3:15). Subsequent promises are the covenants God made with Abraham (chs 12; 15; 17) and with David (2 Sm 7), followed by the promise of a new covenant (Jer 31).<\/p>\n<h5>The Protevangelium<\/h5>\n<p>Genesis 3:15b says: “Your [Satan’s] offspring and her [Eve’s] offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (<span>nlt<\/span>). This statement is a promise that at some future time the offspring of the woman will crush Satan. The offspring of the woman is individualized in the “he” of the last phrase. “He” shall strike you (i.e., Satan) on the head, although Satan will inflict a wound on the offspring of the woman. Here, then, is the promise that gives Adam and Eve, as well as their descendants, the basis to expect the eventual destruction of their adversary Satan through their offspring.<\/p>\n<h5>The Promise to Abraham<\/h5>\n<p>In Genesis 12:1-7 Abraham is told to leave his people and country and to go to a land that the Lord would show to him. God, in turn, promises him that (1) his offspring would become a great nation; (2) he would be blessed and his name made great; (3) through him other nations would be blessed; and (4) the land of Canaan would be given to his descendants. Of particular significance among these promises given to Abraham is that through his offspring he will bless many nations. This promise is repeated five times in the book of Genesis (Gn 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14) and points back to the promise of Genesis 3:15 as well as forward to Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Promise to David<\/h5>\n<p>In 2 Samuel 7, God gave a promise to King David that his dynasty would endure forever (2 Sm 7:16; Ps 89:34-37). It is with this Davidic covenant that the promised line, which had previously run from Adam through Seth, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, is now narrowed to the royal line of the house of David. David is to be the ancestor of the Messiah-King to come (Ps 89:3, 27-37). David thus became a central figure in the history of God’s plan to redeem the world. Jesus Christ is referred to as the son of David, the son of Abraham (Mt 1:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Promise of a New Covenant<\/h5>\n<p>In Jeremiah 31:31-37, it is promised that in future days the Lord would make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The content of this new covenant reemphasizes and extends the basic promises of the former covenant: “I will be their God, and they will be my people. . . . I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins” (vv 33-34, <span>nlt<\/span>). It would appear that the “new covenant” of Jeremiah is to be viewed as a restatement of the same basic promises included in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant was inaugurated with the first advent of Christ, and believers in Christ are now recipients by the Holy Spirit of the blessings of that new covenant (Heb 8:6-13). The complete and final realization of these blessings in all their fullness awaits the return of Christ, the complete establishment of his kingdom in its outward and final form, and the blessedness of life in the new heavens and new earth. In the intervening time, God’s people live in a day in which some of the benefits of the age to come are a present reality but the fullness of the new age is yet future.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePromiseThemeintheNewTestament\">The Promise Theme in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>New Testament writers refer to the OT promises in a way that indicates that they did not view these promises as separate and isolated assertions but rather as portions of a unitary promise that is ultimately fulfilled in Christ (see Lk 1:54-55, 69-73; Acts 13:23, 32-33; 26:6-7; 2 Cor 1:20). Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises made to the patriarchs and David, and these promises are accordingly to be viewed as having a single focal point in him.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of Galatians and Ephesians, Paul develops this idea in more detail, saying to the Gentile Christians that they are made “heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph 3:6, <span>niv<\/span>). In fact, Paul says that Gentiles who trust in Christ are incorporated into the seed of Abraham and are thus heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29), and he even goes so far as to equate the gospel with the promise given to Abraham when he states, “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’ ” (Gal 3:8, <span>niv<\/span>). These and other NT texts establish the close connection between the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of the promise. The promises of God find their point of convergence in Christ and all that he accomplished, and will yet accomplish, for his people.<\/p>\n<p>One further aspect of the promise particularly emphasized in the NT concerns the coming of the Holy Spirit. Paul refers to believers as sealed with the promised Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13), and as receiving the promise of the Spirit (Gal 3:14). The gift of the Holy Spirit is not only the fulfillment of an OT promise (Is 32:15; Ez 36:27; Jl 2:28), and that of Christ himself (Lk 24:49; Jn 14:16, 20; Acts 1:4), but it is also itself a promise of something yet future. Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit’s presence within the believer as a guarantee of our inheritance (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14). The Holy Spirit is the “firstfruit” of future glory (Rom 8:23).<\/p>\n<p>One final aspect of the promise theme in the NT concerns the assurance of Christ’s second advent and the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth (cf. Jn 14:1-3; 2 Pt 3:4, 9, 13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant; God, Being and Attributes of; Hope; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROMISE<\/h3>\n<p>Declaration by one person to another that something will or will not be done, giving the person to whom it is made the right to expect the performance of whatever has been specified.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TypesofPromise\">Types of Promise<\/p>\n<p>In biblical usage there are scattered examples of promises that people give either to one another (e.g., Nm 22:17; Est 4:7) or to God (e.g., Neh 5:12), but the promises that God gives to man are far more significant. These divine promises are absolutely trustworthy because the one who gives them is totally able to perform that which he has promised (Rom 4:21).<\/p>\n<p>Divine promises in Scripture assure their recipients of many spiritual and temporal benefits, including sonship (2 Cor 6:16–7:1), forgiveness of sin (1 Jn 1:9), answer to prayer (Lk 11:9), deliverance from temptations (1 Cor 10:13), sustaining grace for difficult times (2 Cor 12:9), provision for all needs (Phil 4:19), reward for obedience (Jas 1:12), and eternal life (Lk 18:29-30; Jn 3:16; Rom 6:22-23). God’s promises are certain and sure, but participation in their blessing often requires that certain conditions on which they are predicated be met. Divine promises also are not always guarantees of blessing. Indeed, there are promises announcing the certainty of judgment on those who refuse to obey the gospel of the Lord Jesus (2 Thes 1:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the promises of God, which have subjective and individual application to many different people in widely different times and places, there are a great many promises that pertain to the programmatic unfolding of God’s plan of redemption in a grand procession of historical events. These promises have neither repeated applications nor conditional natures. In such cases, promise becomes nearly synonymous with prophecy, and promises of this type, along with their subsequent fulfillment, are intricately intertwined in the entire fabric of redemptive history.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PromisesintheOldTestament\">Promises in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The highlights of the promise theme in the OT can be seen in the promise of what is often termed the protevangelium (i.e., the first announcement of the gospel) given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden immediately after the fall into sin (Gn 3:15). Subsequent promises are the covenants God made with Abraham (chs 12; 15; 17) and with David (2 Sm 7), followed by the promise of a new covenant (Jer 31).<\/p>\n<h5>The Protevangelium<\/h5>\n<p>Genesis 3:15b says: “Your [Satan’s] offspring and her [Eve’s] offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (<span>nlt<\/span>). This statement is a promise that at some future time the offspring of the woman will crush Satan. The offspring of the woman is individualized in the “he” of the last phrase. “He” shall strike you (i.e., Satan) on the head, although Satan will inflict a wound on the offspring of the woman. Here, then, is the promise that gives Adam and Eve, as well as their descendants, the basis to expect the eventual destruction of their adversary Satan through their offspring.<\/p>\n<h5>The Promise to Abraham<\/h5>\n<p>In Genesis 12:1-7 Abraham is told to leave his people and country and to go to a land that the Lord would show to him. God, in turn, promises him that (1) his offspring would become a great nation; (2) he would be blessed and his name made great; (3) through him other nations would be blessed; and (4) the land of Canaan would be given to his descendants. Of particular significance among these promises given to Abraham is that through his offspring he will bless many nations. This promise is repeated five times in the book of Genesis (Gn 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14) and points back to the promise of Genesis 3:15 as well as forward to Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Promise to David<\/h5>\n<p>In 2 Samuel 7, God gave a promise to King David that his dynasty would endure forever (2 Sm 7:16; Ps 89:34-37). It is with this Davidic covenant that the promised line, which had previously run from Adam through Seth, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, is now narrowed to the royal line of the house of David. David is to be the ancestor of the Messiah-King to come (Ps 89:3, 27-37). David thus became a central figure in the history of God’s plan to redeem the world. Jesus Christ is referred to as the son of David, the son of Abraham (Mt 1:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Promise of a New Covenant<\/h5>\n<p>In Jeremiah 31:31-37, it is promised that in future days the Lord would make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The content of this new covenant reemphasizes and extends the basic promises of the former covenant: “I will be their God, and they will be my people. . . . I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins” (vv 33-34, <span>nlt<\/span>). It would appear that the “new covenant” of Jeremiah is to be viewed as a restatement of the same basic promises included in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant was inaugurated with the first advent of Christ, and believers in Christ are now recipients by the Holy Spirit of the blessings of that new covenant (Heb 8:6-13). The complete and final realization of these blessings in all their fullness awaits the return of Christ, the complete establishment of his kingdom in its outward and final form, and the blessedness of life in the new heavens and new earth. In the intervening time, God’s people live in a day in which some of the benefits of the age to come are a present reality but the fullness of the new age is yet future.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePromiseThemeintheNewTestament\">The Promise Theme in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>New Testament writers refer to the OT promises in a way that indicates that they did not view these promises as separate and isolated assertions but rather as portions of a unitary promise that is ultimately fulfilled in Christ (see Lk 1:54-55, 69-73; Acts 13:23, 32-33; 26:6-7; 2 Cor 1:20). Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises made to the patriarchs and David, and these promises are accordingly to be viewed as having a single focal point in him.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of Galatians and Ephesians, Paul develops this idea in more detail, saying to the Gentile Christians that they are made “heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph 3:6, <span>niv<\/span>). In fact, Paul says that Gentiles who trust in Christ are incorporated into the seed of Abraham and are thus heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29), and he even goes so far as to equate the gospel with the promise given to Abraham when he states, “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’ ” (Gal 3:8, <span>niv<\/span>). These and other NT texts establish the close connection between the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of the promise. The promises of God find their point of convergence in Christ and all that he accomplished, and will yet accomplish, for his people.<\/p>\n<p>One further aspect of the promise particularly emphasized in the NT concerns the coming of the Holy Spirit. Paul refers to believers as sealed with the promised Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13), and as receiving the promise of the Spirit (Gal 3:14). The gift of the Holy Spirit is not only the fulfillment of an OT promise (Is 32:15; Ez 36:27; Jl 2:28), and that of Christ himself (Lk 24:49; Jn 14:16, 20; Acts 1:4), but it is also itself a promise of something yet future. Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit’s presence within the believer as a guarantee of our inheritance (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14). The Holy Spirit is the “firstfruit” of future glory (Rom 8:23).<\/p>\n<p>One final aspect of the promise theme in the NT concerns the assurance of Christ’s second advent and the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth (cf. Jn 14:1-3; 2 Pt 3:4, 9, 13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant; God, Being and Attributes of; Hope; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROMISE Declaration by one person to another that something will or will not be done, giving the person to whom it is made the right to expect the performance of whatever has been specified. Types of Promise In biblical usage there are scattered examples of promises that people give either to one another (e.g., Nm 22:17; Est 4:7) or to God (e.g., Neh 5:12), but the promises that God gives to man are far more significant. These divine promises are absolutely trustworthy because the one who giv...","summary_en":"PROMISE Declaration by one person to another that something will or will not be done, giving the person to whom it is made the right to expect the performance of whatever has been specified. Types of Promise In biblical usage there are scattered examples of promises that people give either to one another (e.g., Nm 22:17; Est 4:7) or to God (e.g., Neh 5:12), but the promises that God gives to man are far more significant. These divine promises are absolutely trustworthy because the one who giv...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58823,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:6","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:6<\/strong> <em>the one who mediates:<\/em> A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the <em>covenant<\/em> relationship between people and God. • <em>a far better covenant with God:<\/em> See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is <em>based on better promises<\/em> (see 8:7-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:6<\/strong> <em>the one who mediates:<\/em> A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the <em>covenant<\/em> relationship between people and God. • <em>a far better covenant with God:<\/em> See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is <em>based on better promises<\/em> (see 8:7-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:6 the one who mediates: A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the covenant relationship between people and God. • a far better covenant with God: See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is based on better promises (see 8:7-13).","summary_en":"8:6 the one who mediates: A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the covenant relationship between people and God. • a far better covenant with God: See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is based on better promises (see 8:7-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86449,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:6","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:6<\/strong> <em>the one who mediates:<\/em> A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the <em>covenant<\/em> relationship between people and God. • <em>a far better covenant with God:<\/em> See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is <em>based on better promises<\/em> (see 8:7-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:6<\/strong> <em>the one who mediates:<\/em> A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the <em>covenant<\/em> relationship between people and God. • <em>a far better covenant with God:<\/em> See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is <em>based on better promises<\/em> (see 8:7-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:6 the one who mediates: A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the covenant relationship between people and God. • a far better covenant with God: See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is based on better promises (see 8:7-13).","summary_en":"8:6 the one who mediates: A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the covenant relationship between people and God. • a far better covenant with God: See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is based on better promises (see 8:7-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114075,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:6","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:6<\/strong> <em>the one who mediates:<\/em> A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the <em>covenant<\/em> relationship between people and God. • <em>a far better covenant with God:<\/em> See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is <em>based on better promises<\/em> (see 8:7-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:6<\/strong> <em>the one who mediates:<\/em> A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the <em>covenant<\/em> relationship between people and God. • <em>a far better covenant with God:<\/em> See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is <em>based on better promises<\/em> (see 8:7-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:6 the one who mediates: A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the covenant relationship between people and God. • a far better covenant with God: See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is based on better promises (see 8:7-13).","summary_en":"8:6 the one who mediates: A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the covenant relationship between people and God. • a far better covenant with God: See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is based on better promises (see 8:7-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141701,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:6","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:6<\/strong> <em>the one who mediates:<\/em> A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the <em>covenant<\/em> relationship between people and God. • <em>a far better covenant with God:<\/em> See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is <em>based on better promises<\/em> (see 8:7-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:6<\/strong> <em>the one who mediates:<\/em> A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the <em>covenant<\/em> relationship between people and God. • <em>a far better covenant with God:<\/em> See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is <em>based on better promises<\/em> (see 8:7-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:6 the one who mediates: A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the covenant relationship between people and God. • a far better covenant with God: See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is based on better promises (see 8:7-13).","summary_en":"8:6 the one who mediates: A mediator works with two parties to bring them to agreement. Christ’s work of sacrifice established the covenant relationship between people and God. • a far better covenant with God: See “The New Covenant” Theme Note. This covenant is better because it is based on better promises (see 8:7-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59846,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Covenants","title_en":"God’s Covenants","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Covenants<\/h3>\n<p><em>Covenant<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">berith<\/span>) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order and gave the rainbow as the sign of this commitment (Gen 9:1-17).<\/p>\n<p>God later established a covenant relationship with Abraham and his family; the sign of this covenant was circumcision (12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14). God’s covenant with Abraham promised descendants, land, rulers, and the blessing of all nations; these promises formed the basis for the covenants God later made with his people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai was a national covenant (Exod 19–24) whose sign was the Sabbath; it addressed how Israel would be the chosen people of God. This covenant took the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty, an ancient relationship established between a great king and loyal subjects (see study note on Exod 20:1–23:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai covenant was renewed in Deuteronomy and in Joshua 24:1-28. The renewal focused on God’s promise of land and how Israel would conduct itself while inhabiting the land. Through his covenant with Israel, God affirmed that he was their God and they were his people, a relationship that required their complete loyalty (Jer 11:4; 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 14:11). God, the great king, would bless and protect the nation Israel. Israel’s obligation was to keep God’s commands, decrees, and regulations (Exod 19:5, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut 30:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>God later formed a covenant with King David (2 Sam 7:5-16), which pertained to the line of kings promised to Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11).<\/p>\n<p>Years later, at a low point in Israel’s history, the prophet Jeremiah foretold a “new covenant” in Israel’s future (Jer 31:31-33), in which the ideals of the covenants with Abraham and Israel would finally be realized. Jeremiah’s prophecy found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 12:24). This new covenant provides the ultimate fulfillment of the previous promises that were made to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenants were motivated by God’s faithful love (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">khesed<\/span>), which enabled a relationship to continue between God and his people. God initiated this relationship, announced its conditions, and rewarded his people accordingly. These covenants were not rewards but divine gifts. God may exclude people from the covenant relationship (see Hos 1:9), but he will not break, revoke, or withdraw his covenants. If broken or annulled by the human parties, the covenant could be renewed only through a reapplication of God’s faithful love (Exod 34:6-9; Jer 31:31-33). But while God’s love preserves the relationship, his grace must not be mocked (Isa 54:7-10; 55:3; 61:8; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 6:7).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14; Exod 6:2-5; 19:1–24:18; Lev 26:1-46; Deut 7:7-15; 29:2-29; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1-8; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ezra 10:1-17; Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:31-34; 33:19-26; 34:12-20; Ezek 16:1-63; Luke 22:20; Gal 4:21-31; Eph 2:11-13; Heb 8:6-13; 10:11-18; 12:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Covenants<\/h3>\n<p><em>Covenant<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">berith<\/span>) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order and gave the rainbow as the sign of this commitment (Gen 9:1-17).<\/p>\n<p>God later established a covenant relationship with Abraham and his family; the sign of this covenant was circumcision (12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14). God’s covenant with Abraham promised descendants, land, rulers, and the blessing of all nations; these promises formed the basis for the covenants God later made with his people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai was a national covenant (Exod 19–24) whose sign was the Sabbath; it addressed how Israel would be the chosen people of God. This covenant took the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty, an ancient relationship established between a great king and loyal subjects (see study note on Exod 20:1–23:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai covenant was renewed in Deuteronomy and in Joshua 24:1-28. The renewal focused on God’s promise of land and how Israel would conduct itself while inhabiting the land. Through his covenant with Israel, God affirmed that he was their God and they were his people, a relationship that required their complete loyalty (Jer 11:4; 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 14:11). God, the great king, would bless and protect the nation Israel. Israel’s obligation was to keep God’s commands, decrees, and regulations (Exod 19:5, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut 30:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>God later formed a covenant with King David (2 Sam 7:5-16), which pertained to the line of kings promised to Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11).<\/p>\n<p>Years later, at a low point in Israel’s history, the prophet Jeremiah foretold a “new covenant” in Israel’s future (Jer 31:31-33), in which the ideals of the covenants with Abraham and Israel would finally be realized. Jeremiah’s prophecy found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 12:24). This new covenant provides the ultimate fulfillment of the previous promises that were made to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenants were motivated by God’s faithful love (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">khesed<\/span>), which enabled a relationship to continue between God and his people. God initiated this relationship, announced its conditions, and rewarded his people accordingly. These covenants were not rewards but divine gifts. God may exclude people from the covenant relationship (see Hos 1:9), but he will not break, revoke, or withdraw his covenants. If broken or annulled by the human parties, the covenant could be renewed only through a reapplication of God’s faithful love (Exod 34:6-9; Jer 31:31-33). But while God’s love preserves the relationship, his grace must not be mocked (Isa 54:7-10; 55:3; 61:8; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 6:7).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14; Exod 6:2-5; 19:1–24:18; Lev 26:1-46; Deut 7:7-15; 29:2-29; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1-8; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ezra 10:1-17; Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:31-34; 33:19-26; 34:12-20; Ezek 16:1-63; Luke 22:20; Gal 4:21-31; Eph 2:11-13; Heb 8:6-13; 10:11-18; 12:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Covenants Covenant (Hebrew berith) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible. The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order...","summary_en":"God’s Covenants Covenant (Hebrew berith) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible. The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65984,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Our Advocate","title_en":"Our Advocate","content_ro":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","summary_en":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67169,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s New Covenant","title_en":"God’s New Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>God’s New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our Father because he has enabled us to be adopted as his children (2 Cor 1:3; Gal 3:26–4:7). He is the faithful God whose Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the Messiah (2 Cor 1:18-22). And he is the author of reconciliation (5:18-21), as Christ became the means by which God won the sinful world back to himself. Jesus Christ became one with sinful humankind (see 8:9) and released God’s saving power and righteousness to restore the broken relationship between God and the world.<\/p>\n<p>Under the new covenant, God sends his Spirit to dwell among his people. The Spirit gives believers life, freedom, and the ability to conform to Christ (3:6, 17-18). The Spirit unites us to Christ and serves as the guarantee of our complete salvation in the resurrection (1:22; 5:1-5), when believers’ mortal bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:42-57). Paul gives a full account of this hope in 2 Cor 5:1-10. This will be the final outcome of the new covenant that God has established for his people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; Exod 19:3-6; 2 Sam 7:5-16; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Isa 59:20-21; 65:17-25; Jer 2:1–3:10; 31:31-34; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:23-32; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 4:4-6; Heb 8:6-13; 9:11-28; 10:1-25; 12:18-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our Father because he has enabled us to be adopted as his children (2 Cor 1:3; Gal 3:26–4:7). He is the faithful God whose Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the Messiah (2 Cor 1:18-22). And he is the author of reconciliation (5:18-21), as Christ became the means by which God won the sinful world back to himself. Jesus Christ became one with sinful humankind (see 8:9) and released God’s saving power and righteousness to restore the broken relationship between God and the world.<\/p>\n<p>Under the new covenant, God sends his Spirit to dwell among his people. The Spirit gives believers life, freedom, and the ability to conform to Christ (3:6, 17-18). The Spirit unites us to Christ and serves as the guarantee of our complete salvation in the resurrection (1:22; 5:1-5), when believers’ mortal bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:42-57). Paul gives a full account of this hope in 2 Cor 5:1-10. This will be the final outcome of the new covenant that God has established for his people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; Exod 19:3-6; 2 Sam 7:5-16; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Isa 59:20-21; 65:17-25; Jer 2:1–3:10; 31:31-34; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:23-32; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 4:4-6; Heb 8:6-13; 9:11-28; 10:1-25; 12:18-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s New Covenant God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us. In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our ...","summary_en":"God’s New Covenant God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us. In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67588,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Superiority of the Son","title_en":"The Superiority of the Son","content_ro":"<h3>The Superiority of the Son<\/h3>\n<p>The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s <em>person<\/em> is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than the angels” (1:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>In 1:5-14 and 2:5-18, the Son is shown to be superior to the angels. He has a unique relationship with the Father (1:5) and is the ruler, creator, and terminator of the created order (1:8-12). The angels have a status that is inferior to him, and they worship him (1:6-7). God the Father exalts him to the highest possible position of honor at his right hand (1:13; Ps 110:1), and he has authority over all things (Heb 2:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>In 3:1-6, the author builds on the hearers’ great respect for Moses to make the case for the even greater respect due the Son. Like Moses, the Son was faithful in his ministry to the people of God. Yet the Son deserves more glory and praise than Moses, for he is identified with God the Father and is the ultimate builder of God’s house (3:3-4). The Son is ultimately in charge of God’s people (3:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that focus on the superiority of the Son’s <em>ministry<\/em> are found primarily in 7:1–10:18. Through his superior high priesthood, Jesus has brought in a “better hope” (7:19), grounded in a “better covenant” (7:22), based on “better promises” (8:6), through which he performs a ministry “superior” to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:6). Christ’s ministry under the new covenant is a “better system” because of the superiority of his sacrifice (9:10, 23; see also 12:24). His ministry causes new-covenant believers to anticipate “better things” in terms of their inheritance (10:34), a “better . . . heavenly homeland” (11:16), and a “better life after the resurrection” (11:35). For new-covenant believers in Christ, God has something “better” that could only be anticipated by their old-covenant counterparts (11:40).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ps 110:1; Heb 1:1-14; 3:1-6; 7:1–10:18; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Superiority of the Son<\/h3>\n<p>The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s <em>person<\/em> is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than the angels” (1:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>In 1:5-14 and 2:5-18, the Son is shown to be superior to the angels. He has a unique relationship with the Father (1:5) and is the ruler, creator, and terminator of the created order (1:8-12). The angels have a status that is inferior to him, and they worship him (1:6-7). God the Father exalts him to the highest possible position of honor at his right hand (1:13; Ps 110:1), and he has authority over all things (Heb 2:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>In 3:1-6, the author builds on the hearers’ great respect for Moses to make the case for the even greater respect due the Son. Like Moses, the Son was faithful in his ministry to the people of God. Yet the Son deserves more glory and praise than Moses, for he is identified with God the Father and is the ultimate builder of God’s house (3:3-4). The Son is ultimately in charge of God’s people (3:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that focus on the superiority of the Son’s <em>ministry<\/em> are found primarily in 7:1–10:18. Through his superior high priesthood, Jesus has brought in a “better hope” (7:19), grounded in a “better covenant” (7:22), based on “better promises” (8:6), through which he performs a ministry “superior” to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:6). Christ’s ministry under the new covenant is a “better system” because of the superiority of his sacrifice (9:10, 23; see also 12:24). His ministry causes new-covenant believers to anticipate “better things” in terms of their inheritance (10:34), a “better . . . heavenly homeland” (11:16), and a “better life after the resurrection” (11:35). For new-covenant believers in Christ, God has something “better” that could only be anticipated by their old-covenant counterparts (11:40).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ps 110:1; Heb 1:1-14; 3:1-6; 7:1–10:18; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Superiority of the Son The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s person is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than th...","summary_en":"The Superiority of the Son The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s person is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87472,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Covenants","title_en":"God’s Covenants","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Covenants<\/h3>\n<p><em>Covenant<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">berith<\/span>) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order and gave the rainbow as the sign of this commitment (Gen 9:1-17).<\/p>\n<p>God later established a covenant relationship with Abraham and his family; the sign of this covenant was circumcision (12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14). God’s covenant with Abraham promised descendants, land, rulers, and the blessing of all nations; these promises formed the basis for the covenants God later made with his people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai was a national covenant (Exod 19–24) whose sign was the Sabbath; it addressed how Israel would be the chosen people of God. This covenant took the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty, an ancient relationship established between a great king and loyal subjects (see study note on Exod 20:1–23:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai covenant was renewed in Deuteronomy and in Joshua 24:1-28. The renewal focused on God’s promise of land and how Israel would conduct itself while inhabiting the land. Through his covenant with Israel, God affirmed that he was their God and they were his people, a relationship that required their complete loyalty (Jer 11:4; 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 14:11). God, the great king, would bless and protect the nation Israel. Israel’s obligation was to keep God’s commands, decrees, and regulations (Exod 19:5, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut 30:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>God later formed a covenant with King David (2 Sam 7:5-16), which pertained to the line of kings promised to Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11).<\/p>\n<p>Years later, at a low point in Israel’s history, the prophet Jeremiah foretold a “new covenant” in Israel’s future (Jer 31:31-33), in which the ideals of the covenants with Abraham and Israel would finally be realized. Jeremiah’s prophecy found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 12:24). This new covenant provides the ultimate fulfillment of the previous promises that were made to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenants were motivated by God’s faithful love (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">khesed<\/span>), which enabled a relationship to continue between God and his people. God initiated this relationship, announced its conditions, and rewarded his people accordingly. These covenants were not rewards but divine gifts. God may exclude people from the covenant relationship (see Hos 1:9), but he will not break, revoke, or withdraw his covenants. If broken or annulled by the human parties, the covenant could be renewed only through a reapplication of God’s faithful love (Exod 34:6-9; Jer 31:31-33). But while God’s love preserves the relationship, his grace must not be mocked (Isa 54:7-10; 55:3; 61:8; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 6:7).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14; Exod 6:2-5; 19:1–24:18; Lev 26:1-46; Deut 7:7-15; 29:2-29; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1-8; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ezra 10:1-17; Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:31-34; 33:19-26; 34:12-20; Ezek 16:1-63; Luke 22:20; Gal 4:21-31; Eph 2:11-13; Heb 8:6-13; 10:11-18; 12:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Covenants<\/h3>\n<p><em>Covenant<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">berith<\/span>) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order and gave the rainbow as the sign of this commitment (Gen 9:1-17).<\/p>\n<p>God later established a covenant relationship with Abraham and his family; the sign of this covenant was circumcision (12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14). God’s covenant with Abraham promised descendants, land, rulers, and the blessing of all nations; these promises formed the basis for the covenants God later made with his people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai was a national covenant (Exod 19–24) whose sign was the Sabbath; it addressed how Israel would be the chosen people of God. This covenant took the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty, an ancient relationship established between a great king and loyal subjects (see study note on Exod 20:1–23:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai covenant was renewed in Deuteronomy and in Joshua 24:1-28. The renewal focused on God’s promise of land and how Israel would conduct itself while inhabiting the land. Through his covenant with Israel, God affirmed that he was their God and they were his people, a relationship that required their complete loyalty (Jer 11:4; 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 14:11). God, the great king, would bless and protect the nation Israel. Israel’s obligation was to keep God’s commands, decrees, and regulations (Exod 19:5, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut 30:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>God later formed a covenant with King David (2 Sam 7:5-16), which pertained to the line of kings promised to Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11).<\/p>\n<p>Years later, at a low point in Israel’s history, the prophet Jeremiah foretold a “new covenant” in Israel’s future (Jer 31:31-33), in which the ideals of the covenants with Abraham and Israel would finally be realized. Jeremiah’s prophecy found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 12:24). This new covenant provides the ultimate fulfillment of the previous promises that were made to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenants were motivated by God’s faithful love (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">khesed<\/span>), which enabled a relationship to continue between God and his people. God initiated this relationship, announced its conditions, and rewarded his people accordingly. These covenants were not rewards but divine gifts. God may exclude people from the covenant relationship (see Hos 1:9), but he will not break, revoke, or withdraw his covenants. If broken or annulled by the human parties, the covenant could be renewed only through a reapplication of God’s faithful love (Exod 34:6-9; Jer 31:31-33). But while God’s love preserves the relationship, his grace must not be mocked (Isa 54:7-10; 55:3; 61:8; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 6:7).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14; Exod 6:2-5; 19:1–24:18; Lev 26:1-46; Deut 7:7-15; 29:2-29; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1-8; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ezra 10:1-17; Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:31-34; 33:19-26; 34:12-20; Ezek 16:1-63; Luke 22:20; Gal 4:21-31; Eph 2:11-13; Heb 8:6-13; 10:11-18; 12:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Covenants Covenant (Hebrew berith) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible. The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order...","summary_en":"God’s Covenants Covenant (Hebrew berith) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible. The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93610,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Our Advocate","title_en":"Our Advocate","content_ro":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","summary_en":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94795,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s New Covenant","title_en":"God’s New Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>God’s New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our Father because he has enabled us to be adopted as his children (2 Cor 1:3; Gal 3:26–4:7). He is the faithful God whose Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the Messiah (2 Cor 1:18-22). And he is the author of reconciliation (5:18-21), as Christ became the means by which God won the sinful world back to himself. Jesus Christ became one with sinful humankind (see 8:9) and released God’s saving power and righteousness to restore the broken relationship between God and the world.<\/p>\n<p>Under the new covenant, God sends his Spirit to dwell among his people. The Spirit gives believers life, freedom, and the ability to conform to Christ (3:6, 17-18). The Spirit unites us to Christ and serves as the guarantee of our complete salvation in the resurrection (1:22; 5:1-5), when believers’ mortal bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:42-57). Paul gives a full account of this hope in 2 Cor 5:1-10. This will be the final outcome of the new covenant that God has established for his people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; Exod 19:3-6; 2 Sam 7:5-16; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Isa 59:20-21; 65:17-25; Jer 2:1–3:10; 31:31-34; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:23-32; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 4:4-6; Heb 8:6-13; 9:11-28; 10:1-25; 12:18-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our Father because he has enabled us to be adopted as his children (2 Cor 1:3; Gal 3:26–4:7). He is the faithful God whose Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the Messiah (2 Cor 1:18-22). And he is the author of reconciliation (5:18-21), as Christ became the means by which God won the sinful world back to himself. Jesus Christ became one with sinful humankind (see 8:9) and released God’s saving power and righteousness to restore the broken relationship between God and the world.<\/p>\n<p>Under the new covenant, God sends his Spirit to dwell among his people. The Spirit gives believers life, freedom, and the ability to conform to Christ (3:6, 17-18). The Spirit unites us to Christ and serves as the guarantee of our complete salvation in the resurrection (1:22; 5:1-5), when believers’ mortal bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:42-57). Paul gives a full account of this hope in 2 Cor 5:1-10. This will be the final outcome of the new covenant that God has established for his people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; Exod 19:3-6; 2 Sam 7:5-16; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Isa 59:20-21; 65:17-25; Jer 2:1–3:10; 31:31-34; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:23-32; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 4:4-6; Heb 8:6-13; 9:11-28; 10:1-25; 12:18-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s New Covenant God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us. In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our ...","summary_en":"God’s New Covenant God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us. In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95214,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Superiority of the Son","title_en":"The Superiority of the Son","content_ro":"<h3>The Superiority of the Son<\/h3>\n<p>The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s <em>person<\/em> is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than the angels” (1:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>In 1:5-14 and 2:5-18, the Son is shown to be superior to the angels. He has a unique relationship with the Father (1:5) and is the ruler, creator, and terminator of the created order (1:8-12). The angels have a status that is inferior to him, and they worship him (1:6-7). God the Father exalts him to the highest possible position of honor at his right hand (1:13; Ps 110:1), and he has authority over all things (Heb 2:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>In 3:1-6, the author builds on the hearers’ great respect for Moses to make the case for the even greater respect due the Son. Like Moses, the Son was faithful in his ministry to the people of God. Yet the Son deserves more glory and praise than Moses, for he is identified with God the Father and is the ultimate builder of God’s house (3:3-4). The Son is ultimately in charge of God’s people (3:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that focus on the superiority of the Son’s <em>ministry<\/em> are found primarily in 7:1–10:18. Through his superior high priesthood, Jesus has brought in a “better hope” (7:19), grounded in a “better covenant” (7:22), based on “better promises” (8:6), through which he performs a ministry “superior” to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:6). Christ’s ministry under the new covenant is a “better system” because of the superiority of his sacrifice (9:10, 23; see also 12:24). His ministry causes new-covenant believers to anticipate “better things” in terms of their inheritance (10:34), a “better . . . heavenly homeland” (11:16), and a “better life after the resurrection” (11:35). For new-covenant believers in Christ, God has something “better” that could only be anticipated by their old-covenant counterparts (11:40).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ps 110:1; Heb 1:1-14; 3:1-6; 7:1–10:18; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Superiority of the Son<\/h3>\n<p>The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s <em>person<\/em> is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than the angels” (1:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>In 1:5-14 and 2:5-18, the Son is shown to be superior to the angels. He has a unique relationship with the Father (1:5) and is the ruler, creator, and terminator of the created order (1:8-12). The angels have a status that is inferior to him, and they worship him (1:6-7). God the Father exalts him to the highest possible position of honor at his right hand (1:13; Ps 110:1), and he has authority over all things (Heb 2:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>In 3:1-6, the author builds on the hearers’ great respect for Moses to make the case for the even greater respect due the Son. Like Moses, the Son was faithful in his ministry to the people of God. Yet the Son deserves more glory and praise than Moses, for he is identified with God the Father and is the ultimate builder of God’s house (3:3-4). The Son is ultimately in charge of God’s people (3:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that focus on the superiority of the Son’s <em>ministry<\/em> are found primarily in 7:1–10:18. Through his superior high priesthood, Jesus has brought in a “better hope” (7:19), grounded in a “better covenant” (7:22), based on “better promises” (8:6), through which he performs a ministry “superior” to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:6). Christ’s ministry under the new covenant is a “better system” because of the superiority of his sacrifice (9:10, 23; see also 12:24). His ministry causes new-covenant believers to anticipate “better things” in terms of their inheritance (10:34), a “better . . . heavenly homeland” (11:16), and a “better life after the resurrection” (11:35). For new-covenant believers in Christ, God has something “better” that could only be anticipated by their old-covenant counterparts (11:40).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ps 110:1; Heb 1:1-14; 3:1-6; 7:1–10:18; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Superiority of the Son The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s person is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than th...","summary_en":"The Superiority of the Son The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s person is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115098,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Covenants","title_en":"God’s Covenants","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Covenants<\/h3>\n<p><em>Covenant<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">berith<\/span>) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order and gave the rainbow as the sign of this commitment (Gen 9:1-17).<\/p>\n<p>God later established a covenant relationship with Abraham and his family; the sign of this covenant was circumcision (12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14). God’s covenant with Abraham promised descendants, land, rulers, and the blessing of all nations; these promises formed the basis for the covenants God later made with his people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai was a national covenant (Exod 19–24) whose sign was the Sabbath; it addressed how Israel would be the chosen people of God. This covenant took the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty, an ancient relationship established between a great king and loyal subjects (see study note on Exod 20:1–23:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai covenant was renewed in Deuteronomy and in Joshua 24:1-28. The renewal focused on God’s promise of land and how Israel would conduct itself while inhabiting the land. Through his covenant with Israel, God affirmed that he was their God and they were his people, a relationship that required their complete loyalty (Jer 11:4; 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 14:11). God, the great king, would bless and protect the nation Israel. Israel’s obligation was to keep God’s commands, decrees, and regulations (Exod 19:5, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut 30:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>God later formed a covenant with King David (2 Sam 7:5-16), which pertained to the line of kings promised to Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11).<\/p>\n<p>Years later, at a low point in Israel’s history, the prophet Jeremiah foretold a “new covenant” in Israel’s future (Jer 31:31-33), in which the ideals of the covenants with Abraham and Israel would finally be realized. Jeremiah’s prophecy found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 12:24). This new covenant provides the ultimate fulfillment of the previous promises that were made to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenants were motivated by God’s faithful love (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">khesed<\/span>), which enabled a relationship to continue between God and his people. God initiated this relationship, announced its conditions, and rewarded his people accordingly. These covenants were not rewards but divine gifts. God may exclude people from the covenant relationship (see Hos 1:9), but he will not break, revoke, or withdraw his covenants. If broken or annulled by the human parties, the covenant could be renewed only through a reapplication of God’s faithful love (Exod 34:6-9; Jer 31:31-33). But while God’s love preserves the relationship, his grace must not be mocked (Isa 54:7-10; 55:3; 61:8; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 6:7).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14; Exod 6:2-5; 19:1–24:18; Lev 26:1-46; Deut 7:7-15; 29:2-29; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1-8; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ezra 10:1-17; Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:31-34; 33:19-26; 34:12-20; Ezek 16:1-63; Luke 22:20; Gal 4:21-31; Eph 2:11-13; Heb 8:6-13; 10:11-18; 12:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Covenants<\/h3>\n<p><em>Covenant<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">berith<\/span>) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order and gave the rainbow as the sign of this commitment (Gen 9:1-17).<\/p>\n<p>God later established a covenant relationship with Abraham and his family; the sign of this covenant was circumcision (12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14). God’s covenant with Abraham promised descendants, land, rulers, and the blessing of all nations; these promises formed the basis for the covenants God later made with his people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai was a national covenant (Exod 19–24) whose sign was the Sabbath; it addressed how Israel would be the chosen people of God. This covenant took the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty, an ancient relationship established between a great king and loyal subjects (see study note on Exod 20:1–23:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai covenant was renewed in Deuteronomy and in Joshua 24:1-28. The renewal focused on God’s promise of land and how Israel would conduct itself while inhabiting the land. Through his covenant with Israel, God affirmed that he was their God and they were his people, a relationship that required their complete loyalty (Jer 11:4; 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 14:11). God, the great king, would bless and protect the nation Israel. Israel’s obligation was to keep God’s commands, decrees, and regulations (Exod 19:5, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut 30:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>God later formed a covenant with King David (2 Sam 7:5-16), which pertained to the line of kings promised to Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11).<\/p>\n<p>Years later, at a low point in Israel’s history, the prophet Jeremiah foretold a “new covenant” in Israel’s future (Jer 31:31-33), in which the ideals of the covenants with Abraham and Israel would finally be realized. Jeremiah’s prophecy found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 12:24). This new covenant provides the ultimate fulfillment of the previous promises that were made to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenants were motivated by God’s faithful love (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">khesed<\/span>), which enabled a relationship to continue between God and his people. God initiated this relationship, announced its conditions, and rewarded his people accordingly. These covenants were not rewards but divine gifts. God may exclude people from the covenant relationship (see Hos 1:9), but he will not break, revoke, or withdraw his covenants. If broken or annulled by the human parties, the covenant could be renewed only through a reapplication of God’s faithful love (Exod 34:6-9; Jer 31:31-33). But while God’s love preserves the relationship, his grace must not be mocked (Isa 54:7-10; 55:3; 61:8; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 6:7).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14; Exod 6:2-5; 19:1–24:18; Lev 26:1-46; Deut 7:7-15; 29:2-29; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1-8; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ezra 10:1-17; Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:31-34; 33:19-26; 34:12-20; Ezek 16:1-63; Luke 22:20; Gal 4:21-31; Eph 2:11-13; Heb 8:6-13; 10:11-18; 12:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Covenants Covenant (Hebrew berith) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible. The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order...","summary_en":"God’s Covenants Covenant (Hebrew berith) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible. The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121236,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Our Advocate","title_en":"Our Advocate","content_ro":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","summary_en":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122421,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s New Covenant","title_en":"God’s New Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>God’s New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our Father because he has enabled us to be adopted as his children (2 Cor 1:3; Gal 3:26–4:7). He is the faithful God whose Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the Messiah (2 Cor 1:18-22). And he is the author of reconciliation (5:18-21), as Christ became the means by which God won the sinful world back to himself. Jesus Christ became one with sinful humankind (see 8:9) and released God’s saving power and righteousness to restore the broken relationship between God and the world.<\/p>\n<p>Under the new covenant, God sends his Spirit to dwell among his people. The Spirit gives believers life, freedom, and the ability to conform to Christ (3:6, 17-18). The Spirit unites us to Christ and serves as the guarantee of our complete salvation in the resurrection (1:22; 5:1-5), when believers’ mortal bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:42-57). Paul gives a full account of this hope in 2 Cor 5:1-10. This will be the final outcome of the new covenant that God has established for his people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; Exod 19:3-6; 2 Sam 7:5-16; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Isa 59:20-21; 65:17-25; Jer 2:1–3:10; 31:31-34; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:23-32; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 4:4-6; Heb 8:6-13; 9:11-28; 10:1-25; 12:18-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our Father because he has enabled us to be adopted as his children (2 Cor 1:3; Gal 3:26–4:7). He is the faithful God whose Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the Messiah (2 Cor 1:18-22). And he is the author of reconciliation (5:18-21), as Christ became the means by which God won the sinful world back to himself. Jesus Christ became one with sinful humankind (see 8:9) and released God’s saving power and righteousness to restore the broken relationship between God and the world.<\/p>\n<p>Under the new covenant, God sends his Spirit to dwell among his people. The Spirit gives believers life, freedom, and the ability to conform to Christ (3:6, 17-18). The Spirit unites us to Christ and serves as the guarantee of our complete salvation in the resurrection (1:22; 5:1-5), when believers’ mortal bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:42-57). Paul gives a full account of this hope in 2 Cor 5:1-10. This will be the final outcome of the new covenant that God has established for his people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; Exod 19:3-6; 2 Sam 7:5-16; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Isa 59:20-21; 65:17-25; Jer 2:1–3:10; 31:31-34; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:23-32; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 4:4-6; Heb 8:6-13; 9:11-28; 10:1-25; 12:18-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s New Covenant God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us. In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our ...","summary_en":"God’s New Covenant God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us. In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122840,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Superiority of the Son","title_en":"The Superiority of the Son","content_ro":"<h3>The Superiority of the Son<\/h3>\n<p>The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s <em>person<\/em> is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than the angels” (1:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>In 1:5-14 and 2:5-18, the Son is shown to be superior to the angels. He has a unique relationship with the Father (1:5) and is the ruler, creator, and terminator of the created order (1:8-12). The angels have a status that is inferior to him, and they worship him (1:6-7). God the Father exalts him to the highest possible position of honor at his right hand (1:13; Ps 110:1), and he has authority over all things (Heb 2:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>In 3:1-6, the author builds on the hearers’ great respect for Moses to make the case for the even greater respect due the Son. Like Moses, the Son was faithful in his ministry to the people of God. Yet the Son deserves more glory and praise than Moses, for he is identified with God the Father and is the ultimate builder of God’s house (3:3-4). The Son is ultimately in charge of God’s people (3:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that focus on the superiority of the Son’s <em>ministry<\/em> are found primarily in 7:1–10:18. Through his superior high priesthood, Jesus has brought in a “better hope” (7:19), grounded in a “better covenant” (7:22), based on “better promises” (8:6), through which he performs a ministry “superior” to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:6). Christ’s ministry under the new covenant is a “better system” because of the superiority of his sacrifice (9:10, 23; see also 12:24). His ministry causes new-covenant believers to anticipate “better things” in terms of their inheritance (10:34), a “better . . . heavenly homeland” (11:16), and a “better life after the resurrection” (11:35). For new-covenant believers in Christ, God has something “better” that could only be anticipated by their old-covenant counterparts (11:40).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ps 110:1; Heb 1:1-14; 3:1-6; 7:1–10:18; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Superiority of the Son<\/h3>\n<p>The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s <em>person<\/em> is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than the angels” (1:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>In 1:5-14 and 2:5-18, the Son is shown to be superior to the angels. He has a unique relationship with the Father (1:5) and is the ruler, creator, and terminator of the created order (1:8-12). The angels have a status that is inferior to him, and they worship him (1:6-7). God the Father exalts him to the highest possible position of honor at his right hand (1:13; Ps 110:1), and he has authority over all things (Heb 2:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>In 3:1-6, the author builds on the hearers’ great respect for Moses to make the case for the even greater respect due the Son. Like Moses, the Son was faithful in his ministry to the people of God. Yet the Son deserves more glory and praise than Moses, for he is identified with God the Father and is the ultimate builder of God’s house (3:3-4). The Son is ultimately in charge of God’s people (3:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that focus on the superiority of the Son’s <em>ministry<\/em> are found primarily in 7:1–10:18. Through his superior high priesthood, Jesus has brought in a “better hope” (7:19), grounded in a “better covenant” (7:22), based on “better promises” (8:6), through which he performs a ministry “superior” to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:6). Christ’s ministry under the new covenant is a “better system” because of the superiority of his sacrifice (9:10, 23; see also 12:24). His ministry causes new-covenant believers to anticipate “better things” in terms of their inheritance (10:34), a “better . . . heavenly homeland” (11:16), and a “better life after the resurrection” (11:35). For new-covenant believers in Christ, God has something “better” that could only be anticipated by their old-covenant counterparts (11:40).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ps 110:1; Heb 1:1-14; 3:1-6; 7:1–10:18; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Superiority of the Son The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s person is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than th...","summary_en":"The Superiority of the Son The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s person is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142724,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Covenants","title_en":"God’s Covenants","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Covenants<\/h3>\n<p><em>Covenant<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">berith<\/span>) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order and gave the rainbow as the sign of this commitment (Gen 9:1-17).<\/p>\n<p>God later established a covenant relationship with Abraham and his family; the sign of this covenant was circumcision (12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14). God’s covenant with Abraham promised descendants, land, rulers, and the blessing of all nations; these promises formed the basis for the covenants God later made with his people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai was a national covenant (Exod 19–24) whose sign was the Sabbath; it addressed how Israel would be the chosen people of God. This covenant took the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty, an ancient relationship established between a great king and loyal subjects (see study note on Exod 20:1–23:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai covenant was renewed in Deuteronomy and in Joshua 24:1-28. The renewal focused on God’s promise of land and how Israel would conduct itself while inhabiting the land. Through his covenant with Israel, God affirmed that he was their God and they were his people, a relationship that required their complete loyalty (Jer 11:4; 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 14:11). God, the great king, would bless and protect the nation Israel. Israel’s obligation was to keep God’s commands, decrees, and regulations (Exod 19:5, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut 30:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>God later formed a covenant with King David (2 Sam 7:5-16), which pertained to the line of kings promised to Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11).<\/p>\n<p>Years later, at a low point in Israel’s history, the prophet Jeremiah foretold a “new covenant” in Israel’s future (Jer 31:31-33), in which the ideals of the covenants with Abraham and Israel would finally be realized. Jeremiah’s prophecy found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 12:24). This new covenant provides the ultimate fulfillment of the previous promises that were made to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenants were motivated by God’s faithful love (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">khesed<\/span>), which enabled a relationship to continue between God and his people. God initiated this relationship, announced its conditions, and rewarded his people accordingly. These covenants were not rewards but divine gifts. God may exclude people from the covenant relationship (see Hos 1:9), but he will not break, revoke, or withdraw his covenants. If broken or annulled by the human parties, the covenant could be renewed only through a reapplication of God’s faithful love (Exod 34:6-9; Jer 31:31-33). But while God’s love preserves the relationship, his grace must not be mocked (Isa 54:7-10; 55:3; 61:8; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 6:7).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14; Exod 6:2-5; 19:1–24:18; Lev 26:1-46; Deut 7:7-15; 29:2-29; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1-8; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ezra 10:1-17; Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:31-34; 33:19-26; 34:12-20; Ezek 16:1-63; Luke 22:20; Gal 4:21-31; Eph 2:11-13; Heb 8:6-13; 10:11-18; 12:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Covenants<\/h3>\n<p><em>Covenant<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">berith<\/span>) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order and gave the rainbow as the sign of this commitment (Gen 9:1-17).<\/p>\n<p>God later established a covenant relationship with Abraham and his family; the sign of this covenant was circumcision (12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14). God’s covenant with Abraham promised descendants, land, rulers, and the blessing of all nations; these promises formed the basis for the covenants God later made with his people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai was a national covenant (Exod 19–24) whose sign was the Sabbath; it addressed how Israel would be the chosen people of God. This covenant took the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty, an ancient relationship established between a great king and loyal subjects (see study note on Exod 20:1–23:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai covenant was renewed in Deuteronomy and in Joshua 24:1-28. The renewal focused on God’s promise of land and how Israel would conduct itself while inhabiting the land. Through his covenant with Israel, God affirmed that he was their God and they were his people, a relationship that required their complete loyalty (Jer 11:4; 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 14:11). God, the great king, would bless and protect the nation Israel. Israel’s obligation was to keep God’s commands, decrees, and regulations (Exod 19:5, 8; 24:3, 7; Deut 30:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>God later formed a covenant with King David (2 Sam 7:5-16), which pertained to the line of kings promised to Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11).<\/p>\n<p>Years later, at a low point in Israel’s history, the prophet Jeremiah foretold a “new covenant” in Israel’s future (Jer 31:31-33), in which the ideals of the covenants with Abraham and Israel would finally be realized. Jeremiah’s prophecy found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 12:24). This new covenant provides the ultimate fulfillment of the previous promises that were made to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenants were motivated by God’s faithful love (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">khesed<\/span>), which enabled a relationship to continue between God and his people. God initiated this relationship, announced its conditions, and rewarded his people accordingly. These covenants were not rewards but divine gifts. God may exclude people from the covenant relationship (see Hos 1:9), but he will not break, revoke, or withdraw his covenants. If broken or annulled by the human parties, the covenant could be renewed only through a reapplication of God’s faithful love (Exod 34:6-9; Jer 31:31-33). But while God’s love preserves the relationship, his grace must not be mocked (Isa 54:7-10; 55:3; 61:8; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 6:7).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; 17:9-14; Exod 6:2-5; 19:1–24:18; Lev 26:1-46; Deut 7:7-15; 29:2-29; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1-8; 2 Sam 7:5-16; Ezra 10:1-17; Isa 59:20-21; Jer 31:31-34; 33:19-26; 34:12-20; Ezek 16:1-63; Luke 22:20; Gal 4:21-31; Eph 2:11-13; Heb 8:6-13; 10:11-18; 12:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Covenants Covenant (Hebrew berith) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible. The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order...","summary_en":"God’s Covenants Covenant (Hebrew berith) means “bond”: A covenant is a binding relationship rooted in a commitment that includes promises and obligations. Whether between individuals (e.g., Gen 21:27), whole nations (e.g., Josh 9:15-18), or God and humans, the covenant relationship calls for faithfulness and makes peace and harmony possible. The covenant theme in the Old Testament begins with Noah, through whom God made a covenant with all of creation. God promised to uphold the created order...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148862,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Our Advocate","title_en":"Our Advocate","content_ro":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","summary_en":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150047,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s New Covenant","title_en":"God’s New Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>God’s New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our Father because he has enabled us to be adopted as his children (2 Cor 1:3; Gal 3:26–4:7). He is the faithful God whose Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the Messiah (2 Cor 1:18-22). And he is the author of reconciliation (5:18-21), as Christ became the means by which God won the sinful world back to himself. Jesus Christ became one with sinful humankind (see 8:9) and released God’s saving power and righteousness to restore the broken relationship between God and the world.<\/p>\n<p>Under the new covenant, God sends his Spirit to dwell among his people. The Spirit gives believers life, freedom, and the ability to conform to Christ (3:6, 17-18). The Spirit unites us to Christ and serves as the guarantee of our complete salvation in the resurrection (1:22; 5:1-5), when believers’ mortal bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:42-57). Paul gives a full account of this hope in 2 Cor 5:1-10. This will be the final outcome of the new covenant that God has established for his people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; Exod 19:3-6; 2 Sam 7:5-16; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Isa 59:20-21; 65:17-25; Jer 2:1–3:10; 31:31-34; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:23-32; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 4:4-6; Heb 8:6-13; 9:11-28; 10:1-25; 12:18-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our Father because he has enabled us to be adopted as his children (2 Cor 1:3; Gal 3:26–4:7). He is the faithful God whose Old Testament promises are fulfilled in the Messiah (2 Cor 1:18-22). And he is the author of reconciliation (5:18-21), as Christ became the means by which God won the sinful world back to himself. Jesus Christ became one with sinful humankind (see 8:9) and released God’s saving power and righteousness to restore the broken relationship between God and the world.<\/p>\n<p>Under the new covenant, God sends his Spirit to dwell among his people. The Spirit gives believers life, freedom, and the ability to conform to Christ (3:6, 17-18). The Spirit unites us to Christ and serves as the guarantee of our complete salvation in the resurrection (1:22; 5:1-5), when believers’ mortal bodies will be transformed into glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:42-57). Paul gives a full account of this hope in 2 Cor 5:1-10. This will be the final outcome of the new covenant that God has established for his people.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 9:1-17; 12:1-9; 15:1-21; Exod 19:3-6; 2 Sam 7:5-16; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Isa 59:20-21; 65:17-25; Jer 2:1–3:10; 31:31-34; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:23-32; 2 Cor 3:4-18; 4:4-6; Heb 8:6-13; 9:11-28; 10:1-25; 12:18-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s New Covenant God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us. In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our ...","summary_en":"God’s New Covenant God had promised to establish a new covenant with his people (Jer 31:31-34). This new covenant was initiated by Christ (see Luke 22:19-20), who removes the veil associated with the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Using the creation story of Genesis 1–2, Paul explains how the God of creation is also the God of the new creation (2 Cor 4:4-6; 5:17). God is now revealed in Christ, who brings God close to us. In the new covenant, God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is also our ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150466,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Superiority of the Son","title_en":"The Superiority of the Son","content_ro":"<h3>The Superiority of the Son<\/h3>\n<p>The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s <em>person<\/em> is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than the angels” (1:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>In 1:5-14 and 2:5-18, the Son is shown to be superior to the angels. He has a unique relationship with the Father (1:5) and is the ruler, creator, and terminator of the created order (1:8-12). The angels have a status that is inferior to him, and they worship him (1:6-7). God the Father exalts him to the highest possible position of honor at his right hand (1:13; Ps 110:1), and he has authority over all things (Heb 2:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>In 3:1-6, the author builds on the hearers’ great respect for Moses to make the case for the even greater respect due the Son. Like Moses, the Son was faithful in his ministry to the people of God. Yet the Son deserves more glory and praise than Moses, for he is identified with God the Father and is the ultimate builder of God’s house (3:3-4). The Son is ultimately in charge of God’s people (3:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that focus on the superiority of the Son’s <em>ministry<\/em> are found primarily in 7:1–10:18. Through his superior high priesthood, Jesus has brought in a “better hope” (7:19), grounded in a “better covenant” (7:22), based on “better promises” (8:6), through which he performs a ministry “superior” to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:6). Christ’s ministry under the new covenant is a “better system” because of the superiority of his sacrifice (9:10, 23; see also 12:24). His ministry causes new-covenant believers to anticipate “better things” in terms of their inheritance (10:34), a “better . . . heavenly homeland” (11:16), and a “better life after the resurrection” (11:35). For new-covenant believers in Christ, God has something “better” that could only be anticipated by their old-covenant counterparts (11:40).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ps 110:1; Heb 1:1-14; 3:1-6; 7:1–10:18; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Superiority of the Son<\/h3>\n<p>The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s <em>person<\/em> is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than the angels” (1:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>In 1:5-14 and 2:5-18, the Son is shown to be superior to the angels. He has a unique relationship with the Father (1:5) and is the ruler, creator, and terminator of the created order (1:8-12). The angels have a status that is inferior to him, and they worship him (1:6-7). God the Father exalts him to the highest possible position of honor at his right hand (1:13; Ps 110:1), and he has authority over all things (Heb 2:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>In 3:1-6, the author builds on the hearers’ great respect for Moses to make the case for the even greater respect due the Son. Like Moses, the Son was faithful in his ministry to the people of God. Yet the Son deserves more glory and praise than Moses, for he is identified with God the Father and is the ultimate builder of God’s house (3:3-4). The Son is ultimately in charge of God’s people (3:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that focus on the superiority of the Son’s <em>ministry<\/em> are found primarily in 7:1–10:18. Through his superior high priesthood, Jesus has brought in a “better hope” (7:19), grounded in a “better covenant” (7:22), based on “better promises” (8:6), through which he performs a ministry “superior” to that of the priests of the old covenant (8:6). Christ’s ministry under the new covenant is a “better system” because of the superiority of his sacrifice (9:10, 23; see also 12:24). His ministry causes new-covenant believers to anticipate “better things” in terms of their inheritance (10:34), a “better . . . heavenly homeland” (11:16), and a “better life after the resurrection” (11:35). For new-covenant believers in Christ, God has something “better” that could only be anticipated by their old-covenant counterparts (11:40).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ps 110:1; Heb 1:1-14; 3:1-6; 7:1–10:18; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Superiority of the Son The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s person is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than th...","summary_en":"The Superiority of the Son The author of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Son as to both his person and his ministry. The superiority of the Son’s person is presented primarily in 1:1–3:6. In the book’s introduction (1:1-4), the Son is presented as the creator, sustainer, and heir of the universe (1:2-3), one who “radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (1:3). He is the exalted one, who has achieved the cleansing of sins and has a status “far greater than th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":40523,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Melchizedek","title_en":"Melchizedek","content_ro":"<h3>Melchizedek<\/h3>\n<p>Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life.<\/p>\n<p>Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy. When Melchizedek gave Abraham bread, wine, and his blessing, he was acting as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), the true God who created heaven and earth (see Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly understood that Abraham worshiped the true God, and he praised God for giving victory to Abraham (Gen 14:19-20). Abraham received Melchizedek’s gifts and gave him a tithe, which demonstrated the prominence of Melchizedek (see Heb 7:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>While Genesis gives genealogies for many of its characters, Melchizedek appears suddenly without any such record, and he disappears just as quickly. Much later in Israel’s history, King David was perhaps reflecting on this when he said that the Messiah is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; cp. Heb 7:15-25). The book of Hebrews picks up on this notion that Melchizedek had no genealogical record and uses it to compare the temporary Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ. The book of Hebrews also explains that Melchizedek is remembered as “resembling the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), but was not himself the Son of God. His priesthood lasts forever as an archetype that prefigures the Messiah’s priesthood. Like Melchizedek (but unlike the kings of Israel), Jesus is a king who also fulfills priestly functions.<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek, a royal priest, was superior to Levi, the ancestor of Israel’s priests. In the same way, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is a better priest than the descendants of Aaron. Jesus provides permanent atonement for sins and direct access to his Father (Heb 7:24-28). He guides his people by the Spirit rather than by law (Heb 8:7-13) and lives forever as priest and king for those who trust in him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6-10; 6:20–7:28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Melchizedek<\/h3>\n<p>Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life.<\/p>\n<p>Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy. When Melchizedek gave Abraham bread, wine, and his blessing, he was acting as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), the true God who created heaven and earth (see Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly understood that Abraham worshiped the true God, and he praised God for giving victory to Abraham (Gen 14:19-20). Abraham received Melchizedek’s gifts and gave him a tithe, which demonstrated the prominence of Melchizedek (see Heb 7:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>While Genesis gives genealogies for many of its characters, Melchizedek appears suddenly without any such record, and he disappears just as quickly. Much later in Israel’s history, King David was perhaps reflecting on this when he said that the Messiah is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; cp. Heb 7:15-25). The book of Hebrews picks up on this notion that Melchizedek had no genealogical record and uses it to compare the temporary Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ. The book of Hebrews also explains that Melchizedek is remembered as “resembling the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), but was not himself the Son of God. His priesthood lasts forever as an archetype that prefigures the Messiah’s priesthood. Like Melchizedek (but unlike the kings of Israel), Jesus is a king who also fulfills priestly functions.<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek, a royal priest, was superior to Levi, the ancestor of Israel’s priests. In the same way, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is a better priest than the descendants of Aaron. Jesus provides permanent atonement for sins and direct access to his Father (Heb 7:24-28). He guides his people by the Spirit rather than by law (Heb 8:7-13) and lives forever as priest and king for those who trust in him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6-10; 6:20–7:28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Melchizedek Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life. Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the gr...","summary_en":"Melchizedek Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life. Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the gr...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68149,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Melchizedek","title_en":"Melchizedek","content_ro":"<h3>Melchizedek<\/h3>\n<p>Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life.<\/p>\n<p>Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy. When Melchizedek gave Abraham bread, wine, and his blessing, he was acting as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), the true God who created heaven and earth (see Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly understood that Abraham worshiped the true God, and he praised God for giving victory to Abraham (Gen 14:19-20). Abraham received Melchizedek’s gifts and gave him a tithe, which demonstrated the prominence of Melchizedek (see Heb 7:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>While Genesis gives genealogies for many of its characters, Melchizedek appears suddenly without any such record, and he disappears just as quickly. Much later in Israel’s history, King David was perhaps reflecting on this when he said that the Messiah is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; cp. Heb 7:15-25). The book of Hebrews picks up on this notion that Melchizedek had no genealogical record and uses it to compare the temporary Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ. The book of Hebrews also explains that Melchizedek is remembered as “resembling the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), but was not himself the Son of God. His priesthood lasts forever as an archetype that prefigures the Messiah’s priesthood. Like Melchizedek (but unlike the kings of Israel), Jesus is a king who also fulfills priestly functions.<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek, a royal priest, was superior to Levi, the ancestor of Israel’s priests. In the same way, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is a better priest than the descendants of Aaron. Jesus provides permanent atonement for sins and direct access to his Father (Heb 7:24-28). He guides his people by the Spirit rather than by law (Heb 8:7-13) and lives forever as priest and king for those who trust in him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6-10; 6:20–7:28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Melchizedek<\/h3>\n<p>Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life.<\/p>\n<p>Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy. When Melchizedek gave Abraham bread, wine, and his blessing, he was acting as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), the true God who created heaven and earth (see Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly understood that Abraham worshiped the true God, and he praised God for giving victory to Abraham (Gen 14:19-20). Abraham received Melchizedek’s gifts and gave him a tithe, which demonstrated the prominence of Melchizedek (see Heb 7:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>While Genesis gives genealogies for many of its characters, Melchizedek appears suddenly without any such record, and he disappears just as quickly. Much later in Israel’s history, King David was perhaps reflecting on this when he said that the Messiah is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; cp. Heb 7:15-25). The book of Hebrews picks up on this notion that Melchizedek had no genealogical record and uses it to compare the temporary Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ. The book of Hebrews also explains that Melchizedek is remembered as “resembling the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), but was not himself the Son of God. His priesthood lasts forever as an archetype that prefigures the Messiah’s priesthood. Like Melchizedek (but unlike the kings of Israel), Jesus is a king who also fulfills priestly functions.<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek, a royal priest, was superior to Levi, the ancestor of Israel’s priests. In the same way, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is a better priest than the descendants of Aaron. Jesus provides permanent atonement for sins and direct access to his Father (Heb 7:24-28). He guides his people by the Spirit rather than by law (Heb 8:7-13) and lives forever as priest and king for those who trust in him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6-10; 6:20–7:28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Melchizedek Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life. Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the gr...","summary_en":"Melchizedek Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life. Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the gr...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95775,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Melchizedek","title_en":"Melchizedek","content_ro":"<h3>Melchizedek<\/h3>\n<p>Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life.<\/p>\n<p>Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy. When Melchizedek gave Abraham bread, wine, and his blessing, he was acting as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), the true God who created heaven and earth (see Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly understood that Abraham worshiped the true God, and he praised God for giving victory to Abraham (Gen 14:19-20). Abraham received Melchizedek’s gifts and gave him a tithe, which demonstrated the prominence of Melchizedek (see Heb 7:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>While Genesis gives genealogies for many of its characters, Melchizedek appears suddenly without any such record, and he disappears just as quickly. Much later in Israel’s history, King David was perhaps reflecting on this when he said that the Messiah is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; cp. Heb 7:15-25). The book of Hebrews picks up on this notion that Melchizedek had no genealogical record and uses it to compare the temporary Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ. The book of Hebrews also explains that Melchizedek is remembered as “resembling the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), but was not himself the Son of God. His priesthood lasts forever as an archetype that prefigures the Messiah’s priesthood. Like Melchizedek (but unlike the kings of Israel), Jesus is a king who also fulfills priestly functions.<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek, a royal priest, was superior to Levi, the ancestor of Israel’s priests. In the same way, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is a better priest than the descendants of Aaron. Jesus provides permanent atonement for sins and direct access to his Father (Heb 7:24-28). He guides his people by the Spirit rather than by law (Heb 8:7-13) and lives forever as priest and king for those who trust in him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6-10; 6:20–7:28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Melchizedek<\/h3>\n<p>Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life.<\/p>\n<p>Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy. When Melchizedek gave Abraham bread, wine, and his blessing, he was acting as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), the true God who created heaven and earth (see Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly understood that Abraham worshiped the true God, and he praised God for giving victory to Abraham (Gen 14:19-20). Abraham received Melchizedek’s gifts and gave him a tithe, which demonstrated the prominence of Melchizedek (see Heb 7:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>While Genesis gives genealogies for many of its characters, Melchizedek appears suddenly without any such record, and he disappears just as quickly. Much later in Israel’s history, King David was perhaps reflecting on this when he said that the Messiah is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; cp. Heb 7:15-25). The book of Hebrews picks up on this notion that Melchizedek had no genealogical record and uses it to compare the temporary Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ. The book of Hebrews also explains that Melchizedek is remembered as “resembling the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), but was not himself the Son of God. His priesthood lasts forever as an archetype that prefigures the Messiah’s priesthood. Like Melchizedek (but unlike the kings of Israel), Jesus is a king who also fulfills priestly functions.<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek, a royal priest, was superior to Levi, the ancestor of Israel’s priests. In the same way, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is a better priest than the descendants of Aaron. Jesus provides permanent atonement for sins and direct access to his Father (Heb 7:24-28). He guides his people by the Spirit rather than by law (Heb 8:7-13) and lives forever as priest and king for those who trust in him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6-10; 6:20–7:28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Melchizedek Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life. Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the gr...","summary_en":"Melchizedek Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life. Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the gr...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123401,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Melchizedek","title_en":"Melchizedek","content_ro":"<h3>Melchizedek<\/h3>\n<p>Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life.<\/p>\n<p>Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy. When Melchizedek gave Abraham bread, wine, and his blessing, he was acting as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), the true God who created heaven and earth (see Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly understood that Abraham worshiped the true God, and he praised God for giving victory to Abraham (Gen 14:19-20). Abraham received Melchizedek’s gifts and gave him a tithe, which demonstrated the prominence of Melchizedek (see Heb 7:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>While Genesis gives genealogies for many of its characters, Melchizedek appears suddenly without any such record, and he disappears just as quickly. Much later in Israel’s history, King David was perhaps reflecting on this when he said that the Messiah is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; cp. Heb 7:15-25). The book of Hebrews picks up on this notion that Melchizedek had no genealogical record and uses it to compare the temporary Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ. The book of Hebrews also explains that Melchizedek is remembered as “resembling the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), but was not himself the Son of God. His priesthood lasts forever as an archetype that prefigures the Messiah’s priesthood. Like Melchizedek (but unlike the kings of Israel), Jesus is a king who also fulfills priestly functions.<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek, a royal priest, was superior to Levi, the ancestor of Israel’s priests. In the same way, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is a better priest than the descendants of Aaron. Jesus provides permanent atonement for sins and direct access to his Father (Heb 7:24-28). He guides his people by the Spirit rather than by law (Heb 8:7-13) and lives forever as priest and king for those who trust in him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6-10; 6:20–7:28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Melchizedek<\/h3>\n<p>Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life.<\/p>\n<p>Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy. When Melchizedek gave Abraham bread, wine, and his blessing, he was acting as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18), the true God who created heaven and earth (see Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly understood that Abraham worshiped the true God, and he praised God for giving victory to Abraham (Gen 14:19-20). Abraham received Melchizedek’s gifts and gave him a tithe, which demonstrated the prominence of Melchizedek (see Heb 7:4-10).<\/p>\n<p>While Genesis gives genealogies for many of its characters, Melchizedek appears suddenly without any such record, and he disappears just as quickly. Much later in Israel’s history, King David was perhaps reflecting on this when he said that the Messiah is “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4; cp. Heb 7:15-25). The book of Hebrews picks up on this notion that Melchizedek had no genealogical record and uses it to compare the temporary Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Christ. The book of Hebrews also explains that Melchizedek is remembered as “resembling the Son of God” (Heb 7:3), but was not himself the Son of God. His priesthood lasts forever as an archetype that prefigures the Messiah’s priesthood. Like Melchizedek (but unlike the kings of Israel), Jesus is a king who also fulfills priestly functions.<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek, a royal priest, was superior to Levi, the ancestor of Israel’s priests. In the same way, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is a better priest than the descendants of Aaron. Jesus provides permanent atonement for sins and direct access to his Father (Heb 7:24-28). He guides his people by the Spirit rather than by law (Heb 8:7-13) and lives forever as priest and king for those who trust in him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 14:17-20; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6-10; 6:20–7:28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Melchizedek Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life. Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the gr...","summary_en":"Melchizedek Melchizedek is a mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” He was a Canaanite priest and king; there is no record of his family or of the beginning or end of his life. Abraham met Melchizedek after defeating four Mesopotamian kings. The Mesopotamians had raided Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 14:1-16). When Abraham returned from battle, Melchizedek, king of Salem (=Jerusalem; see Ps 76:2 and footnote there), was with the gr...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4653,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Bible*, Canon","title_en":"of the Bible*, Canon","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, C<span>anon of the<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer form a canon of Greek literature, so the NT books became the canon of Christian literature. The criteria for selecting the books in the Jewish canon (the OT) are not known but clearly had to do with their worth in the ongoing life and religion of the worshiping nation. The criteria of the selection of NT books revolved around their “apostolicity,” according to early church writers. Like those of the OT, these books were collected and preserved by local churches in the continuing process of their worship and need for authoritative guidance for Christian living. The formation of the canon was a process, rather than an event, that took several hundred years to reach finality in all parts of the Roman Empire. Local canons were the basis for comparison, and out of them eventually emerged the general canon that exists in Christendom today, although some of the Eastern churches have a NT that is slightly smaller than that accepted in the West. Judaism, as well as Christianity as a whole, believes that the Spirit of God was operative in some providential way in the production and preservation of his Word.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheOldTestament\">Canon of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament is a name that does not appear in Jewish literature. Jews prefer to call their collection of Scriptures the TANAK—an acronym formed from the first letters of <em>Torah<\/em> (Law), <em>Nevi<\/em><em>’<\/em><em>im<\/em> (Prophets), and <em>Kethubim<\/em> (Writings). In Luke 24:44 (<span>niv<\/span>), these are called the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (the first book of the Writings in the Hebrew Bible). Christians called their collection of writings the New Testament, or covenant, the latter term being a designation earlier used of the agreement God made with Abraham and the patriarchs, which was repeated by Christ to his apostles (Mt 26:28). Christians in the first century considered their new covenant from Christ (1 Cor 11:25) to be a continuation of the one made earlier with the patriarchs (Eph 2:12), spoken of by the prophets (Jer 31:31-34), and which was therefore called a former covenant (Heb 8:7-13; 9:1, 15-22) or in later centuries the OT. The terms “Old” and “New” do not appear in the apostolic fathers of the first and second century or in the apologists of the early- to mid-second century, but they do appear in the latter half of the second century in Justin Martyr (<em>Dialogues<\/em> 11:2), Irenaeus (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 4.9.1), and Clement of Alexandria (<em>Stromata<\/em> 1:5). In these authors the expression referred more to the covenant itself than to the books containing it, though the transfer was eventually made. The term “canon” was not used in the OT or NT to refer to the Jewish Scriptures. The idea of limitation inherent in the word was not appropriate to the nature of religious authority in Jewish religion during the thousand years when the OT books were being written. Only the Torah was conceived as incapable of being added to or taken from (Dt 4:2). Jewish religion existed for a millennium, from Moses to Malachi, without a closed canon, i.e., an exclusive list of authoritative books. Never in their history did the people of the OT have the entire 39 books of the OT. When their canon was closed is not known. Although some questions were being asked about religious authority by rabbis at Jamnia 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, we have our first list of 39 books produced by Melito of Sardis around <span>AD<\/span> 170. That list included no books written after the time of Malachi, unless one is disposed to date Daniel to the second century. The Prophets and the Writings were always considered secondary to the Law. Their composition and collection was a process rather than an event in the life of the people of Israel and functioned largely as a record of the nation’s response to the Law, which was so sacred that it was kept (according to rabbinical tradition: Babylonian Talmud, <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 14a; cf. also <em>Cairo Damascus Document<\/em> 5.2) in the ark of the covenant that stood in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle. In Deuteronomy 31:26, however, the Levites were commanded by Moses merely to put the Book of the Law beside the ark. Nevertheless, its very presence in the Holy of Holies establishes its uniqueness in relation to other OT books.<\/p>\n\n<p>The 39 books of the modern OT were originally divided into only 24, according to the uniform testimony of early Hebrew tradition. The Talmud, rabbinic literature, and probably 4 Esdras testify to this arrangement that included five books of the Law, eight Prophets, and eleven Writings (Greek—Hagiographa). Modern Hebrew Bibles reflect this tripartite arrangement that was used in the first three printed editions (Soncino, 1488; Naples, 1491–1493; Brescia, 1492–1494). The Law contained the Pentateuch in our familiar order, Genesis to Deuteronomy. The eight Prophets were Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 and 2), Kings (1 and 2), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (all 12), which were considered as one book and arranged in the same order as our English Bibles. The eleven books of Writings contained three of poetry (Ps, Prv, Jb), the Five Scrolls (Sg, Ru, Lam, Eccl, Est), which were read at the important feasts and arranged in the chronological order of their observance, and three of narrative or historical (Dn, Ezr-Neh, 1 and 2 Chr).<\/p>\n<p>Apart from authentic Jewish tradition, efforts were made to divide the books into 21, combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. Josephus was the first to do so, in the first century <span>AD<\/span>, but he was influenced by the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Origen observed in the early third century that this arrangement also corresponded to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, as did Athanasius in the fourth, and others, including Jerome. It was dubiously concluded that the number of books in the Hebrew Bible had been divinely ordained to agree with the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet! Church fathers added their support to this coincidence, which became providence to them. All such efforts, however, are of Greek origin and have no support in Hebrew tradition.<\/p>\n<p>The oldest extant manuscripts of the complete OT in Hebrew are the Masoretic Texts, which are no earlier than the eighth century <span>AD<\/span>. Only manuscripts of individual books have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic scribes apparently laid down no rules about arrangement of books because there is no uniform order of the Latter Prophets or the Writings in early Hebrew manuscripts. Nor is the situation any different in ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew. Great diversity exists in the order of books in all three of our oldest manuscripts—Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. All the early Christian authors who profess to give the order and contents of the Hebrew Bible but who do not reflect the Hebrew tripartite division are clearly dependent on the Alexandrian order reflected in these Greek editions, rather than on the Hebrew Bible. Modern Protestant Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate and the content of the Hebrew. Both the Vulgate and the Septuagint (Greek translation) contained the Apocrypha, which was never accepted by the Jews. The Roman Catholic Church includes the Apocrypha in its English translations because of the influence of the Vulgate on Catholic tradition. It is considered deuterocanonical.<\/p>\n<p>Even though no uniformity of order was maintained, the Alexandrian order, reflected in the Greek manuscripts, generally arranged books according to their subject matter—narrative, history, poetry, and prophecy, with the apocryphal books appropriately interspersed into these categories. The Hebrew division was totally ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Early Hebrew Bibles divided the text into small paragraphs and larger sections somewhat akin to our paragraphs. These were indicated by spaces left between them—three letters between the small sections and nine letters between the larger ones. The number of sections is not the same in all manuscripts. Jesus probably referred to such sections in his comment concerning the “passage about the bush” (Mk 12:26). Later, liturgical needs led to further divisions of the text for the complete reading of the Law in Babylonian synagogues in one year (54 sections) and in Palestinian synagogues in three years (154 sections). These are reflected in the lectionary cycles marked in some early Hebrew Bibles.<\/p>\n<p>The division of the text into modern chapters, done in the 13th century (c. 1228) for the Latin Vulgate by Stephen Langton, was applied to the Hebrew Bible in 1518 (Bomberg Edition), but the numbers were not given to the chapters until 1571 in the text of Montanus, a Hebrew Bible with Latin interlinear translation. The verses were introduced in Bomberg’s Great Bible of 1547–48 in which every fifth verse was designated by a Hebrew numeral 1, 5, 10, and so on. Verses were inserted into the Latin Vulgate in 1555 in the small octavo edition of Stephanus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheNewTestament\">Canon of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT was written within the period of half a century, several hundred years after the completion of the OT. Both halves of that statement would be questioned by modern critics, who would extend the time span for completion of both Testaments. The writer of this survey is confident of its truthfulness to historic fact, however, and the approach taken to canonization of both OT and NT is based solidly upon that twofold premise.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, we possess far higher certification of the OT canon than of the NT canon. We refer to the fact of our Lord’s own imprimatur by way of his use of the Hebrew Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. Yet there is a sense in which Jesus Christ did establish the NT content or canon as well, by way of anticipation. It was he who promised, “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” and “he will guide you into all truth” (Jn 14:26; 16:13, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>From this we can derive, in turn, the basic principle of canonicity for the NT. It is identical to that of the OT, since it narrows down to a matter of divine inspiration. Whether we think of the prophets of OT times or the apostles and their God-given associates of the New, the recognition at the very time of their writing that they were authentic spokesmen for God is what determines the intrinsic canonicity of their writing. It is altogether God’s Word only if it is God-breathed. We can be assured that the books under question were received by the church of the apostolic age precisely when they had been certified by an apostle as being thus inspired. The apparent variation, relative to geographic area, in acknowledgment of some of the NT epistles may well reflect the simple fact that this attestation was by its very nature localized at first. Conversely, that all 27 books of the now universally received NT were ultimately agreed upon is evidence that proper attestation was indeed confirmed after rigorous investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Tertullian, an outstanding Christian writer in the first two decades of the third century, was one of the first to call the Christian Scriptures the “New Testament.” That title had appeared earlier (c. 190) in a composition against Montanism, the author of which is unknown. This is significant. Its use placed the NT Scripture on a level of inspiration and authority with the OT.<\/p>\n<p>From available information, the gradual process that led to full and formal public recognition of a fixed canon of the 27 books comprising the NT takes us down into the fourth century of our era. This does not necessarily mean that these Scriptures were lacking recognition in their entirety before that time, but that a need for officially defining the canon was not pressing until then.<\/p>\n<p>Though a much shorter period of time was involved in the writing of the NT than the OT, the geographic range of its origin is far wider. This circumstance alone is sufficient to account for a lack of spontaneous or simultaneous recognition of the precise extent of the NT canon. Because of the geographic isolation of the various recipients of portions of the NT, there was bound to be some lag and uncertainty from one region to another in the acknowledgment of some of the books.<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate just what did transpire in the process of canonization of the NT books, we must review the facts available to us. This will enable us to analyze <em>how<\/em> and <em>why<\/em> our early Christian forebears settled upon the 27 books in our NT.<\/p>\n<p>The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and a half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:<\/p>\n<p>1. First Century<\/p>\n<li>2. First Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>3. Second Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>4. Third Century<\/li>\n<li>5. Fourth Century<\/li>\n<p>Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice the major trends observable in each of the periods just identified. In the first period, of course, the various books were written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the churches. In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative. By the end of the third period, they held a recognized place alongside the OT as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries. During the third century <span>AD<\/span>, our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process that was separating them from other Christian literature. The final, or fifth, period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached that indicate acceptance by the whole church. Thus, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals that produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Period One: First Century<\/h5>\n<p>The principle determining recognition of the authority of the canonical NT writings was established within the content of those writings themselves. There are repeated exhortations for public reading of the apostolic communications. At the close of his First Letter to the Thessalonians, possibly the first book of the NT to be written, Paul says, “I command you in the name of the Lord to read this letter to all the brothers and sisters” (1 Thes 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span>). Earlier in the same letter Paul commends their ready acceptance of his spoken word as “the word of God” (2:13), and in 1 Corinthians 14:37 he speaks similarly of his “writings,” insisting that his message be recognized as a commandment from the Lord himself. (See also Col 4:16; Rv 1:3.) In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters are included with “the other Scriptures.” Since Peter’s is a general letter, widespread knowledge of Paul’s letters is thereby implied. Highly indicative also is Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 5:18. He follows up the formula “the Scriptures say” by a combined quotation about not muzzling an ox (Dt 25:4) and “the worker deserves his wages” (cf. Lk 10:7). Thus, an equivalence is implied between OT Scripture and a NT Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 95, Clement of Rome wrote to the Christians in Corinth using a free rendering of material from Matthew and Luke. He seems to be strongly influenced by Hebrews and is obviously familiar with Romans and Corinthians. There are also reflections of Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Two: First Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest NT manuscripts yet discovered, a fragment of John from Egypt known as the John Rylands papyrus, demonstrates how the writings of the apostle John were revered and copied by about <span>AD<\/span> 125, within 30 to 35 years of his death. There is evidence that within 30 years of the apostle’s death all the Gospels and Pauline letters were known and used in all those centers from which any evidence has come down to us. It is true that some of the smaller letters were being questioned as to their authority in some quarters for perhaps another 50 years, but this was due only to uncertainty about their authorship in those particular locales. This demonstrates that acceptance was not being imposed by the actions of councils but was rather happening spontaneously through a normal response on the part of those who had learned the facts about authorship. In those places where the churches were uncertain about the authorship or apostolic approval of certain books, acceptance was slower.<\/p>\n<p>The first three outstanding church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, used the bulk of the material of the NT in a revealingly casual manner—authenticated Scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In the writings of these men only Mark (which closely parallels the material of Matthew), 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude are not clearly attested.<\/p>\n<p>The Epistles of Ignatius (c. <span>AD<\/span> 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters. The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve), perhaps even earlier, makes references to a written Gospel. Most important is the fact that Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.<\/p>\n<p>It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this, Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4). Then Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130–140), in a work preserved for us by Eusebius, mentions by name the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and his use of them as the basis of exposition indicates his acceptance of them as canonical. Also around <span>AD<\/span> 140, the recently discovered Gospel of Truth (a Gnostic-oriented work probably authored by Valentinius) makes an important contribution. Its use of canonical NT sources, treating them as authoritative, is comprehensive enough to warrant the conclusion that in Rome at this period there was a NT compilation in existence corresponding very closely to our own. Citations are made from the Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The heretic Marcion, by defining a limited canon of his own (c. 140), in effect hastened the day when the orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue. Rejecting the entire OT, Marcion settled for Luke’s Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 and 2 as too Jewish) and Paul’s letters (except for the pastoral ones). Interestingly, especially in the light of Colossians 4:16, he substitutes the name “Laodiceans” for Ephesians.<\/p>\n<p>Near the end of this period, Justin Martyr, in describing the worship services of the early church, puts the apostolic writings on a par with those of the OT prophets. He states that the voice which spoke through the apostles of Christ in the NT was the same as that which spoke through the prophets—the voice of God—and the same voice that Abraham heard, responding in faith and obedience. Justin was also free in his use of “it is written” with quotations from NT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Three: Second Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>Irenaeus had been privileged to begin his Christian training under Polycarp, a disciple of apostles. Then, as a presbyter in Lyons, he had association with Bishop Pothinus, whose own background also included contact with firstgeneration Christians. Irenaeus quotes from almost all the NT on the basis of its authority and asserts that the apostles were endowed with power from on high. They were, he says, “fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge . . . having indeed all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of God” (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 3.3). Irenaeus gives reasons why there should be four Gospels. “The word,” he says, “gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit.” In addition to the Gospels, he makes reference also to Acts, all the letters of Paul except Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the four Gospels, the <em>Diatessaron,<\/em> attesting to the equal status they had in the church by <span>AD<\/span> 170. Other “gospels” had come into existence by then, but he recognized only the four. Also dating from about 170 was the <em>Muratorian Canon.<\/em> An eighth-century copy of this document was discovered and published in 1740 by librarian L. A. Muratori. The manuscript is mutilated at both ends, but the remaining text makes it evident that Matthew and Mark were included in the now missing part. The fragment begins with Luke and John, cites Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. There follows a statement, “We accept only the Apocalypse of John and Peter, although some of us do not want it [Apocalypse of Peter is 2 Peter?] to be read in the Church.” The list goes on to reject by name various heretical leaders and their writings.<\/p>\n<p>Translated versions existed by this period. In the form of Syriac and Old Latin translations we secure, by <span>AD<\/span> 170, adequate witness from the extreme eastern and western branches of the church, as we might well expect from the other evidence in hand. The NT canon is represented with no additions and the omission of only one book, 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Four: Third Century<\/h5>\n<p>The outstanding Christian name of the third century is that of Origen (<span>AD<\/span> 185– 254). A prodigious scholar and interpreter, he made critical studies of the NT text (alongside his work on the <em>Hexapla<\/em>) and wrote commentaries and homilies on most of the books of the NT, emphasizing their inspiration by God.<\/p>\n<p>Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil of Origen, indicates that while the Western church accepted the book of Revelation from the first, its position in the East was variable. In the case of the Letter to the Hebrews, the situation was reversed. It proved to be more insecure in the West than in the East. When it comes to other contested books (note, incidently, that all in that category have the hindmost position in our present Bibles—Hebrews to Revelation), among the so-called “Catholic Epistles” Dionysius supports James and 2 and 3 John but not 2 Peter or Jude. In other words, even at the end of the third century there was the same lack of finality about certain books as at its beginning.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Five: Fourth Century<\/h5>\n<p>Early in this period, the picture begins to clarify. Eusebius (<span>AD<\/span> 270–340, bishop of Caesarea before 315), the great church historian, sets forth his estimate of the canon in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> (3.3–25). Herein he makes a straightforward statement on the status of the canon in the early part of the fourth century: (1) Universally agreed upon as canonical were the four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews, with question about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. (2) Admitted by a majority, including Eusebius himself, but disputed by some were James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude. (3) The Acts of Paul, the Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas were classified “spurious,” and still other writings were listed as “heretical and absurd.”<\/p>\n<p>It is in the latter half of the fourth century, however, that the NT canon finds full and final declaration. In his <em>Festal Letter<\/em> for Easter, 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria included information designed to eliminate once and for all the use of certain apocryphal books. This letter, with its admonition, “Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away,” gives us the earliest extant document that specifies our 27 books without qualification. At the close of the century, the Council of Carthage (<span>AD<\/span> 397) decreed that “aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the Name of Divine Scriptures.” This, too, lists the 27 books of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>The sudden advance of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (Edict of Milan, 313) had a great deal to do with the reception of all the NT books in the East. When he assigned Eusebius the task of preparing “fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures,” the historian, fully aware of which were the sacred books for which many believers had been willing to lay down their very lives, in effect established the standard that gave recognition to all of the once-doubtful books. In the West, of course, Jerome and Augustine were the leaders who exercised a determinitive influence. Publication of the 27 books in the Vulgate version virtually settled the matter.<\/p>\n<h5>Principles and Factors Determining the Canon<\/h5>\n<p>By its very nature, Holy Scripture, whether OT or NT, is a production given of God, not the work of human creation. The key to canonicity is divine inspiration. Therefore, the method of determination is not one of selection from a number of possible candidates (there are no other candidates, in actuality) but one of reception of authentic material and its consequent recognition by an ever-widening circle as the facts of its origin become known.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, the movement of Montanus, which was declared heretical by the church of his day (mid-second century), was an impetus toward the recognition of a closed canon of the written Word of God. He taught that the prophetic gift was permanently granted to the church and that he himself was a prophet. The pressure to deal with Montanism, therefore, intensified the search for a basic authority, and apostolic authorship or approval became recognized as the only sure standard for identifying God’s revelation. Even within the Scripture record, first-century prophets were subordinate and subject to apostolic authority (see, for example, 1 Cor 14:29-30; Eph 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When all things were being reexamined in the Protestant Reformation, some of the Reformers sought means of reassuring themselves and their followers about the canon of Scripture. This was in some ways an unfortunate aspect of Reformation thinking, because once God in his providence had determined for his people the fixed content of Scripture, that became a fact of history and was not a repeatable process. Nevertheless, Luther established a theological test for the books of the Bible (and questioned some of them)—“Do they teach Christ?” Equally subjective, it would seem, was Calvin’s insistence that the Spirit of God bears witness to each individual Christian in any age of church history as to what is his Word and what is not.<\/p>\n<p>Actually, even for the initial acceptance of the written Word, it is neither safe nor sound (as far as Scripture or history teaches us) to say that recognition and reception was an intuitive matter. It was rather a matter of simple obedience to the known commands of Christ and his apostles. As we saw at the outset, our Lord promised (Jn 14:26; 16:13) to communicate all things necessary through his agents. The apostles were conscious of this responsibility and agency as they wrote. Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 2:13 is apropos: “In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirit’s words to explain the Holy Spirit’s facts” (<span>tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hence, the early church, with closer ties and greater information than is available to us today, examined the testimony of the ancients. They were able to discern which were the authentic and authoritative books by their apostolic origin. Mark’s association with Peter, and Luke’s with Paul, gave them such apostolic approval, and epistles like Hebrews and Jude were also tied in with the apostolic message and ministry. Incontrovertible consistency of doctrine in all the books, including the sometime contested ones, was perhaps a subordinate test. But historically the procedure was essentially one of acceptance and approval of those books that were vouched for by knowledgeable church leaders. Full acceptance by the original recipients followed by a continued acknowledgment and use is an essential factor in the development of the canon.<\/p>\n<p>The church’s concept of canon, derived first of all from the reverence given the OT Scriptures, rested in the conviction that the apostles were uniquely authorized to speak in the name of the one who possessed all authority—the Lord Jesus Christ. The development from there is logical and straightforward. Those who heard Jesus in person were immediately subject to his authority. He personally authenticated his words to the believers. These same believers knew that Jesus authorized his apostles to speak in his name, both during and (more significantly) after his earthly ministry. Apostolic speaking on behalf of Christ was recognized in the church, whether in personal utterance or in written form. Both the spoken word of an apostle and the letter of an apostle constituted the word of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The generation that followed that of the apostles themselves received the witness of those who knew that the apostles had the right to speak and write in the name of Christ. Consequently, the second and third generation of Christians looked back to apostolic words (writings) as the very words of Christ. This is what is really meant by canonization—recognition of the divinely authenticated Word. Hence, the believers (the church) did not establish the canon but simply bore witness to its extent by recognizing the authority of the word of Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, C<span>anon of the<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer form a canon of Greek literature, so the NT books became the canon of Christian literature. The criteria for selecting the books in the Jewish canon (the OT) are not known but clearly had to do with their worth in the ongoing life and religion of the worshiping nation. The criteria of the selection of NT books revolved around their “apostolicity,” according to early church writers. Like those of the OT, these books were collected and preserved by local churches in the continuing process of their worship and need for authoritative guidance for Christian living. The formation of the canon was a process, rather than an event, that took several hundred years to reach finality in all parts of the Roman Empire. Local canons were the basis for comparison, and out of them eventually emerged the general canon that exists in Christendom today, although some of the Eastern churches have a NT that is slightly smaller than that accepted in the West. Judaism, as well as Christianity as a whole, believes that the Spirit of God was operative in some providential way in the production and preservation of his Word.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheOldTestament\">Canon of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament is a name that does not appear in Jewish literature. Jews prefer to call their collection of Scriptures the TANAK—an acronym formed from the first letters of <em>Torah<\/em> (Law), <em>Nevi<\/em><em>’<\/em><em>im<\/em> (Prophets), and <em>Kethubim<\/em> (Writings). In Luke 24:44 (<span>niv<\/span>), these are called the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (the first book of the Writings in the Hebrew Bible). Christians called their collection of writings the New Testament, or covenant, the latter term being a designation earlier used of the agreement God made with Abraham and the patriarchs, which was repeated by Christ to his apostles (Mt 26:28). Christians in the first century considered their new covenant from Christ (1 Cor 11:25) to be a continuation of the one made earlier with the patriarchs (Eph 2:12), spoken of by the prophets (Jer 31:31-34), and which was therefore called a former covenant (Heb 8:7-13; 9:1, 15-22) or in later centuries the OT. The terms “Old” and “New” do not appear in the apostolic fathers of the first and second century or in the apologists of the early- to mid-second century, but they do appear in the latter half of the second century in Justin Martyr (<em>Dialogues<\/em> 11:2), Irenaeus (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 4.9.1), and Clement of Alexandria (<em>Stromata<\/em> 1:5). In these authors the expression referred more to the covenant itself than to the books containing it, though the transfer was eventually made. The term “canon” was not used in the OT or NT to refer to the Jewish Scriptures. The idea of limitation inherent in the word was not appropriate to the nature of religious authority in Jewish religion during the thousand years when the OT books were being written. Only the Torah was conceived as incapable of being added to or taken from (Dt 4:2). Jewish religion existed for a millennium, from Moses to Malachi, without a closed canon, i.e., an exclusive list of authoritative books. Never in their history did the people of the OT have the entire 39 books of the OT. When their canon was closed is not known. Although some questions were being asked about religious authority by rabbis at Jamnia 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, we have our first list of 39 books produced by Melito of Sardis around <span>AD<\/span> 170. That list included no books written after the time of Malachi, unless one is disposed to date Daniel to the second century. The Prophets and the Writings were always considered secondary to the Law. Their composition and collection was a process rather than an event in the life of the people of Israel and functioned largely as a record of the nation’s response to the Law, which was so sacred that it was kept (according to rabbinical tradition: Babylonian Talmud, <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 14a; cf. also <em>Cairo Damascus Document<\/em> 5.2) in the ark of the covenant that stood in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle. In Deuteronomy 31:26, however, the Levites were commanded by Moses merely to put the Book of the Law beside the ark. Nevertheless, its very presence in the Holy of Holies establishes its uniqueness in relation to other OT books.<\/p>\n\n<p>The 39 books of the modern OT were originally divided into only 24, according to the uniform testimony of early Hebrew tradition. The Talmud, rabbinic literature, and probably 4 Esdras testify to this arrangement that included five books of the Law, eight Prophets, and eleven Writings (Greek—Hagiographa). Modern Hebrew Bibles reflect this tripartite arrangement that was used in the first three printed editions (Soncino, 1488; Naples, 1491–1493; Brescia, 1492–1494). The Law contained the Pentateuch in our familiar order, Genesis to Deuteronomy. The eight Prophets were Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 and 2), Kings (1 and 2), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (all 12), which were considered as one book and arranged in the same order as our English Bibles. The eleven books of Writings contained three of poetry (Ps, Prv, Jb), the Five Scrolls (Sg, Ru, Lam, Eccl, Est), which were read at the important feasts and arranged in the chronological order of their observance, and three of narrative or historical (Dn, Ezr-Neh, 1 and 2 Chr).<\/p>\n<p>Apart from authentic Jewish tradition, efforts were made to divide the books into 21, combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. Josephus was the first to do so, in the first century <span>AD<\/span>, but he was influenced by the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Origen observed in the early third century that this arrangement also corresponded to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, as did Athanasius in the fourth, and others, including Jerome. It was dubiously concluded that the number of books in the Hebrew Bible had been divinely ordained to agree with the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet! Church fathers added their support to this coincidence, which became providence to them. All such efforts, however, are of Greek origin and have no support in Hebrew tradition.<\/p>\n<p>The oldest extant manuscripts of the complete OT in Hebrew are the Masoretic Texts, which are no earlier than the eighth century <span>AD<\/span>. Only manuscripts of individual books have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic scribes apparently laid down no rules about arrangement of books because there is no uniform order of the Latter Prophets or the Writings in early Hebrew manuscripts. Nor is the situation any different in ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew. Great diversity exists in the order of books in all three of our oldest manuscripts—Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. All the early Christian authors who profess to give the order and contents of the Hebrew Bible but who do not reflect the Hebrew tripartite division are clearly dependent on the Alexandrian order reflected in these Greek editions, rather than on the Hebrew Bible. Modern Protestant Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate and the content of the Hebrew. Both the Vulgate and the Septuagint (Greek translation) contained the Apocrypha, which was never accepted by the Jews. The Roman Catholic Church includes the Apocrypha in its English translations because of the influence of the Vulgate on Catholic tradition. It is considered deuterocanonical.<\/p>\n<p>Even though no uniformity of order was maintained, the Alexandrian order, reflected in the Greek manuscripts, generally arranged books according to their subject matter—narrative, history, poetry, and prophecy, with the apocryphal books appropriately interspersed into these categories. The Hebrew division was totally ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Early Hebrew Bibles divided the text into small paragraphs and larger sections somewhat akin to our paragraphs. These were indicated by spaces left between them—three letters between the small sections and nine letters between the larger ones. The number of sections is not the same in all manuscripts. Jesus probably referred to such sections in his comment concerning the “passage about the bush” (Mk 12:26). Later, liturgical needs led to further divisions of the text for the complete reading of the Law in Babylonian synagogues in one year (54 sections) and in Palestinian synagogues in three years (154 sections). These are reflected in the lectionary cycles marked in some early Hebrew Bibles.<\/p>\n<p>The division of the text into modern chapters, done in the 13th century (c. 1228) for the Latin Vulgate by Stephen Langton, was applied to the Hebrew Bible in 1518 (Bomberg Edition), but the numbers were not given to the chapters until 1571 in the text of Montanus, a Hebrew Bible with Latin interlinear translation. The verses were introduced in Bomberg’s Great Bible of 1547–48 in which every fifth verse was designated by a Hebrew numeral 1, 5, 10, and so on. Verses were inserted into the Latin Vulgate in 1555 in the small octavo edition of Stephanus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheNewTestament\">Canon of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT was written within the period of half a century, several hundred years after the completion of the OT. Both halves of that statement would be questioned by modern critics, who would extend the time span for completion of both Testaments. The writer of this survey is confident of its truthfulness to historic fact, however, and the approach taken to canonization of both OT and NT is based solidly upon that twofold premise.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, we possess far higher certification of the OT canon than of the NT canon. We refer to the fact of our Lord’s own imprimatur by way of his use of the Hebrew Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. Yet there is a sense in which Jesus Christ did establish the NT content or canon as well, by way of anticipation. It was he who promised, “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” and “he will guide you into all truth” (Jn 14:26; 16:13, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>From this we can derive, in turn, the basic principle of canonicity for the NT. It is identical to that of the OT, since it narrows down to a matter of divine inspiration. Whether we think of the prophets of OT times or the apostles and their God-given associates of the New, the recognition at the very time of their writing that they were authentic spokesmen for God is what determines the intrinsic canonicity of their writing. It is altogether God’s Word only if it is God-breathed. We can be assured that the books under question were received by the church of the apostolic age precisely when they had been certified by an apostle as being thus inspired. The apparent variation, relative to geographic area, in acknowledgment of some of the NT epistles may well reflect the simple fact that this attestation was by its very nature localized at first. Conversely, that all 27 books of the now universally received NT were ultimately agreed upon is evidence that proper attestation was indeed confirmed after rigorous investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Tertullian, an outstanding Christian writer in the first two decades of the third century, was one of the first to call the Christian Scriptures the “New Testament.” That title had appeared earlier (c. 190) in a composition against Montanism, the author of which is unknown. This is significant. Its use placed the NT Scripture on a level of inspiration and authority with the OT.<\/p>\n<p>From available information, the gradual process that led to full and formal public recognition of a fixed canon of the 27 books comprising the NT takes us down into the fourth century of our era. This does not necessarily mean that these Scriptures were lacking recognition in their entirety before that time, but that a need for officially defining the canon was not pressing until then.<\/p>\n<p>Though a much shorter period of time was involved in the writing of the NT than the OT, the geographic range of its origin is far wider. This circumstance alone is sufficient to account for a lack of spontaneous or simultaneous recognition of the precise extent of the NT canon. Because of the geographic isolation of the various recipients of portions of the NT, there was bound to be some lag and uncertainty from one region to another in the acknowledgment of some of the books.<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate just what did transpire in the process of canonization of the NT books, we must review the facts available to us. This will enable us to analyze <em>how<\/em> and <em>why<\/em> our early Christian forebears settled upon the 27 books in our NT.<\/p>\n<p>The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and a half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:<\/p>\n<p>1. First Century<\/p>\n<li>2. First Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>3. Second Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>4. Third Century<\/li>\n<li>5. Fourth Century<\/li>\n<p>Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice the major trends observable in each of the periods just identified. In the first period, of course, the various books were written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the churches. In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative. By the end of the third period, they held a recognized place alongside the OT as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries. During the third century <span>AD<\/span>, our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process that was separating them from other Christian literature. The final, or fifth, period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached that indicate acceptance by the whole church. Thus, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals that produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Period One: First Century<\/h5>\n<p>The principle determining recognition of the authority of the canonical NT writings was established within the content of those writings themselves. There are repeated exhortations for public reading of the apostolic communications. At the close of his First Letter to the Thessalonians, possibly the first book of the NT to be written, Paul says, “I command you in the name of the Lord to read this letter to all the brothers and sisters” (1 Thes 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span>). Earlier in the same letter Paul commends their ready acceptance of his spoken word as “the word of God” (2:13), and in 1 Corinthians 14:37 he speaks similarly of his “writings,” insisting that his message be recognized as a commandment from the Lord himself. (See also Col 4:16; Rv 1:3.) In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters are included with “the other Scriptures.” Since Peter’s is a general letter, widespread knowledge of Paul’s letters is thereby implied. Highly indicative also is Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 5:18. He follows up the formula “the Scriptures say” by a combined quotation about not muzzling an ox (Dt 25:4) and “the worker deserves his wages” (cf. Lk 10:7). Thus, an equivalence is implied between OT Scripture and a NT Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 95, Clement of Rome wrote to the Christians in Corinth using a free rendering of material from Matthew and Luke. He seems to be strongly influenced by Hebrews and is obviously familiar with Romans and Corinthians. There are also reflections of Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Two: First Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest NT manuscripts yet discovered, a fragment of John from Egypt known as the John Rylands papyrus, demonstrates how the writings of the apostle John were revered and copied by about <span>AD<\/span> 125, within 30 to 35 years of his death. There is evidence that within 30 years of the apostle’s death all the Gospels and Pauline letters were known and used in all those centers from which any evidence has come down to us. It is true that some of the smaller letters were being questioned as to their authority in some quarters for perhaps another 50 years, but this was due only to uncertainty about their authorship in those particular locales. This demonstrates that acceptance was not being imposed by the actions of councils but was rather happening spontaneously through a normal response on the part of those who had learned the facts about authorship. In those places where the churches were uncertain about the authorship or apostolic approval of certain books, acceptance was slower.<\/p>\n<p>The first three outstanding church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, used the bulk of the material of the NT in a revealingly casual manner—authenticated Scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In the writings of these men only Mark (which closely parallels the material of Matthew), 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude are not clearly attested.<\/p>\n<p>The Epistles of Ignatius (c. <span>AD<\/span> 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters. The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve), perhaps even earlier, makes references to a written Gospel. Most important is the fact that Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.<\/p>\n<p>It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this, Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4). Then Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130–140), in a work preserved for us by Eusebius, mentions by name the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and his use of them as the basis of exposition indicates his acceptance of them as canonical. Also around <span>AD<\/span> 140, the recently discovered Gospel of Truth (a Gnostic-oriented work probably authored by Valentinius) makes an important contribution. Its use of canonical NT sources, treating them as authoritative, is comprehensive enough to warrant the conclusion that in Rome at this period there was a NT compilation in existence corresponding very closely to our own. Citations are made from the Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The heretic Marcion, by defining a limited canon of his own (c. 140), in effect hastened the day when the orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue. Rejecting the entire OT, Marcion settled for Luke’s Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 and 2 as too Jewish) and Paul’s letters (except for the pastoral ones). Interestingly, especially in the light of Colossians 4:16, he substitutes the name “Laodiceans” for Ephesians.<\/p>\n<p>Near the end of this period, Justin Martyr, in describing the worship services of the early church, puts the apostolic writings on a par with those of the OT prophets. He states that the voice which spoke through the apostles of Christ in the NT was the same as that which spoke through the prophets—the voice of God—and the same voice that Abraham heard, responding in faith and obedience. Justin was also free in his use of “it is written” with quotations from NT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Three: Second Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>Irenaeus had been privileged to begin his Christian training under Polycarp, a disciple of apostles. Then, as a presbyter in Lyons, he had association with Bishop Pothinus, whose own background also included contact with firstgeneration Christians. Irenaeus quotes from almost all the NT on the basis of its authority and asserts that the apostles were endowed with power from on high. They were, he says, “fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge . . . having indeed all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of God” (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 3.3). Irenaeus gives reasons why there should be four Gospels. “The word,” he says, “gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit.” In addition to the Gospels, he makes reference also to Acts, all the letters of Paul except Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the four Gospels, the <em>Diatessaron,<\/em> attesting to the equal status they had in the church by <span>AD<\/span> 170. Other “gospels” had come into existence by then, but he recognized only the four. Also dating from about 170 was the <em>Muratorian Canon.<\/em> An eighth-century copy of this document was discovered and published in 1740 by librarian L. A. Muratori. The manuscript is mutilated at both ends, but the remaining text makes it evident that Matthew and Mark were included in the now missing part. The fragment begins with Luke and John, cites Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. There follows a statement, “We accept only the Apocalypse of John and Peter, although some of us do not want it [Apocalypse of Peter is 2 Peter?] to be read in the Church.” The list goes on to reject by name various heretical leaders and their writings.<\/p>\n<p>Translated versions existed by this period. In the form of Syriac and Old Latin translations we secure, by <span>AD<\/span> 170, adequate witness from the extreme eastern and western branches of the church, as we might well expect from the other evidence in hand. The NT canon is represented with no additions and the omission of only one book, 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Four: Third Century<\/h5>\n<p>The outstanding Christian name of the third century is that of Origen (<span>AD<\/span> 185– 254). A prodigious scholar and interpreter, he made critical studies of the NT text (alongside his work on the <em>Hexapla<\/em>) and wrote commentaries and homilies on most of the books of the NT, emphasizing their inspiration by God.<\/p>\n<p>Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil of Origen, indicates that while the Western church accepted the book of Revelation from the first, its position in the East was variable. In the case of the Letter to the Hebrews, the situation was reversed. It proved to be more insecure in the West than in the East. When it comes to other contested books (note, incidently, that all in that category have the hindmost position in our present Bibles—Hebrews to Revelation), among the so-called “Catholic Epistles” Dionysius supports James and 2 and 3 John but not 2 Peter or Jude. In other words, even at the end of the third century there was the same lack of finality about certain books as at its beginning.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Five: Fourth Century<\/h5>\n<p>Early in this period, the picture begins to clarify. Eusebius (<span>AD<\/span> 270–340, bishop of Caesarea before 315), the great church historian, sets forth his estimate of the canon in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> (3.3–25). Herein he makes a straightforward statement on the status of the canon in the early part of the fourth century: (1) Universally agreed upon as canonical were the four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews, with question about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. (2) Admitted by a majority, including Eusebius himself, but disputed by some were James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude. (3) The Acts of Paul, the Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas were classified “spurious,” and still other writings were listed as “heretical and absurd.”<\/p>\n<p>It is in the latter half of the fourth century, however, that the NT canon finds full and final declaration. In his <em>Festal Letter<\/em> for Easter, 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria included information designed to eliminate once and for all the use of certain apocryphal books. This letter, with its admonition, “Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away,” gives us the earliest extant document that specifies our 27 books without qualification. At the close of the century, the Council of Carthage (<span>AD<\/span> 397) decreed that “aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the Name of Divine Scriptures.” This, too, lists the 27 books of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>The sudden advance of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (Edict of Milan, 313) had a great deal to do with the reception of all the NT books in the East. When he assigned Eusebius the task of preparing “fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures,” the historian, fully aware of which were the sacred books for which many believers had been willing to lay down their very lives, in effect established the standard that gave recognition to all of the once-doubtful books. In the West, of course, Jerome and Augustine were the leaders who exercised a determinitive influence. Publication of the 27 books in the Vulgate version virtually settled the matter.<\/p>\n<h5>Principles and Factors Determining the Canon<\/h5>\n<p>By its very nature, Holy Scripture, whether OT or NT, is a production given of God, not the work of human creation. The key to canonicity is divine inspiration. Therefore, the method of determination is not one of selection from a number of possible candidates (there are no other candidates, in actuality) but one of reception of authentic material and its consequent recognition by an ever-widening circle as the facts of its origin become known.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, the movement of Montanus, which was declared heretical by the church of his day (mid-second century), was an impetus toward the recognition of a closed canon of the written Word of God. He taught that the prophetic gift was permanently granted to the church and that he himself was a prophet. The pressure to deal with Montanism, therefore, intensified the search for a basic authority, and apostolic authorship or approval became recognized as the only sure standard for identifying God’s revelation. Even within the Scripture record, first-century prophets were subordinate and subject to apostolic authority (see, for example, 1 Cor 14:29-30; Eph 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When all things were being reexamined in the Protestant Reformation, some of the Reformers sought means of reassuring themselves and their followers about the canon of Scripture. This was in some ways an unfortunate aspect of Reformation thinking, because once God in his providence had determined for his people the fixed content of Scripture, that became a fact of history and was not a repeatable process. Nevertheless, Luther established a theological test for the books of the Bible (and questioned some of them)—“Do they teach Christ?” Equally subjective, it would seem, was Calvin’s insistence that the Spirit of God bears witness to each individual Christian in any age of church history as to what is his Word and what is not.<\/p>\n<p>Actually, even for the initial acceptance of the written Word, it is neither safe nor sound (as far as Scripture or history teaches us) to say that recognition and reception was an intuitive matter. It was rather a matter of simple obedience to the known commands of Christ and his apostles. As we saw at the outset, our Lord promised (Jn 14:26; 16:13) to communicate all things necessary through his agents. The apostles were conscious of this responsibility and agency as they wrote. Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 2:13 is apropos: “In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirit’s words to explain the Holy Spirit’s facts” (<span>tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hence, the early church, with closer ties and greater information than is available to us today, examined the testimony of the ancients. They were able to discern which were the authentic and authoritative books by their apostolic origin. Mark’s association with Peter, and Luke’s with Paul, gave them such apostolic approval, and epistles like Hebrews and Jude were also tied in with the apostolic message and ministry. Incontrovertible consistency of doctrine in all the books, including the sometime contested ones, was perhaps a subordinate test. But historically the procedure was essentially one of acceptance and approval of those books that were vouched for by knowledgeable church leaders. Full acceptance by the original recipients followed by a continued acknowledgment and use is an essential factor in the development of the canon.<\/p>\n<p>The church’s concept of canon, derived first of all from the reverence given the OT Scriptures, rested in the conviction that the apostles were uniquely authorized to speak in the name of the one who possessed all authority—the Lord Jesus Christ. The development from there is logical and straightforward. Those who heard Jesus in person were immediately subject to his authority. He personally authenticated his words to the believers. These same believers knew that Jesus authorized his apostles to speak in his name, both during and (more significantly) after his earthly ministry. Apostolic speaking on behalf of Christ was recognized in the church, whether in personal utterance or in written form. Both the spoken word of an apostle and the letter of an apostle constituted the word of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The generation that followed that of the apostles themselves received the witness of those who knew that the apostles had the right to speak and write in the name of Christ. Consequently, the second and third generation of Christians looked back to apostolic words (writings) as the very words of Christ. This is what is really meant by canonization—recognition of the divinely authenticated Word. Hence, the believers (the church) did not establish the canon but simply bore witness to its extent by recognizing the authority of the word of Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Canon of the Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century AD, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Canon of the Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century AD, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4845,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7945,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Covenant, the New","title_en":"Covenant, the New","content_ro":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\n<p>A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, <span>rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ANewCovenant\">A New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\n<p>Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SuperiorityoftheNewCovenant\">Superiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n<p>1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\n<p>A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, <span>rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ANewCovenant\">A New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\n<p>Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SuperiorityoftheNewCovenant\">Superiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n<p>1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","summary_en":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58824,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:7","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:7-13<\/strong> The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:7-13<\/strong> The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.","summary_en":"8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58825,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:7","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:7<\/strong> The <em>first covenant<\/em><em>,<\/em> made at Sinai, was not <em>faultless<\/em>. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:7<\/strong> The <em>first covenant<\/em><em>,<\/em> made at Sinai, was not <em>faultless<\/em>. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).","summary_en":"8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86450,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:7","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:7-13<\/strong> The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:7-13<\/strong> The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.","summary_en":"8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86451,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:7","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:7<\/strong> The <em>first covenant<\/em><em>,<\/em> made at Sinai, was not <em>faultless<\/em>. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:7<\/strong> The <em>first covenant<\/em><em>,<\/em> made at Sinai, was not <em>faultless<\/em>. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).","summary_en":"8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114076,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:7","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:7-13<\/strong> The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:7-13<\/strong> The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.","summary_en":"8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114077,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:7","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:7<\/strong> The <em>first covenant<\/em><em>,<\/em> made at Sinai, was not <em>faultless<\/em>. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:7<\/strong> The <em>first covenant<\/em><em>,<\/em> made at Sinai, was not <em>faultless<\/em>. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).","summary_en":"8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141702,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:7","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:7-13<\/strong> The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:7-13<\/strong> The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.","summary_en":"8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141703,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:7","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:7<\/strong> The <em>first covenant<\/em><em>,<\/em> made at Sinai, was not <em>faultless<\/em>. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:7<\/strong> The <em>first covenant<\/em><em>,<\/em> made at Sinai, was not <em>faultless<\/em>. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).","summary_en":"8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66823,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Limitations of Law","title_en":"The Limitations of Law","content_ro":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","summary_en":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67663,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Word","title_en":"God’s Word","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Word<\/h3>\n<p>A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the universe and still governs it (Gen 1:3-28; Heb 1:3; 11:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the past, God’s word came primarily through angels or prophets, but now it has come preeminently in the person of Jesus, God’s Son (Heb 1:1-4; 2:3-4; cp. John 1:1-14). The word is to be heard, heeded, obeyed, and believed as a source of hope.<\/p>\n<p>Through his word, God initiates relationship with us and wants us to listen to him and respond in faith (see Gen 15:6; John 1:12). His word is authoritative and intentional, and it gives profound hope because God can be trusted to keep his promises (Heb 6:13-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:3-28; Deut 8:3; Pss 12:6; 19:8; 119:11, 89, 105; Isa 40:8; Jer 15:16; 23:29; 36:2; Matt 5:18; 7:24; John 1:1-14; 5:24; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-4; 4:12; 6:13-20; 11:3; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Word<\/h3>\n<p>A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the universe and still governs it (Gen 1:3-28; Heb 1:3; 11:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the past, God’s word came primarily through angels or prophets, but now it has come preeminently in the person of Jesus, God’s Son (Heb 1:1-4; 2:3-4; cp. John 1:1-14). The word is to be heard, heeded, obeyed, and believed as a source of hope.<\/p>\n<p>Through his word, God initiates relationship with us and wants us to listen to him and respond in faith (see Gen 15:6; John 1:12). His word is authoritative and intentional, and it gives profound hope because God can be trusted to keep his promises (Heb 6:13-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:3-28; Deut 8:3; Pss 12:6; 19:8; 119:11, 89, 105; Isa 40:8; Jer 15:16; 23:29; 36:2; Matt 5:18; 7:24; John 1:1-14; 5:24; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-4; 4:12; 6:13-20; 11:3; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Word A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the ...","summary_en":"God’s Word A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94449,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Limitations of Law","title_en":"The Limitations of Law","content_ro":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","summary_en":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95289,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Word","title_en":"God’s Word","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Word<\/h3>\n<p>A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the universe and still governs it (Gen 1:3-28; Heb 1:3; 11:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the past, God’s word came primarily through angels or prophets, but now it has come preeminently in the person of Jesus, God’s Son (Heb 1:1-4; 2:3-4; cp. John 1:1-14). The word is to be heard, heeded, obeyed, and believed as a source of hope.<\/p>\n<p>Through his word, God initiates relationship with us and wants us to listen to him and respond in faith (see Gen 15:6; John 1:12). His word is authoritative and intentional, and it gives profound hope because God can be trusted to keep his promises (Heb 6:13-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:3-28; Deut 8:3; Pss 12:6; 19:8; 119:11, 89, 105; Isa 40:8; Jer 15:16; 23:29; 36:2; Matt 5:18; 7:24; John 1:1-14; 5:24; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-4; 4:12; 6:13-20; 11:3; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Word<\/h3>\n<p>A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the universe and still governs it (Gen 1:3-28; Heb 1:3; 11:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the past, God’s word came primarily through angels or prophets, but now it has come preeminently in the person of Jesus, God’s Son (Heb 1:1-4; 2:3-4; cp. John 1:1-14). The word is to be heard, heeded, obeyed, and believed as a source of hope.<\/p>\n<p>Through his word, God initiates relationship with us and wants us to listen to him and respond in faith (see Gen 15:6; John 1:12). His word is authoritative and intentional, and it gives profound hope because God can be trusted to keep his promises (Heb 6:13-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:3-28; Deut 8:3; Pss 12:6; 19:8; 119:11, 89, 105; Isa 40:8; Jer 15:16; 23:29; 36:2; Matt 5:18; 7:24; John 1:1-14; 5:24; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-4; 4:12; 6:13-20; 11:3; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Word A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the ...","summary_en":"God’s Word A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122075,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Limitations of Law","title_en":"The Limitations of Law","content_ro":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","summary_en":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122915,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Word","title_en":"God’s Word","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Word<\/h3>\n<p>A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the universe and still governs it (Gen 1:3-28; Heb 1:3; 11:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the past, God’s word came primarily through angels or prophets, but now it has come preeminently in the person of Jesus, God’s Son (Heb 1:1-4; 2:3-4; cp. John 1:1-14). The word is to be heard, heeded, obeyed, and believed as a source of hope.<\/p>\n<p>Through his word, God initiates relationship with us and wants us to listen to him and respond in faith (see Gen 15:6; John 1:12). His word is authoritative and intentional, and it gives profound hope because God can be trusted to keep his promises (Heb 6:13-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:3-28; Deut 8:3; Pss 12:6; 19:8; 119:11, 89, 105; Isa 40:8; Jer 15:16; 23:29; 36:2; Matt 5:18; 7:24; John 1:1-14; 5:24; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-4; 4:12; 6:13-20; 11:3; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Word<\/h3>\n<p>A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the universe and still governs it (Gen 1:3-28; Heb 1:3; 11:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the past, God’s word came primarily through angels or prophets, but now it has come preeminently in the person of Jesus, God’s Son (Heb 1:1-4; 2:3-4; cp. John 1:1-14). The word is to be heard, heeded, obeyed, and believed as a source of hope.<\/p>\n<p>Through his word, God initiates relationship with us and wants us to listen to him and respond in faith (see Gen 15:6; John 1:12). His word is authoritative and intentional, and it gives profound hope because God can be trusted to keep his promises (Heb 6:13-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:3-28; Deut 8:3; Pss 12:6; 19:8; 119:11, 89, 105; Isa 40:8; Jer 15:16; 23:29; 36:2; Matt 5:18; 7:24; John 1:1-14; 5:24; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-4; 4:12; 6:13-20; 11:3; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Word A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the ...","summary_en":"God’s Word A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149701,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Limitations of Law","title_en":"The Limitations of Law","content_ro":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","summary_en":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150541,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Word","title_en":"God’s Word","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Word<\/h3>\n<p>A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the universe and still governs it (Gen 1:3-28; Heb 1:3; 11:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the past, God’s word came primarily through angels or prophets, but now it has come preeminently in the person of Jesus, God’s Son (Heb 1:1-4; 2:3-4; cp. John 1:1-14). The word is to be heard, heeded, obeyed, and believed as a source of hope.<\/p>\n<p>Through his word, God initiates relationship with us and wants us to listen to him and respond in faith (see Gen 15:6; John 1:12). His word is authoritative and intentional, and it gives profound hope because God can be trusted to keep his promises (Heb 6:13-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:3-28; Deut 8:3; Pss 12:6; 19:8; 119:11, 89, 105; Isa 40:8; Jer 15:16; 23:29; 36:2; Matt 5:18; 7:24; John 1:1-14; 5:24; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-4; 4:12; 6:13-20; 11:3; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Word<\/h3>\n<p>A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the universe and still governs it (Gen 1:3-28; Heb 1:3; 11:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the past, God’s word came primarily through angels or prophets, but now it has come preeminently in the person of Jesus, God’s Son (Heb 1:1-4; 2:3-4; cp. John 1:1-14). The word is to be heard, heeded, obeyed, and believed as a source of hope.<\/p>\n<p>Through his word, God initiates relationship with us and wants us to listen to him and respond in faith (see Gen 15:6; John 1:12). His word is authoritative and intentional, and it gives profound hope because God can be trusted to keep his promises (Heb 6:13-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:3-28; Deut 8:3; Pss 12:6; 19:8; 119:11, 89, 105; Isa 40:8; Jer 15:16; 23:29; 36:2; Matt 5:18; 7:24; John 1:1-14; 5:24; 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-4; 4:12; 6:13-20; 11:3; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:19-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Word A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the ...","summary_en":"God’s Word A foundational truth of Scripture is that God has spoken. The author of Hebrews, in line with other Jewish preachers of the era, presents the Old Testament as coming from the mouth of God, introducing those texts with “God says . . .” or something similar. God may speak a word of promise (Heb 6:13-14) or a word of punishment (3:11; 4:11-12); he may tell us something about himself or his Son (see 1:5-12) or reveal some aspect of his will (see 8:7-13; 10:5-7). God’s word created the ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":4630,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bible*","title_en":"Bible*","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*<\/h3>\n<p>Derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">biblia<\/span> (“books”), which, though plural, came to be used as a singular noun and to stand for the collection of books known as the Scriptures. The idea of a collection of holy writings developed early in Hebrew-Christian thought. Daniel in the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> spoke of a prophetic writing as “the books” (Dn 9:2). The writer of 1 Maccabees (second century <span>BC<\/span>) referred to the OT as “the holy books” (12:9). Jesus referred to the OT books as “the scriptures” (Mt 21:42), and Paul spoke of them as “the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. Of course, there was no OT and NT before the coming of Christ, only one collection of sacred writings. But after the apostles and their associates produced another body of sacred literature, the church began to refer to the OT and the NT. Actually “testament” is the translation of a Greek word that might better be rendered “covenant.” It denotes an arrangement made by God for the spiritual guidance and benefit of human beings. The covenant is unalterable: humankind may accept it or reject it but cannot change it. “Covenant” is a common OT word; of several covenants described in the OT, the most prominent was the law given to Moses. While Israel was chafing and failing under the Mosaic covenant, God promised them a “new covenant” (Jer 31:31).<\/p>\n<p>The term “new covenant” appears several times in the NT. Jesus used it when he instituted the Lord’s Supper; by it he sought to call attention to the new basis of communion with God he intended to establish by his death (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The apostle Paul also spoke of that new covenant (2 Cor 3:6, 14), as did the writer to the Hebrews (Heb 8:8; 9:11-15). The detailed description of God’s new method of dealing with people (on the basis of the finished work of Christ on the cross) is the subject of the 27 books of the NT. God’s dealing with people in anticipation of the coming of Messiah (Hebrew equivalent of “Christ,” meaning “anointed one”) is certainly the major theme of the 39 books of the OT, though they deal with much more than that. Latin church writers used <em>testamentum<\/em> to translate “covenant,” and from them the use passed into English; so old and new covenants became OT and NT.<\/p>\n<p>At least the first half of the OT follows a logical and easily understood arrangement. In Genesis through Esther the history of Israel from Abraham to the restoration under Persian auspices appears largely in chronological order. Then follows a group of poetic books and the Major and Minor Prophets (“Major” meaning the books that are relatively long; “Minor” meaning the books that are relatively short).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also follows a generally logical arrangement. It begins with the four Gospels, which describe the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ and his training of disciples to carry on his work after his ascension. The book of Acts continues the narrative where the Gospels end and details the founding of the church and its spread through Mediterranean lands. In the latter part of the book the spotlight focuses on the apostle Paul and his church planting activities. Next come letters Paul addressed to churches he founded or to young ministers he tried to encourage. Following the Pauline Epistles come a group commonly called the General Epistles. The last book, Revelation, is an apocalyptic work.<\/p>\n<p>The OT was written almost entirely in Hebrew with a few isolated passages in Aramaic in the latter books. If one accepts the view that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT (the position the Scripture itself takes), the earliest books of the OT were written by about 1400 <span>BC<\/span> (provided one accepts the early date proposed for the exodus). If the last book written was Malachi (before 400 <span>BC<\/span>), composition took place during 1,000 years of time. All the writers (some 30 in number) were Jews: prophets, judges, kings, and other leaders in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The NT was probably written entirely in Greek. If James was the first to write a NT book before the middle of the first century, and if John was the last (composing Revelation about <span>AD<\/span> 90), the NT was written during a 50-year period in the latter half of the first century. All the writers (probably nine) were Jews, with the exception of Luke (writer of Luke and Acts), and they came from a variety of walks of life: fishermen, doctor, tax collector, and religious leaders.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of great diversity of authorship in the OT and NT, and composition spanning over 1,500 years, there is remarkable unity in the total thrust. Christians believe that God must have been superintending the production of a divine-human book that would properly present his message to humankind.<\/p>\n<p>The OT and NT are component parts of one divine revelation. The OT describes man and woman in the first paradise on the old earth; the NT concludes with a vision of the new heaven and new earth. The OT sees humankind as fallen from a sinless condition and separated from God; the NT views believers as restored to favor through the sacrifice of Christ. The OT predicts a coming Redeemer who will rescue men and women from eternal condemnation; the NT reveals the Christ who brought salvation. In most of the OT the spotlight focuses on a sacrificial system in which the blood of animals provided a temporary handling of the sin problem; in the New, Christ appeared as the one who came to put an end to all sacrifice—to be himself the supreme sacrifice. In the OT, numerous predictions foretold a coming Messiah who would save his people; in the New, scores of passages detail how those prophecies were minutely fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ: the “son of Abraham” and the “son of David” (Mt 1:1). As Augustine said more than 1,500 years ago, “The New is in the Old contained; the Old is in the New explained.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheAuthorityoftheBible\">The Authority of the Bible<\/p>\n<p>Judge of men and nations, the self-revealed God wields unlimited authority and power. All creaturely authority and power is derived from that of God. As the sovereign Creator of all, the God of the Bible wills and has the right to be obeyed. The power God bestows is a divine trust, a stewardship. God’s creatures are morally accountable for their use or misuse of it. In fallen human society God wills civil government for the promotion of justice and order. He approves an ordering of authoritative and creative relationships in the home by stipulating certain responsibilities of husbands, wives, and children. He wills a pattern of priorities for the church as well: Jesus Christ the head, prophets and apostles through whom redemptive revelation came, and so on. The inspired Scriptures, revealing God’s transcendent will in objective written form, are the rule of faith and conduct through which Christ exercises his divine authority in the lives of Christians.<\/p>\n<p>Revolt against particular authorities has in our time widened into a revolt against all transcendent and external authority. The widespread questioning of authority is condoned and promoted in many academic circles. Philosophers with a radically secular outlook have affirmed that God and the supernatural are mythical conceptions, that natural processes and events comprise the only ultimate reality. All existence is said to be temporal and changing, all beliefs and ideals are declared to be relative to the age and culture in which they appear. Biblical religion, therefore, like all other, is asserted to be merely a cultural phenomenon. The Bible’s claim to divine authority is dismissed by such thinkers; transcendent revelation, fixed truths, and unchanging commandments are set aside as pious fictions.<\/p>\n<p>In the name of man’s supposed “coming of age,” radical secularism champions human autonomy and creative individuality. Man is his own lord and the inventor of his own ideals and values, it is said. He lives in a supposedly purposeless universe that has itself presumably been engendered by a cosmic accident. Therefore, human beings are declared to be wholly free to impose upon nature and history whatever moral criteria they prefer. In such a view, to insist on divinely given truths and values, on transcendent principles, would be to repress self-fulfillment and retard creative personal development. Hence, the radically secular view goes beyond opposing particular external authorities whose claims are considered arbitrary or immoral; radical secularism is aggressively hostile to all external and objective authority, viewing it as intrinsically restrictive of the autonomous human spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Any reader of the Bible recognizes rejection of divine authority and of a definitive revelation of what is right and good as an age-old phenomenon. It is not at all peculiar to contemporary man to “come of age”; it was found already in Eden. Adam and Eve revolted against the will of God in pursuit of individual preference and self-interest. But their revolt was recognized to be sin, not rationalized as philosophical <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span> at the frontiers of evolutionary advance.<\/p>\n<p>If one takes a strictly developmental view, which considers all reality contingent and changing, what basis remains for humanity’s decisively creative role in the universe? How could a purposeless cosmos cater to individual self-fulfillment? Only the biblical alternative of the Creator-Redeemer God, who fashioned human beings for moral obedience and a high spiritual destiny, truly preserves the permanent, universal dignity of the human species. The Bible does so, however, by a demanding call for personal spiritual decision. The Bible sets forth man’s superiority to the animals, his high dignity (“a little lower than God,” Ps 8:5, <span>nasb<\/span>) because of the divine rational and moral image that he bears by creation. In the context of universal human involvement in Adamic sin, the Bible utters a merciful divine call to redemptive renewal through the mediatorial person and work of Christ. Fallen humanity is invited to experience the Holy Spirit’s renewing work, to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, and to anticipate a final destiny in the eternal presence of the God of justice and justification.<\/p>\n<p>Contemporary rejection of biblical tenets does not rest on any logical demonstration that the case for biblical theism is false; it turns rather on a subjective preference for alternative views of “the good life.”<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is not the only significant reminder that human beings stand daily in responsible relationship to the sovereign God. The Creator reveals his authority in the cosmos, in history, and in inner conscience, a disclosure of the living God that penetrates into the mind of every human being (Rom 1:18-20; 2:12-15). Rebellious suppression of that “general divine revelation” does not succeed in wholly suspending a fearsome sense of final divine accountability (1:32). Yet it is the Bible as “special revelation” that most clearly confronts our spiritually rebellious race with the reality and authority of God. In the Scriptures, the character and will of God, the meaning of human existence, the nature of the spiritual realm, and the purposes of God for human beings in all ages are stated in propositionally intelligible form that all can understand. The Bible publishes in objective form the criteria by which God judges individuals and nations, and the means of moral recovery and restoration to personal fellowship with him.<\/p>\n<p>Regard for the Bible is therefore decisive for the course of Western culture and in the long run for human civilization generally. Intelligible divine revelation, the basis for belief in the sovereign authority of the Creator-Redeemer God over all human life, rests on the reliability of what Scripture says about God and his purposes. Modern naturalism impugns the authority of the Bible and assails the claim that the Bible is the Word of God written, that is, a transcendently given revelation of the mind and will of God in objective literary form. Scriptural authority is the storm center both in the controversy over revealed religion and in the modern conflict over civilizational values.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblesViewofItself\">The Bible’s View of Itself<\/p>\n<p>The intelligible nature of divine revelation—the presupposition that God’s will is made known in the form of valid truths—is the central presupposition of the authority of the Bible. Much recent neo-Protestant theology demeaned the traditional evangelical emphasis as doctrinaire and static. It insisted instead that the authority of Scripture is to be experienced internally as a witness to divine grace engendering faith and obedience, thus disowning its objective character as universally valid truth. Somewhat inconsistently, almost all neo-Protestant theologians have appealed to the record to support cognitively whatever fragments of the whole seem to coincide with their divergent views, even though they disavow the Bible as a specially revealed corpus of authoritative divine teaching. If God’s revelational disclosure to chosen prophets and apostles is to be considered meaningful and true, it must be given not merely in isolated concepts capable of diverse meanings but in sentences or propositions. A proposition—that is, a subject, predicate, and connecting verb (or “copula”)—constitutes the minimal logical unit of intelligible communication. The OT prophetic formula “Thus saith the Lord” characteristically introduced propositionally disclosed truth. Jesus Christ employed the distinctive formula “But I say unto you” to introduce logically formed sentences that he represented as the veritable word or doctrine of God.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is authoritative because it is divinely authorized; in its own terms, “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tm 3:16, <span>niv<\/span>). According to this passage, the whole OT (or any element of it) is divinely inspired. Extension of the same claim to the NT is not expressly stated, but it is not merely implied. The New Testament contains indications that its content was to be viewed, and was in fact viewed, as no less authoritative than the Old. The apostle Paul’s writings are catalogued with “other Scriptures” (2 Pt 3:15-16). Under the heading of “Scripture,” 1 Timothy 5:18 cites Luke 10:7 alongside Deuteronomy 25:4 (cf. 1 Cor 9:9). The book of Revelation, moreover, claims divine origin (1:1-3) and employs the term “prophecy” in the OT sense (22:9-10, 18). The apostles did not distinguish their spoken and written teaching but expressly declared their inspired proclamation to be the word of God (1 Cor 4:1; 2 Cor 5:20; 1 Thes 2:13).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible remains the most extensively printed, most widely translated, and most frequently read book in the world. Its words have been treasured in the hearts of multitudes like none other’s. All who have received its gifts of wisdom and promises of new life and power were at first strangers to its redemptive message, and many were hostile to its teaching and spiritual demands. In all generations its power to challenge persons of all races and lands has been demonstrated. Those who cherish the Book because it sustains future hope, brings meaning and power to the present, and correlates a misused past with the forgiving grace of God would not long experience such inner rewards if Scripture were not known to them as the authoritative, divinely revealed truth. To the Christian, Scripture is the Word of God given in the objective form of propositional truths through divinely inspired prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit is the giver of faith through that word.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>Several other major articles on the Bible follow:<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Canon of the<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Inspiration of the<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Versions of the (Ancient)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Versions of the (English)<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*<\/h3>\n<p>Derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">biblia<\/span> (“books”), which, though plural, came to be used as a singular noun and to stand for the collection of books known as the Scriptures. The idea of a collection of holy writings developed early in Hebrew-Christian thought. Daniel in the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> spoke of a prophetic writing as “the books” (Dn 9:2). The writer of 1 Maccabees (second century <span>BC<\/span>) referred to the OT as “the holy books” (12:9). Jesus referred to the OT books as “the scriptures” (Mt 21:42), and Paul spoke of them as “the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. Of course, there was no OT and NT before the coming of Christ, only one collection of sacred writings. But after the apostles and their associates produced another body of sacred literature, the church began to refer to the OT and the NT. Actually “testament” is the translation of a Greek word that might better be rendered “covenant.” It denotes an arrangement made by God for the spiritual guidance and benefit of human beings. The covenant is unalterable: humankind may accept it or reject it but cannot change it. “Covenant” is a common OT word; of several covenants described in the OT, the most prominent was the law given to Moses. While Israel was chafing and failing under the Mosaic covenant, God promised them a “new covenant” (Jer 31:31).<\/p>\n<p>The term “new covenant” appears several times in the NT. Jesus used it when he instituted the Lord’s Supper; by it he sought to call attention to the new basis of communion with God he intended to establish by his death (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The apostle Paul also spoke of that new covenant (2 Cor 3:6, 14), as did the writer to the Hebrews (Heb 8:8; 9:11-15). The detailed description of God’s new method of dealing with people (on the basis of the finished work of Christ on the cross) is the subject of the 27 books of the NT. God’s dealing with people in anticipation of the coming of Messiah (Hebrew equivalent of “Christ,” meaning “anointed one”) is certainly the major theme of the 39 books of the OT, though they deal with much more than that. Latin church writers used <em>testamentum<\/em> to translate “covenant,” and from them the use passed into English; so old and new covenants became OT and NT.<\/p>\n<p>At least the first half of the OT follows a logical and easily understood arrangement. In Genesis through Esther the history of Israel from Abraham to the restoration under Persian auspices appears largely in chronological order. Then follows a group of poetic books and the Major and Minor Prophets (“Major” meaning the books that are relatively long; “Minor” meaning the books that are relatively short).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also follows a generally logical arrangement. It begins with the four Gospels, which describe the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ and his training of disciples to carry on his work after his ascension. The book of Acts continues the narrative where the Gospels end and details the founding of the church and its spread through Mediterranean lands. In the latter part of the book the spotlight focuses on the apostle Paul and his church planting activities. Next come letters Paul addressed to churches he founded or to young ministers he tried to encourage. Following the Pauline Epistles come a group commonly called the General Epistles. The last book, Revelation, is an apocalyptic work.<\/p>\n<p>The OT was written almost entirely in Hebrew with a few isolated passages in Aramaic in the latter books. If one accepts the view that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT (the position the Scripture itself takes), the earliest books of the OT were written by about 1400 <span>BC<\/span> (provided one accepts the early date proposed for the exodus). If the last book written was Malachi (before 400 <span>BC<\/span>), composition took place during 1,000 years of time. All the writers (some 30 in number) were Jews: prophets, judges, kings, and other leaders in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The NT was probably written entirely in Greek. If James was the first to write a NT book before the middle of the first century, and if John was the last (composing Revelation about <span>AD<\/span> 90), the NT was written during a 50-year period in the latter half of the first century. All the writers (probably nine) were Jews, with the exception of Luke (writer of Luke and Acts), and they came from a variety of walks of life: fishermen, doctor, tax collector, and religious leaders.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of great diversity of authorship in the OT and NT, and composition spanning over 1,500 years, there is remarkable unity in the total thrust. Christians believe that God must have been superintending the production of a divine-human book that would properly present his message to humankind.<\/p>\n<p>The OT and NT are component parts of one divine revelation. The OT describes man and woman in the first paradise on the old earth; the NT concludes with a vision of the new heaven and new earth. The OT sees humankind as fallen from a sinless condition and separated from God; the NT views believers as restored to favor through the sacrifice of Christ. The OT predicts a coming Redeemer who will rescue men and women from eternal condemnation; the NT reveals the Christ who brought salvation. In most of the OT the spotlight focuses on a sacrificial system in which the blood of animals provided a temporary handling of the sin problem; in the New, Christ appeared as the one who came to put an end to all sacrifice—to be himself the supreme sacrifice. In the OT, numerous predictions foretold a coming Messiah who would save his people; in the New, scores of passages detail how those prophecies were minutely fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ: the “son of Abraham” and the “son of David” (Mt 1:1). As Augustine said more than 1,500 years ago, “The New is in the Old contained; the Old is in the New explained.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheAuthorityoftheBible\">The Authority of the Bible<\/p>\n<p>Judge of men and nations, the self-revealed God wields unlimited authority and power. All creaturely authority and power is derived from that of God. As the sovereign Creator of all, the God of the Bible wills and has the right to be obeyed. The power God bestows is a divine trust, a stewardship. God’s creatures are morally accountable for their use or misuse of it. In fallen human society God wills civil government for the promotion of justice and order. He approves an ordering of authoritative and creative relationships in the home by stipulating certain responsibilities of husbands, wives, and children. He wills a pattern of priorities for the church as well: Jesus Christ the head, prophets and apostles through whom redemptive revelation came, and so on. The inspired Scriptures, revealing God’s transcendent will in objective written form, are the rule of faith and conduct through which Christ exercises his divine authority in the lives of Christians.<\/p>\n<p>Revolt against particular authorities has in our time widened into a revolt against all transcendent and external authority. The widespread questioning of authority is condoned and promoted in many academic circles. Philosophers with a radically secular outlook have affirmed that God and the supernatural are mythical conceptions, that natural processes and events comprise the only ultimate reality. All existence is said to be temporal and changing, all beliefs and ideals are declared to be relative to the age and culture in which they appear. Biblical religion, therefore, like all other, is asserted to be merely a cultural phenomenon. The Bible’s claim to divine authority is dismissed by such thinkers; transcendent revelation, fixed truths, and unchanging commandments are set aside as pious fictions.<\/p>\n<p>In the name of man’s supposed “coming of age,” radical secularism champions human autonomy and creative individuality. Man is his own lord and the inventor of his own ideals and values, it is said. He lives in a supposedly purposeless universe that has itself presumably been engendered by a cosmic accident. Therefore, human beings are declared to be wholly free to impose upon nature and history whatever moral criteria they prefer. In such a view, to insist on divinely given truths and values, on transcendent principles, would be to repress self-fulfillment and retard creative personal development. Hence, the radically secular view goes beyond opposing particular external authorities whose claims are considered arbitrary or immoral; radical secularism is aggressively hostile to all external and objective authority, viewing it as intrinsically restrictive of the autonomous human spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Any reader of the Bible recognizes rejection of divine authority and of a definitive revelation of what is right and good as an age-old phenomenon. It is not at all peculiar to contemporary man to “come of age”; it was found already in Eden. Adam and Eve revolted against the will of God in pursuit of individual preference and self-interest. But their revolt was recognized to be sin, not rationalized as philosophical <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span> at the frontiers of evolutionary advance.<\/p>\n<p>If one takes a strictly developmental view, which considers all reality contingent and changing, what basis remains for humanity’s decisively creative role in the universe? How could a purposeless cosmos cater to individual self-fulfillment? Only the biblical alternative of the Creator-Redeemer God, who fashioned human beings for moral obedience and a high spiritual destiny, truly preserves the permanent, universal dignity of the human species. The Bible does so, however, by a demanding call for personal spiritual decision. The Bible sets forth man’s superiority to the animals, his high dignity (“a little lower than God,” Ps 8:5, <span>nasb<\/span>) because of the divine rational and moral image that he bears by creation. In the context of universal human involvement in Adamic sin, the Bible utters a merciful divine call to redemptive renewal through the mediatorial person and work of Christ. Fallen humanity is invited to experience the Holy Spirit’s renewing work, to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, and to anticipate a final destiny in the eternal presence of the God of justice and justification.<\/p>\n<p>Contemporary rejection of biblical tenets does not rest on any logical demonstration that the case for biblical theism is false; it turns rather on a subjective preference for alternative views of “the good life.”<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is not the only significant reminder that human beings stand daily in responsible relationship to the sovereign God. The Creator reveals his authority in the cosmos, in history, and in inner conscience, a disclosure of the living God that penetrates into the mind of every human being (Rom 1:18-20; 2:12-15). Rebellious suppression of that “general divine revelation” does not succeed in wholly suspending a fearsome sense of final divine accountability (1:32). Yet it is the Bible as “special revelation” that most clearly confronts our spiritually rebellious race with the reality and authority of God. In the Scriptures, the character and will of God, the meaning of human existence, the nature of the spiritual realm, and the purposes of God for human beings in all ages are stated in propositionally intelligible form that all can understand. The Bible publishes in objective form the criteria by which God judges individuals and nations, and the means of moral recovery and restoration to personal fellowship with him.<\/p>\n<p>Regard for the Bible is therefore decisive for the course of Western culture and in the long run for human civilization generally. Intelligible divine revelation, the basis for belief in the sovereign authority of the Creator-Redeemer God over all human life, rests on the reliability of what Scripture says about God and his purposes. Modern naturalism impugns the authority of the Bible and assails the claim that the Bible is the Word of God written, that is, a transcendently given revelation of the mind and will of God in objective literary form. Scriptural authority is the storm center both in the controversy over revealed religion and in the modern conflict over civilizational values.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblesViewofItself\">The Bible’s View of Itself<\/p>\n<p>The intelligible nature of divine revelation—the presupposition that God’s will is made known in the form of valid truths—is the central presupposition of the authority of the Bible. Much recent neo-Protestant theology demeaned the traditional evangelical emphasis as doctrinaire and static. It insisted instead that the authority of Scripture is to be experienced internally as a witness to divine grace engendering faith and obedience, thus disowning its objective character as universally valid truth. Somewhat inconsistently, almost all neo-Protestant theologians have appealed to the record to support cognitively whatever fragments of the whole seem to coincide with their divergent views, even though they disavow the Bible as a specially revealed corpus of authoritative divine teaching. If God’s revelational disclosure to chosen prophets and apostles is to be considered meaningful and true, it must be given not merely in isolated concepts capable of diverse meanings but in sentences or propositions. A proposition—that is, a subject, predicate, and connecting verb (or “copula”)—constitutes the minimal logical unit of intelligible communication. The OT prophetic formula “Thus saith the Lord” characteristically introduced propositionally disclosed truth. Jesus Christ employed the distinctive formula “But I say unto you” to introduce logically formed sentences that he represented as the veritable word or doctrine of God.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is authoritative because it is divinely authorized; in its own terms, “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tm 3:16, <span>niv<\/span>). According to this passage, the whole OT (or any element of it) is divinely inspired. Extension of the same claim to the NT is not expressly stated, but it is not merely implied. The New Testament contains indications that its content was to be viewed, and was in fact viewed, as no less authoritative than the Old. The apostle Paul’s writings are catalogued with “other Scriptures” (2 Pt 3:15-16). Under the heading of “Scripture,” 1 Timothy 5:18 cites Luke 10:7 alongside Deuteronomy 25:4 (cf. 1 Cor 9:9). The book of Revelation, moreover, claims divine origin (1:1-3) and employs the term “prophecy” in the OT sense (22:9-10, 18). The apostles did not distinguish their spoken and written teaching but expressly declared their inspired proclamation to be the word of God (1 Cor 4:1; 2 Cor 5:20; 1 Thes 2:13).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible remains the most extensively printed, most widely translated, and most frequently read book in the world. Its words have been treasured in the hearts of multitudes like none other’s. All who have received its gifts of wisdom and promises of new life and power were at first strangers to its redemptive message, and many were hostile to its teaching and spiritual demands. In all generations its power to challenge persons of all races and lands has been demonstrated. Those who cherish the Book because it sustains future hope, brings meaning and power to the present, and correlates a misused past with the forgiving grace of God would not long experience such inner rewards if Scripture were not known to them as the authoritative, divinely revealed truth. To the Christian, Scripture is the Word of God given in the objective form of propositional truths through divinely inspired prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit is the giver of faith through that word.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>Several other major articles on the Bible follow:<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Canon of the<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Inspiration of the<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Versions of the (Ancient)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Versions of the (English)<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE* Derived from the Greek biblia (“books”), which, though plural, came to be used as a singular noun and to stand for the collection of books known as the Scriptures. The idea of a collection of holy writings developed early in Hebrew-Christian thought. Daniel in the sixth century BC spoke of a prophetic writing as “the books” (Dn 9:2). The writer of 1 Maccabees (second century BC) referred to the OT as “the holy books” (12:9). Jesus referred to the OT books as “the scriptures” (Mt 21:42)...","summary_en":"BIBLE* Derived from the Greek biblia (“books”), which, though plural, came to be used as a singular noun and to stand for the collection of books known as the Scriptures. The idea of a collection of holy writings developed early in Hebrew-Christian thought. Daniel in the sixth century BC spoke of a prophetic writing as “the books” (Dn 9:2). The writer of 1 Maccabees (second century BC) referred to the OT as “the holy books” (12:9). Jesus referred to the OT books as “the scriptures” (Mt 21:42)...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7889,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Covenant","title_en":"Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>COVENANT<\/h3>\n<p>Arrangement between two parties involving mutual obligations; especially the arrangement that established the relationship between God and his people, expressed in grace first with Israel and then with the church. Through that covenant God has conveyed to humanity the meaning of human life and salvation. Covenant is one of the central themes of the Bible, where some covenants are between human beings, others between God and human beings.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the OT is developed from Noah to Abraham and reaches its first climax in the covenant formed between God and Israel at Mt Sinai. After King David’s time, the history of the covenant becomes a less prominent theme.<\/p>\n<p>At a low point in covenant history the Bible introduces the prophet Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant” in Israel’s future. Christians believe that Jeremiah’s prophecy eventually found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is not accidental that the two volumes of the Christian Bible have been called the Old Covenant and New Covenant (the word commonly translated “testament” means “covenant”).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Meaning of Covenant<\/p>\n<p>• Human Covenants<\/p>\n<p>• Divine-Human Covenants<\/p>\n<p>• Beginnings of the Covenant Tradition<\/p>\n<p>• The Sinai Covenant<\/p>\n<p>• The Covenant with David<\/p>\n<p>• The New Covenant Predicted in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMeaningofCovenant\">The Meaning of Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The essence of covenant is to be found in a particular kind of relationship between persons. Mutual obligations characterize that kind of relationship. Thus a covenant relationship is not merely a mutual acquaintance but a commitment to responsibility and action. A key word in Scripture to describe that commitment is “faithfulness,” acted out in a context of abiding friendship.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the word “covenant” was used in an ordinary human sense as well as in a theological sense. An understanding of human covenants provides a starting point for understanding the covenant between God and human beings.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HumanCovenants\">Human Covenants<\/p>\n<p>A variety of human relationships, from profoundly personal to distantly political, may be described as covenantal. The deep brotherly love that David and Jonathan shared led to a formal covenant between them (1 Sm 18:3). Their covenant of friendship was more than a token of esteem; it bound them to demonstrate mutual loyalty and loving-kindness in certain tangible ways. Jonathan’s covenant faithfulness was typified on an occasion when David was out of favor with the king; Jonathan braved his father’s wrath to speak favorably for his friend. Subsequently, he warned David secretly to flee into hiding (1 Sm 19–20).<\/p>\n<p>To appreciate the many OT laws on marriage and divorce, one must understand that marriage itself was a covenant relationship (Mal 2:14). The solemn promises exchanged by a man and woman became their covenant obligations. Faithfulness to those promises brought marital blessing (cf. Ps 128; Prv 18:22); violation brought a curse.<\/p>\n<p>An individual could, at least figuratively, make a covenant or vow with himself or herself (something like a New Year’s resolution). Job, arguing his integrity before God, referred to a covenant he had made with his eyes to keep him from looking at women licentiously (Jb 31:1).<\/p>\n<p>Covenants could also have a national or international character. The elders of Israel made a national covenant with King David in Hebron (2 Sm 5:3). Probably it contained explicit promises both from the elders on behalf of the people to submit themselves to the king’s authority and from David to rule the nation justly and according to the law of God (Dt 17:15-20). The covenant relationship described mutual obligations between a senior partner (the king) and junior partners (the Israelites). In international relationships OT covenants were similar to modern treaties or alliances. King Solomon entered into such a covenant with Hiram, king of Tyre; that covenant, like many modern international treaties, was a trade agreement between the two nations (1 Kgs 5:12).<\/p>\n<p>Covenant is thus an interpersonal framework of trust, responsibilities, and benefits, with broad application to almost every human relationship from personal friendship to international trade agreements. In Scripture covenant is also the most comprehensive concept covering an individual’s relationship to God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Divine-HumanCovenants\">Divine-Human Covenants<\/p>\n<p>The same basic characteristics of a strictly human covenant are present in a divine covenant: (1) a relationship between two parties (God and a human being or nation), and (2) mutual obligations between the covenant partners. To the OT believer, religion meant covenant. OT religion was faithfulness to the covenant relationship between God and his chosen people; religious responsibilities for both the faith and practice of Israel were covenant responsibilities.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of a divine-human covenant in the OT was not static. Although the fundamental character of covenant remains the same throughout the Bible, the specific nature and form of the covenant changed and developed in the course of ancient Israel’s history. A brief survey of covenant history will further clarify its dimensions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeginningsoftheCovenantTradition\">Beginnings of the Covenant Tradition<\/p>\n<h5>Adam<\/h5>\n<p>Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden. God was their Creator; they were his creatures. The meaning of their lives was to be found in relationship with each other and with God, the giver of the Garden. The fall, however, brought a disruption of the divine relationship, and they were expelled from the Garden.<\/p>\n<p>The fall substantially influenced the nature of subsequent religious covenants. The separation of humankind from God clarifies the nature of the human predicament. Created for a relationship with the Creator, sinning humans are excluded from that relationship and cannot, on their own accord, reestablish it. From that circumstance emerges a distinctive feature of divine-human covenants, namely, that God alone can initiate the relationship of covenant.<\/p>\n<h5>Noah<\/h5>\n<p>The first explicit mention of covenant in Scripture refers to the initiative taken by God to bind himself again to human beings in a covenant, despite human faithlessness. When God warned Noah to build an ark in order to escape the impending Flood, he also promised to establish a covenant with him (Gn 6:18). The corruption and violence of the human race had provoked God’s anger, but his grace was shown in his dealings with Noah. The promised covenant provided that God would maintain a relationship with one family, even though other divine-human relationships were being formally severed. Significantly, God’s covenant promise to Noah came in a context of demand: God ordered Noah to build an ark (v 14). Noah’s receipt of the covenant blessing depended on his obedience to a divine command.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant was elaborated only after the Flood, when Noah had made an offering to God (Gn 8:20-22). The covenant with Noah was in fact a universal covenant with humankind and all living creatures (9:8-10). God promised never to send such a flood again as judgment on the world. The sign of that covenant was the rainbow.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant with Noah affords some perspective for understanding the “covenant God.” Although human beings may deserve destruction because of their wickedness, God withholds that destruction. The covenant of Noah did not establish an intimate relationship between God and each living being; nevertheless, it left open the possibility of a more intimate covenant. Human beings, in spite of their evil, are allowed for a time to live in God’s world; during those years, they may seek a deeper relationship with that world’s Creator.<\/p>\n<h5>Abraham<\/h5>\n<p>The first explicit reference to God’s covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15. When the Lord called the 75-year-old Abram (as he was first called) to leave his home city of Ur and set out on a journey, a relationship already existed between God and Abram. In that relationship, which enabled God to command Abram’s obedience, God made certain promises to him: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing” (Gn 12:2, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Formal establishment of the covenant with Abram is described in Genesis 15 as a profound religious experience. The initiative lay entirely with God, who approached Abram in a vision and spoke with him. Abram raised a fundamental objection: how could he experience the blessing of God if it was to come to him through a son he did not have? His wife Sarai was past the childbearing age, and he himself was “as good as dead” (Rom 4:19). God assured the old man that he would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abram’s belief at that point introduced the theme of righteousness central to the covenant concept: Abram “believed the <span>Lord<\/span>, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gn 15:6, <span>rsv<\/span>). At the end of that day, Abram knew that his own future and the future of his descendants were firmly in the hands of the covenant God. “On that day the <span>Lord<\/span> made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land’ ” (v 18, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The covenant is more fully expressed in Genesis 17, which probably records a renewal of God’s covenant with Abram. The initiative once again lay with God (Gn 17:1). God addressed the 99-year-old Abram in words that made clear that the covenant was not a relationship between equal partners. God was the Almighty; Abram was a human being to whom an extraordinary privilege had been granted.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the details of the covenant in Genesis 17 show that both partners assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abram and his descendants while requiring certain commitments from Abram. The blessing Abram would receive as a covenant partner became clear from the new name God gave him. “I am changing your name. It will no longer be Abram; now you will be known as Abraham, for you will be the father of many nations” (Gn 17:5, <span>nlt<\/span>). God would give to Abraham, through his descendants, the land of Canaan as an everlasting gift and would be the personal God of Abraham and his family in perpetuity (vv 7-8).<\/p>\n<p>God’s giving required a response of obedience from Abraham: “Live a blameless life” (Gn 17:1, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those simple words indicate the essence of covenant relationship: to relate to God is to live in his presence; since God is holy, one who knows him is expected to live a life of integrity and blamelessness.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant also had a more formal aspect. Abraham and the male members of his household were to undergo the rite of circumcision as a symbol of covenant commitment. Abraham was an old man when he was circumcised (Gn 17:24), though male children born into the covenant family were to be circumcised when they were eight days old (v 12). Circumcision was not in itself a ritual peculiar to the Hebrews; it was practiced in most societies in the ancient Near East (the Philistines were one exception). The distinctiveness lay in what the act symbolized: among other things, a continuing and faithful relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Abraham was characterized by both present and future realities. The covenant established a continuing relationship between Abraham and his Creator. Yet its thrust pointed to future blessing—in the children yet to be born, the “chosen people,” and in the land that eventually his descendants would call their own.<\/p>\n<p>Another dimension of the covenant lay still further in the future: “All the families of the earth will be blessed through you” (Gn 12:3, <span>nlt<\/span>). Early in the OT, the idea of election (God’s unconditional preference; cf. 2 Thes 2:13) is present. God chose to enter into a covenant relationship with a particular man and his particular descendants. Yet God always elects a person to serve: Adam, to cultivate the Garden; Noah, to build an ark; Abraham, to leave his home for another land and to live blamelessly before God (cf. Eph 2:8-10). Further, the “particularity” of Abraham’s election contained within it a universality: through his descendants the blessing of God would be offered to all.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the future aspects of Abraham’s covenant reflect two stages. From Abraham’s perspective, in the relatively near future his descendants would possess a land given them by God. But in the more distant future was the prospect of a universal blessing, the culmination of God’s work in the world. The initial fulfillment of that distant future is perceived in the NT, but the more immediate fulfillment of God’s promise was the Sinai covenant at the time of Moses.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSinaiCovenant\">The Sinai Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The covenant established between God and Israel at Mt Sinai is the focal point of the covenant tradition in the OT. It was anticipated in the covenant of Abraham and lay behind the covenant of David and the proclamation of the prophets. It was central to OT religion, laying down the foundations of Judaism that continue into the modern world. The Sinai covenant was the formal institution of a relationship between God and his chosen people, Israel.<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate the impact of the Sinai covenant, one must understand its historical context. It was preceded by the exodus of the Hebrew people from Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The exodus was an extraordinary act of liberation in which God intervened in the normal course of history to free his people from slavery in Egypt. The exodus is interpreted in the OT as a divine act comparable to Creation, the act through which God “created” the nation of Israel. Examination of the two versions of the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11; Dt 5:12-15) shows that the exodus from Egypt directly parallels the creation of the world as a basis for Sabbath observance. Although Israel was created in the exodus, the nation had neither a constitution nor land. The covenant provided the nascent state of Israel with a constitution, making it a theocratic state (a state ruled by God).<\/p>\n<p>The basic account of the Sinai covenant is contained in Exodus 19 and 20. The initiative came from God, who gave instructions through Moses to prepare for the covenant; God spoke the words that contained the covenant offer. There was no doubt that the God of Israel was the senior partner in the relationship made formal at Sinai. The God who had revealed himself through his acts in the exodus then revealed himself in words. Those two aspects—the God who acts and speaks—are central to OT theology. And although the covenant contained law, it was preceded by the exodus, an act of divine grace.<\/p>\n<p>God’s offer of covenant carried with it a divine promise: “You will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation” (Ex 19:6, <span>nlt<\/span>). The promise was one of extraordinary privilege; an entire nation was called upon to represent all other nations before the God of the universe. But the priestly office, though it carried privilege, was also a demanding office. A priest had to be pure and had to know the God whose presence he was required to enter. Thus Israel, the priestly nation, received a law that would provide direction in living, in loving God, and in serving all people. The law given with the covenant expressed the requirements for God’s covenant people.<\/p>\n<h5>The Covenant Law<\/h5>\n<p>The covenant law had two principal parts. First, the Ten Commandments expressed God’s requirements of Israel in a concise form (Ex 20:2-17). The commandments specified the covenant people’s relationship both to God and to other human beings. Although the tendency in the present day is to view the Ten Commandments as a system of ethics or morality, they had a different role in ancient Israel. The covenant law was the foundation or constitution of a new nation, a special “nation of priests.” The head of the nation-state was God. Hence, in ancient Israel the status of the Ten Commandments was approximately that of the code of criminal law in a modern nation-state. To break one of those laws was to commit a crime against God, the head of the state. Yet the laws had a positive purpose. They set down a way of life that would result in a full and rich communion with God and community with others.<\/p>\n<p>The second part of the covenant law was a detailed law code covering the activities of everyday life. Examples of such laws are found in Exodus 21–23. These laws were compiled and recorded in the “Book of the Covenant” (Ex 24:7). Although many laws were contained in this book, it was impossible to codify every aspect of human behavior. The diversity of the examples given indicates that for the covenant member no area of human life was beyond the influence of the covenant. Persons who entered into a relationship with God entered into a relationship that impinged on every possible aspect of their lives.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Renewal<\/h5>\n<p>The covenant at Sinai was made with a particular group of people under the leadership of Moses but was binding on future generations. Consequently, the covenant was renewed from time to time. Covenant renewals are recorded in the time of Joshua (Jos 8:30-35; 24:1-28) and, much later, during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The most important passage in the Bible for understanding covenant renewal and the nature of covenant is the book of Deuteronomy. The entire book describes a particular covenant renewal ceremony that occurred at a critical juncture in Israel’s early history. The Sinai covenant was renewed just before Moses’ death, before the transition of leadership to Joshua, and before a major military campaign to possess the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant since the time of Abraham had contained a promise of land. Immediately before they entered that land (c. 1250 <span>BC<\/span>), the covenant vows were renewed with a new generation of Israelites, most of whom had not stood at the foot of Mt Sinai some 40 years earlier. Although covenant renewal is the central theme of Deuteronomy, the writer focused primarily on Moses’ sermon rather than on a detailed account of the renewal ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ceremony were simply a repetition of what happened at the original ratification of the covenant. The Ten Commandments were repeated (Dt 5:6-21), and the laws of the Book of the Covenant were expounded in greater detail (Dt 12–26). Two points emerging in Deuteronomy are particularly significant for an understanding of covenant: a clear statement of covenant love and a detailed statement of the blessings and curses that accompanied the making and renewing of the covenant.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCovenantwithDavid\">The Covenant with David<\/p>\n<p>The covenant tradition underwent modification during the time of King David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>). The Sinai covenant had been established between God and Israel, with Moses acting as mediator. In David’s time an additional element was added: God entered into a covenant with David as king. That royal covenant was intimated to David through the prophet Nathan (2 Sm 7:8-16), indicating once again the divine initiative. It was to be an everlasting covenant with David’s royal lineage (23:5).<\/p>\n\n<p>Christians generally interpret the covenant with David as a messianic covenant. For several centuries the dynasty established by David ruled a united Israel, then ruled the remaining southern kingdom of Judah. But in 586 <span>BC<\/span> Judah was conquered by the Babylonians. At that point a descendant of David was no longer ruling an independent kingdom of God’s chosen people. The everlasting nature of the covenant with David was brought out, however, not in the pages of ancient history but in the expectation of a Messiah who would be born of David’s descendants. Matthew and Luke both pointed to Jesus’ Davidic descent (Mt 1:1; Lk 3:31). The NT thus extends the covenant acts of God into the new age in the person of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewCovenantPredictedintheOldTestament\">The New Covenant Predicted in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although David’s covenant with God was eternal, in a sense the covenant established with Israel on Mt Sinai was temporal. The Sinai covenant included conditional clauses, stated in the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy. Israel’s disobedience of the covenant law would at worst bring exile from the Promised Land, a central covenant theme from Abraham to Moses and beyond.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew prophets often perceived the danger of an end to the covenant as a result of Israel’s sins. Some of the prophets, especially Hosea and Jeremiah, also perceived a deeper truth; namely, that the covenant was rooted in divine love and that therefore even the curse of God could not be final.<\/p>\n<p>Hosea dramatically expressed that truth through the “living parable” of his marriage (Hos 1–3). He married Gomer at God’s command, but later, as a result of her unfaithfulness, the marital covenant was dissolved by divorce. Although Gomer’s adulterous acts compelled Hosea to divorce her, he did not cease to love her. God later commanded Hosea to go back to Gomer (Hos 3:1). Despite her unfaithfulness, the prophet was to take her again into the covenant relationship of marriage. That acted-out parable depicted God’s actions with Israel. Israel’s sin would inevitably culminate in a divorce from God, but Hosea perceived a new marriage. In the new covenant between God and Israel, Israel would be graciously accepted back into a relationship with God (2:14-18).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant is given powerful expression in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, who lived through the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth centuries <span>BC<\/span>. In his lifetime Jeremiah saw the kingdom of Judah defeated in war. The nation lost its independence and became a vassal of the Babylonian Empire. In an external sense, that defeat in 586 <span>BC<\/span> marked the end of the Sinai covenant. Israel could no longer call the Promised Land its own. Yet Jeremiah perceived a truth beyond the contemporary political realities. God’s work in the world, like his love for the world, was not over.<\/p>\n<p>Thus Jeremiah spoke of a new covenant that God would bring into effect: “The days are coming, says the <span>Lord<\/span>, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The new covenant would be marked by an act of God within human hearts, a radical spiritual transformation (Jer 31:34). At the Last Supper Jesus declared to his disciples that “this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20, <span>rsv<\/span>). To the writer of Hebrews, the new covenant was central to a full understanding of the ministry of Jesus Christ (Heb 8:8-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Covenant is a concept central to the message and the history of the OT. The covenant theme continues into the NT as a way of interpreting the Christian gospel. Meaning in human life is to be found in a covenant relationship with the living God. Yet sinful human beings cannot work their way into such a relationship; God alone can initiate it. According to the NT, God’s act in giving his son, Jesus, to die opened up the covenant relationship to all human beings. The forgiveness made available by Jesus’ “blood of the new covenant” makes it possible for any individual to enter into a covenant relationship with God. Entry into such a relationship, today as in Abraham’s time, hinges upon faith (Gal 3:6-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Alliance; Covenant, The New; Law, Biblical Concept of; Oath; Vows.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COVENANT<\/h3>\n<p>Arrangement between two parties involving mutual obligations; especially the arrangement that established the relationship between God and his people, expressed in grace first with Israel and then with the church. Through that covenant God has conveyed to humanity the meaning of human life and salvation. Covenant is one of the central themes of the Bible, where some covenants are between human beings, others between God and human beings.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant theme in the OT is developed from Noah to Abraham and reaches its first climax in the covenant formed between God and Israel at Mt Sinai. After King David’s time, the history of the covenant becomes a less prominent theme.<\/p>\n<p>At a low point in covenant history the Bible introduces the prophet Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant” in Israel’s future. Christians believe that Jeremiah’s prophecy eventually found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is not accidental that the two volumes of the Christian Bible have been called the Old Covenant and New Covenant (the word commonly translated “testament” means “covenant”).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Meaning of Covenant<\/p>\n<p>• Human Covenants<\/p>\n<p>• Divine-Human Covenants<\/p>\n<p>• Beginnings of the Covenant Tradition<\/p>\n<p>• The Sinai Covenant<\/p>\n<p>• The Covenant with David<\/p>\n<p>• The New Covenant Predicted in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMeaningofCovenant\">The Meaning of Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The essence of covenant is to be found in a particular kind of relationship between persons. Mutual obligations characterize that kind of relationship. Thus a covenant relationship is not merely a mutual acquaintance but a commitment to responsibility and action. A key word in Scripture to describe that commitment is “faithfulness,” acted out in a context of abiding friendship.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the word “covenant” was used in an ordinary human sense as well as in a theological sense. An understanding of human covenants provides a starting point for understanding the covenant between God and human beings.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HumanCovenants\">Human Covenants<\/p>\n<p>A variety of human relationships, from profoundly personal to distantly political, may be described as covenantal. The deep brotherly love that David and Jonathan shared led to a formal covenant between them (1 Sm 18:3). Their covenant of friendship was more than a token of esteem; it bound them to demonstrate mutual loyalty and loving-kindness in certain tangible ways. Jonathan’s covenant faithfulness was typified on an occasion when David was out of favor with the king; Jonathan braved his father’s wrath to speak favorably for his friend. Subsequently, he warned David secretly to flee into hiding (1 Sm 19–20).<\/p>\n<p>To appreciate the many OT laws on marriage and divorce, one must understand that marriage itself was a covenant relationship (Mal 2:14). The solemn promises exchanged by a man and woman became their covenant obligations. Faithfulness to those promises brought marital blessing (cf. Ps 128; Prv 18:22); violation brought a curse.<\/p>\n<p>An individual could, at least figuratively, make a covenant or vow with himself or herself (something like a New Year’s resolution). Job, arguing his integrity before God, referred to a covenant he had made with his eyes to keep him from looking at women licentiously (Jb 31:1).<\/p>\n<p>Covenants could also have a national or international character. The elders of Israel made a national covenant with King David in Hebron (2 Sm 5:3). Probably it contained explicit promises both from the elders on behalf of the people to submit themselves to the king’s authority and from David to rule the nation justly and according to the law of God (Dt 17:15-20). The covenant relationship described mutual obligations between a senior partner (the king) and junior partners (the Israelites). In international relationships OT covenants were similar to modern treaties or alliances. King Solomon entered into such a covenant with Hiram, king of Tyre; that covenant, like many modern international treaties, was a trade agreement between the two nations (1 Kgs 5:12).<\/p>\n<p>Covenant is thus an interpersonal framework of trust, responsibilities, and benefits, with broad application to almost every human relationship from personal friendship to international trade agreements. In Scripture covenant is also the most comprehensive concept covering an individual’s relationship to God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Divine-HumanCovenants\">Divine-Human Covenants<\/p>\n<p>The same basic characteristics of a strictly human covenant are present in a divine covenant: (1) a relationship between two parties (God and a human being or nation), and (2) mutual obligations between the covenant partners. To the OT believer, religion meant covenant. OT religion was faithfulness to the covenant relationship between God and his chosen people; religious responsibilities for both the faith and practice of Israel were covenant responsibilities.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of a divine-human covenant in the OT was not static. Although the fundamental character of covenant remains the same throughout the Bible, the specific nature and form of the covenant changed and developed in the course of ancient Israel’s history. A brief survey of covenant history will further clarify its dimensions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeginningsoftheCovenantTradition\">Beginnings of the Covenant Tradition<\/p>\n<h5>Adam<\/h5>\n<p>Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden. God was their Creator; they were his creatures. The meaning of their lives was to be found in relationship with each other and with God, the giver of the Garden. The fall, however, brought a disruption of the divine relationship, and they were expelled from the Garden.<\/p>\n<p>The fall substantially influenced the nature of subsequent religious covenants. The separation of humankind from God clarifies the nature of the human predicament. Created for a relationship with the Creator, sinning humans are excluded from that relationship and cannot, on their own accord, reestablish it. From that circumstance emerges a distinctive feature of divine-human covenants, namely, that God alone can initiate the relationship of covenant.<\/p>\n<h5>Noah<\/h5>\n<p>The first explicit mention of covenant in Scripture refers to the initiative taken by God to bind himself again to human beings in a covenant, despite human faithlessness. When God warned Noah to build an ark in order to escape the impending Flood, he also promised to establish a covenant with him (Gn 6:18). The corruption and violence of the human race had provoked God’s anger, but his grace was shown in his dealings with Noah. The promised covenant provided that God would maintain a relationship with one family, even though other divine-human relationships were being formally severed. Significantly, God’s covenant promise to Noah came in a context of demand: God ordered Noah to build an ark (v 14). Noah’s receipt of the covenant blessing depended on his obedience to a divine command.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant was elaborated only after the Flood, when Noah had made an offering to God (Gn 8:20-22). The covenant with Noah was in fact a universal covenant with humankind and all living creatures (9:8-10). God promised never to send such a flood again as judgment on the world. The sign of that covenant was the rainbow.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant with Noah affords some perspective for understanding the “covenant God.” Although human beings may deserve destruction because of their wickedness, God withholds that destruction. The covenant of Noah did not establish an intimate relationship between God and each living being; nevertheless, it left open the possibility of a more intimate covenant. Human beings, in spite of their evil, are allowed for a time to live in God’s world; during those years, they may seek a deeper relationship with that world’s Creator.<\/p>\n<h5>Abraham<\/h5>\n<p>The first explicit reference to God’s covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15. When the Lord called the 75-year-old Abram (as he was first called) to leave his home city of Ur and set out on a journey, a relationship already existed between God and Abram. In that relationship, which enabled God to command Abram’s obedience, God made certain promises to him: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing” (Gn 12:2, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Formal establishment of the covenant with Abram is described in Genesis 15 as a profound religious experience. The initiative lay entirely with God, who approached Abram in a vision and spoke with him. Abram raised a fundamental objection: how could he experience the blessing of God if it was to come to him through a son he did not have? His wife Sarai was past the childbearing age, and he himself was “as good as dead” (Rom 4:19). God assured the old man that he would have a son through whom his descendants would eventually be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abram’s belief at that point introduced the theme of righteousness central to the covenant concept: Abram “believed the <span>Lord<\/span>, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gn 15:6, <span>rsv<\/span>). At the end of that day, Abram knew that his own future and the future of his descendants were firmly in the hands of the covenant God. “On that day the <span>Lord<\/span> made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land’ ” (v 18, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The covenant is more fully expressed in Genesis 17, which probably records a renewal of God’s covenant with Abram. The initiative once again lay with God (Gn 17:1). God addressed the 99-year-old Abram in words that made clear that the covenant was not a relationship between equal partners. God was the Almighty; Abram was a human being to whom an extraordinary privilege had been granted.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the details of the covenant in Genesis 17 show that both partners assumed responsibilities. God committed himself voluntarily to Abram and his descendants while requiring certain commitments from Abram. The blessing Abram would receive as a covenant partner became clear from the new name God gave him. “I am changing your name. It will no longer be Abram; now you will be known as Abraham, for you will be the father of many nations” (Gn 17:5, <span>nlt<\/span>). God would give to Abraham, through his descendants, the land of Canaan as an everlasting gift and would be the personal God of Abraham and his family in perpetuity (vv 7-8).<\/p>\n<p>God’s giving required a response of obedience from Abraham: “Live a blameless life” (Gn 17:1, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those simple words indicate the essence of covenant relationship: to relate to God is to live in his presence; since God is holy, one who knows him is expected to live a life of integrity and blamelessness.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant also had a more formal aspect. Abraham and the male members of his household were to undergo the rite of circumcision as a symbol of covenant commitment. Abraham was an old man when he was circumcised (Gn 17:24), though male children born into the covenant family were to be circumcised when they were eight days old (v 12). Circumcision was not in itself a ritual peculiar to the Hebrews; it was practiced in most societies in the ancient Near East (the Philistines were one exception). The distinctiveness lay in what the act symbolized: among other things, a continuing and faithful relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>God’s covenant with Abraham was characterized by both present and future realities. The covenant established a continuing relationship between Abraham and his Creator. Yet its thrust pointed to future blessing—in the children yet to be born, the “chosen people,” and in the land that eventually his descendants would call their own.<\/p>\n<p>Another dimension of the covenant lay still further in the future: “All the families of the earth will be blessed through you” (Gn 12:3, <span>nlt<\/span>). Early in the OT, the idea of election (God’s unconditional preference; cf. 2 Thes 2:13) is present. God chose to enter into a covenant relationship with a particular man and his particular descendants. Yet God always elects a person to serve: Adam, to cultivate the Garden; Noah, to build an ark; Abraham, to leave his home for another land and to live blamelessly before God (cf. Eph 2:8-10). Further, the “particularity” of Abraham’s election contained within it a universality: through his descendants the blessing of God would be offered to all.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the future aspects of Abraham’s covenant reflect two stages. From Abraham’s perspective, in the relatively near future his descendants would possess a land given them by God. But in the more distant future was the prospect of a universal blessing, the culmination of God’s work in the world. The initial fulfillment of that distant future is perceived in the NT, but the more immediate fulfillment of God’s promise was the Sinai covenant at the time of Moses.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSinaiCovenant\">The Sinai Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The covenant established between God and Israel at Mt Sinai is the focal point of the covenant tradition in the OT. It was anticipated in the covenant of Abraham and lay behind the covenant of David and the proclamation of the prophets. It was central to OT religion, laying down the foundations of Judaism that continue into the modern world. The Sinai covenant was the formal institution of a relationship between God and his chosen people, Israel.<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate the impact of the Sinai covenant, one must understand its historical context. It was preceded by the exodus of the Hebrew people from Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The exodus was an extraordinary act of liberation in which God intervened in the normal course of history to free his people from slavery in Egypt. The exodus is interpreted in the OT as a divine act comparable to Creation, the act through which God “created” the nation of Israel. Examination of the two versions of the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11; Dt 5:12-15) shows that the exodus from Egypt directly parallels the creation of the world as a basis for Sabbath observance. Although Israel was created in the exodus, the nation had neither a constitution nor land. The covenant provided the nascent state of Israel with a constitution, making it a theocratic state (a state ruled by God).<\/p>\n<p>The basic account of the Sinai covenant is contained in Exodus 19 and 20. The initiative came from God, who gave instructions through Moses to prepare for the covenant; God spoke the words that contained the covenant offer. There was no doubt that the God of Israel was the senior partner in the relationship made formal at Sinai. The God who had revealed himself through his acts in the exodus then revealed himself in words. Those two aspects—the God who acts and speaks—are central to OT theology. And although the covenant contained law, it was preceded by the exodus, an act of divine grace.<\/p>\n<p>God’s offer of covenant carried with it a divine promise: “You will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation” (Ex 19:6, <span>nlt<\/span>). The promise was one of extraordinary privilege; an entire nation was called upon to represent all other nations before the God of the universe. But the priestly office, though it carried privilege, was also a demanding office. A priest had to be pure and had to know the God whose presence he was required to enter. Thus Israel, the priestly nation, received a law that would provide direction in living, in loving God, and in serving all people. The law given with the covenant expressed the requirements for God’s covenant people.<\/p>\n<h5>The Covenant Law<\/h5>\n<p>The covenant law had two principal parts. First, the Ten Commandments expressed God’s requirements of Israel in a concise form (Ex 20:2-17). The commandments specified the covenant people’s relationship both to God and to other human beings. Although the tendency in the present day is to view the Ten Commandments as a system of ethics or morality, they had a different role in ancient Israel. The covenant law was the foundation or constitution of a new nation, a special “nation of priests.” The head of the nation-state was God. Hence, in ancient Israel the status of the Ten Commandments was approximately that of the code of criminal law in a modern nation-state. To break one of those laws was to commit a crime against God, the head of the state. Yet the laws had a positive purpose. They set down a way of life that would result in a full and rich communion with God and community with others.<\/p>\n<p>The second part of the covenant law was a detailed law code covering the activities of everyday life. Examples of such laws are found in Exodus 21–23. These laws were compiled and recorded in the “Book of the Covenant” (Ex 24:7). Although many laws were contained in this book, it was impossible to codify every aspect of human behavior. The diversity of the examples given indicates that for the covenant member no area of human life was beyond the influence of the covenant. Persons who entered into a relationship with God entered into a relationship that impinged on every possible aspect of their lives.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Renewal<\/h5>\n<p>The covenant at Sinai was made with a particular group of people under the leadership of Moses but was binding on future generations. Consequently, the covenant was renewed from time to time. Covenant renewals are recorded in the time of Joshua (Jos 8:30-35; 24:1-28) and, much later, during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The most important passage in the Bible for understanding covenant renewal and the nature of covenant is the book of Deuteronomy. The entire book describes a particular covenant renewal ceremony that occurred at a critical juncture in Israel’s early history. The Sinai covenant was renewed just before Moses’ death, before the transition of leadership to Joshua, and before a major military campaign to possess the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>The covenant since the time of Abraham had contained a promise of land. Immediately before they entered that land (c. 1250 <span>BC<\/span>), the covenant vows were renewed with a new generation of Israelites, most of whom had not stood at the foot of Mt Sinai some 40 years earlier. Although covenant renewal is the central theme of Deuteronomy, the writer focused primarily on Moses’ sermon rather than on a detailed account of the renewal ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ceremony were simply a repetition of what happened at the original ratification of the covenant. The Ten Commandments were repeated (Dt 5:6-21), and the laws of the Book of the Covenant were expounded in greater detail (Dt 12–26). Two points emerging in Deuteronomy are particularly significant for an understanding of covenant: a clear statement of covenant love and a detailed statement of the blessings and curses that accompanied the making and renewing of the covenant.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCovenantwithDavid\">The Covenant with David<\/p>\n<p>The covenant tradition underwent modification during the time of King David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>). The Sinai covenant had been established between God and Israel, with Moses acting as mediator. In David’s time an additional element was added: God entered into a covenant with David as king. That royal covenant was intimated to David through the prophet Nathan (2 Sm 7:8-16), indicating once again the divine initiative. It was to be an everlasting covenant with David’s royal lineage (23:5).<\/p>\n\n<p>Christians generally interpret the covenant with David as a messianic covenant. For several centuries the dynasty established by David ruled a united Israel, then ruled the remaining southern kingdom of Judah. But in 586 <span>BC<\/span> Judah was conquered by the Babylonians. At that point a descendant of David was no longer ruling an independent kingdom of God’s chosen people. The everlasting nature of the covenant with David was brought out, however, not in the pages of ancient history but in the expectation of a Messiah who would be born of David’s descendants. Matthew and Luke both pointed to Jesus’ Davidic descent (Mt 1:1; Lk 3:31). The NT thus extends the covenant acts of God into the new age in the person of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewCovenantPredictedintheOldTestament\">The New Covenant Predicted in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although David’s covenant with God was eternal, in a sense the covenant established with Israel on Mt Sinai was temporal. The Sinai covenant included conditional clauses, stated in the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy. Israel’s disobedience of the covenant law would at worst bring exile from the Promised Land, a central covenant theme from Abraham to Moses and beyond.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew prophets often perceived the danger of an end to the covenant as a result of Israel’s sins. Some of the prophets, especially Hosea and Jeremiah, also perceived a deeper truth; namely, that the covenant was rooted in divine love and that therefore even the curse of God could not be final.<\/p>\n<p>Hosea dramatically expressed that truth through the “living parable” of his marriage (Hos 1–3). He married Gomer at God’s command, but later, as a result of her unfaithfulness, the marital covenant was dissolved by divorce. Although Gomer’s adulterous acts compelled Hosea to divorce her, he did not cease to love her. God later commanded Hosea to go back to Gomer (Hos 3:1). Despite her unfaithfulness, the prophet was to take her again into the covenant relationship of marriage. That acted-out parable depicted God’s actions with Israel. Israel’s sin would inevitably culminate in a divorce from God, but Hosea perceived a new marriage. In the new covenant between God and Israel, Israel would be graciously accepted back into a relationship with God (2:14-18).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant is given powerful expression in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, who lived through the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth centuries <span>BC<\/span>. In his lifetime Jeremiah saw the kingdom of Judah defeated in war. The nation lost its independence and became a vassal of the Babylonian Empire. In an external sense, that defeat in 586 <span>BC<\/span> marked the end of the Sinai covenant. Israel could no longer call the Promised Land its own. Yet Jeremiah perceived a truth beyond the contemporary political realities. God’s work in the world, like his love for the world, was not over.<\/p>\n<p>Thus Jeremiah spoke of a new covenant that God would bring into effect: “The days are coming, says the <span>Lord<\/span>, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The new covenant would be marked by an act of God within human hearts, a radical spiritual transformation (Jer 31:34). At the Last Supper Jesus declared to his disciples that “this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20, <span>rsv<\/span>). To the writer of Hebrews, the new covenant was central to a full understanding of the ministry of Jesus Christ (Heb 8:8-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Covenant is a concept central to the message and the history of the OT. The covenant theme continues into the NT as a way of interpreting the Christian gospel. Meaning in human life is to be found in a covenant relationship with the living God. Yet sinful human beings cannot work their way into such a relationship; God alone can initiate it. According to the NT, God’s act in giving his son, Jesus, to die opened up the covenant relationship to all human beings. The forgiveness made available by Jesus’ “blood of the new covenant” makes it possible for any individual to enter into a covenant relationship with God. Entry into such a relationship, today as in Abraham’s time, hinges upon faith (Gal 3:6-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Alliance; Covenant, The New; Law, Biblical Concept of; Oath; Vows.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COVENANT Arrangement between two parties involving mutual obligations; especially the arrangement that established the relationship between God and his people, expressed in grace first with Israel and then with the church. Through that covenant God has conveyed to humanity the meaning of human life and salvation. Covenant is one of the central themes of the Bible, where some covenants are between human beings, others between God and human beings. The covenant theme in the OT is developed from...","summary_en":"COVENANT Arrangement between two parties involving mutual obligations; especially the arrangement that established the relationship between God and his people, expressed in grace first with Israel and then with the church. Through that covenant God has conveyed to humanity the meaning of human life and salvation. Covenant is one of the central themes of the Bible, where some covenants are between human beings, others between God and human beings. The covenant theme in the OT is developed from...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7917,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Covenant, the New","title_en":"Covenant, the New","content_ro":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\n<p>A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, <span>rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ANewCovenant\">A New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\n<p>Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SuperiorityoftheNewCovenant\">Superiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n<p>1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\n<p>A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, <span>rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ANewCovenant\">A New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\n<p>Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SuperiorityoftheNewCovenant\">Superiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n<p>1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","summary_en":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19070,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Jeremiah","title_en":"Book of Jeremiah","content_ro":"<h3>JEREMIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n\n<p>OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>• The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the first and third person, and even the second person, in the same context. For example, 32:6-7 reads: “Jeremiah said [third person], ‘The word of the <span>Lord<\/span> came to me: [first person] . . . your uncle will come to you [second person]’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of the passage of time provides the strongest argument against the Jeremian authorship of chapter 52. Jeremiah was born about 657 <span>BC<\/span>. Evil-merodoch released Jehoiachin (52:31) about 95 years later. Jeremiah 52:33 summarizes the continuation of events beyond this time. The problem of location also argues against Jeremian authorship, for Jeremiah took up residence in Egypt (43:6-7) while Jehoiachin dwelt in Babylon. Note also that Jeremiah concludes his writing with chapter 51, making chapter 52 a true editorial appendix. Since chapter 52 parallels 2 Kings 24:18–25:30, it may be that other portions of Jeremiah that parallel sections of 2 Kings may have been written by someone other than Jeremiah.<\/p>\n<p>The following table shows such portions and includes harmonic passages in 2 Chronicles. The first column shows historical (chronological) sequence. The last column provides a brief condensation of content.<\/p>\n<p>Baruch served as the secretary for Jeremiah. The relationship between the two men apparently lasted many years; the prophet gave a word of encouragement as he blessed his helper (45:5). According to the custom of the people, it would have been legitimate for the scribe to write some of the prophet’s messages in his own words. This would not deny inspiration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authenticity\">Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>That Jeremiah lived and actually wrote the major part of the book bearing his name is authenticated by numerous references in both biblical and nonbiblical sources (e.g., Dn 9; Ecclus 49; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 10; Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em>). The veracity of the historical sections of Jeremiah have abundant confirmation in contemporary biblical books and in the secular histories preserved in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia.<\/p>\n<p>Higher critics sought to discredit the portions of Jeremiah that were omitted by the Septuagint, or to credit passages to a later writer because of style differences (e.g., chs 30–33) or spelling differences (as found in chs 27–29) or linguistic problems (as in 10:11, written in Aramaic, but this may be a gloss). Another reason for discrediting Jeremiah’s authorship is that critics dated some prophecies later than indicated in the context. This results from their requiring that predictive writing follow the record of its fulfillment. None of these reasons is sufficient cause for doubting authenticity. The Hebrew text deserves priority over the Septuagint. Aramaic contact with the Jews became commonplace during this period (cf. Ezr 4–7; Dn 2–7) and therefore explains the presence of Aramaic. Different styles may be expected from the same writer due to differing circumstances and differing purposes. Baruch may have been inspired to write parts of this book and\/or edited what Jeremiah wrote. Prediction preceding fulfillment presents no problem for believers.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBookofJeremiahandtheSeptuagint\">The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>The special problems of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah demand attention. The Septuagint translators evidently made an inaccurate translation. About 2,300 Hebrew words are omitted from the Septuagint. After chapter 23, the mistranslation, omissions, and mixed chronological order indicate confusion. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls display texts with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint order, indicating the antiquity of both editions. Both have suffered corruption at the hands of scribes and the ravages of the ages. The Septuagint evidently veers much further from the original, yet it has invaluable clues to help suggest answers to some textual problems. The most evident major shift in the Septuagint consists of the removal of chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew order, and the placement of them in the spot from which 25:13b-14 was removed. These chapters are renumbered 26–31 but are mixed and changed considerably from the order of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>This is fully discussed in the previous entry. <em>See<\/em> Jeremiah (Person) #1.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The chronological sequence of the messages of Jeremiah constitutes a major problem that cannot be wholly solved. Nonetheless, the book was written during Jeremiah’s ministry (c. 627–586 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>After beginning his ministry in Anathoth, Jeremiah moved to Jerusalem, where he remained until he was forced to join the disobedient refugees who arrived in Egypt about 584 <span>BC<\/span>. Until the deportation of Jehoiachin (597 <span>BC<\/span>), Jeremiah addressed his messages to the king and the people residing in Judah. Later messages addressed the same group, plus the captives in Babylon (e.g., ch 29). After the departure to Egypt, he addressed Jews in that land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Part of God’s commission to Jeremiah stated the purpose of Jeremiah’s ministry: “Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. You are to uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them. You are to build others up and plant them” (1:10, <span>nlt<\/span>). The first four parts of the commission required that Jeremiah, appointed as a “chief governor” over nations, should wreck the existing religious and social structures by his preaching against moral and spiritual sin. Doubtless, the physical destruction caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians was the accoutrement for the truth uttered by the prophet. Jeremiah is consistent in his blasts at moral and religious wickedness, his call to submit to the punishment that God gives through Babylon, and his assurance that such submission will lead to blessing. When Zedekiah asks advice (38:14), we know what Jeremiah will say. When the captains of the refugees ask if they should go to Egypt, we already know the answer (42:3). We may also anticipate the obdurate rejection of God’s message on the part of the inquiring people, who apparently want to know God’s will but have no desire to obey it.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, part of Jeremiah’s purpose focuses on the most distant future when the new covenant will supplant the old (31:31-37), and a transformed people bent on obedience rather than sin will receive God’s promised kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Teaching\">Teaching<\/p>\n<p>National sin brings national punishment. No truth blazes so clearly as this. Gentiles as well as Jews stand under the same judgment, for God is not the God of Israel only.<\/p>\n<p>Individuals are not overlooked in divine judgments on nations. God sets before each the way of life and the way of death (21:8) and appeals to each to choose life (27:13).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah illustrates human depravity by questioning if people can change their skin color or leopards their spots (13:23). The depths of depravity reach beyond man’s ability to measure (17:9-10). People even love falsehood (5:30-31). Yet God promises to transform willing subjects who call on him (33:3) by giving them a “new heart” (24:7; 32:38-41) as the climatic provision of the new covenant (31:33-35). The Messiah, who accomplishes the saving work, is called the Lord our Righteousness, the King, the righteous Branch, the Branch of David (23:5-6; 33:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>A future nation will be made up of individuals who accept this salvation. Passing through the night of tribulation as of travail (30:6-7), the Jews will understand the true identity of their Messiah, will believe and receive him with repentant sorrow, will be cleansed (33:8), and will be regathered from all countries (32:37) by the omnipotent God (v 27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OutlineandContent\">Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p>Though many see no logical order, a careful reading of Jeremiah will reveal a grouping on the basis of content, as suggested by the following outline:<\/p>\n<li> I. Introduction (1)<\/li>\n<li> II. Oracles against the Jews (2–25)<\/li>\n<li>III. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah before the Siege (26–29)<\/li>\n<li> IV. The Book of Hope written during the Siege (30–33)<\/li>\n<li> V. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah after the Siege (34–45)<\/li>\n<li> VI. Oracles against the Nations (46–51)<\/li>\n<li>VII. Conclusion (52)<\/li>\n<p>The prophet opens his ministry with a series of utterances against the sins of Jerusalem (2:1–3:5), followed by similar messages (through ch 4), concluding with words of judgment (chs 5–6). The message in the temple gate (chs 7–10) leads into the proclamation against covenant breakers (chs 11–13). The lamentation over the drought (ch 14) and subsequent miseries (ch 15) compares with many similar expressions of grief. Jeremiah did not differ from other prophets in his use of object lessons. The rotted linen waistband (ch 13), the broken jug (ch 19), figs (ch 24), and ox yoke (chs 27–28) may be supplemented by human object lessons (ch 35), and even the prophet himself, whose celibacy (16:1-4), resistance to sympathetic consolation (16:5-7), and withdrawal from feasts (16:8-9) all served to illustrate and confirm his message.<\/p>\n<p>Places where Jeremiah proclaimed his messages helped bear home his point. He stood in the public gate, where kings came and went, to proclaim that judgment (fire) would come through the gate (17:19, 27; 39:3). Then he went to the potter’s house (ch 18), and then to Hinnom or Topath, which would be called the Valley of Slaughter (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>The persecution suffered by Jeremiah first hinted at (1:8), then predicted (v 19), expresses its venom privately from his home village (11:19-23). The prophet’s kindred join the opposition (12:6). Public opposition brings beatings and the stocks (20:2-3). Jeremiah prefers to keep silent rather than to speak and suffer (v 9), but he cannot withhold the word that is as fire in his bones. The result: all his familiars reproached, derided, terrorized, and denounced him, then sought his death (vv 7-18). Jeremiah escaped death at the hands of priests, prophets, and people only because he had a few faithful friends (26:8-24). When his prophecies began to materialize, hatred mounted. He was beaten and put into a dungeon for many days (37:14-17) on a false charge. Temporary relief at the guardhouse (v 21) lasted only a few days. Officials clamored again for his death (38:4) and put him into a cistern, where he sank in the mire (v 6). His rescue (v 10) preserved his life, but his imprisonment at the guardhouse continued (v 28). His writings were cut up and burned (36:23); his words were denied and rejected (43:1-7; 44:16).<\/p>\n<p>The “Book of Hope“ (chs 30–33) does contain some words of judgment (32:28-35), and other sections of the prophecy have a few bright spots (3:11-18; 16:14-16; 23:2-8; 29:10-14), but in a volume otherwise dark, these four chapters bring pleasant relief. The climax of hope, as indicated also in the longest NT quotation from Jeremiah (see Heb 8:8-12), predicts a new covenant (31:31-40). Other prophecies also describe the end of the Mosaic law and sacrament (e.g., 3:16), and the new covenant (32:40; 33:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of Jeremiah’s activity or messages from c. 594–589 <span>BC<\/span>. Zedekiah’s counselors made clandestine plans for throwing off Babylon’s yoke by alliances with neighbor nations. A traitor may have reported the conspiracy to Babylon (perhaps Edom). After Babylon attacked, Zedekiah sought a hopeful report from Jeremiah but did not get it.<\/p>\n<p>The Recabite faithfulness to the Nazarite vow (ch 35) dates to the days of Jehoiakim but as an object lesson fits the siege context. Recabites received a human command that they obeyed; Jews received a divine command that they rejected. Recabites will be blessed (35:18-19); Judah, judged (vv 15-17). The reading of the scroll to Jehoiakim and his scornful rejection of it (ch 36) illustrates the prophetic assertion (35:15) that destruction follows the rejection of God’s message given through the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>The siege comes into focus in chapter 37 with another inquiry from Zedekiah (the nonchronological chs 35–36 serve as an illustrative parenthesis). Jeremiah 37:11 moves forward to the time of the lifting of the siege of 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Nebuchadnezzar drove Pharaoh Hophra’s army back to Egypt. During the reprieve, Jeremiah sought to attend a meeting of relatives to settle family matters at or near Anathoth. Perhaps the trip involved initiating the purchase that would be made two years later (32:6-15). However, as he was leaving the city, he was arrested for desertion to the Babylonians and jailed in a dungeon cell until Zedekiah granted him privileged prisoner status.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s officers had ample cause for the accusation of sedition: Jeremiah had encouraged desertion (21:9; 38:2). Traitors deserved death, and this was their verdict against Jeremiah (38:4-5). The violence of the time encouraged the officers to select a cruel method of execution: let Jeremiah starve and bury himself in the mire at the bottom of an abandoned cistern. A sympathetic Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, made the rescue. Immediately, the unadulterated prophecies of judgment came forth again from Jeremiah’s lips, including a message to the king that reflected Jeremiah’s own recent experience: “[Your friends] have betrayed and misled you. When your feet sank in the mud, they left you to your fate” (38:22, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 39:1–43:7 records history from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span> to the flight into Egypt, including the liberation of Jeremiah (ch 39), appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (chs 40–41), a warning from God against going to Egypt (ch 42), and the obdurate disobedience of the people (43:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The latest writings of Jeremiah are found in chapter 44. The audience consisted of idolatrous Jews (44:4-6) gathered from various parts of Egypt as far as Aswan (Pathros). Jeremiah repeated the appeal of former prophets to reject false gods in favor of Jehovah, but to no avail (44:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>The message to Baruch (ch 45), written about 605 <span>BC<\/span>, is placed here to round out the main part of the book, which begins with the commission to “break down” and “pluck up” (1:10) and concludes with the same Hebrew words (45:4). If Baruch had ambition to obtain status in the Judean court like his brother Seraiah (51:59), he was advised that it would be useless because disaster would come, as the preceding chapters indicate.<\/p>\n<p>The oracles against the nations (46–51), introduced by a title superscription (46:1), constitute a distinct stylistic division similar to Isaiah 13–23, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1:3–2:16.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the prophecies against foreign nations in Jeremiah carry dates that show that they were written at different points during his ministry but were collected together for the book.<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy against Egypt opens with a colorful description of Egypt’s expulsion from Carchemish (605 <span>BC<\/span>) after a short occupancy (Jer 46:1-12). The second message (vv 13-26) may picture the attack on Egypt in 601 <span>BC<\/span> when Neco stopped Nebuchadnezzar at the border; the attack in 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Hophra lost in his attempt to aid Zedekiah; or (most probably) the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in 568 <span>BC<\/span>, when Babylon took advantage of the weakness of Egypt to occupy it. At that time Nebuchadnezzar set up his judgment throne as predicted (43:10) and meted out death sentences to all rebels, including those Jews who might have been implicated in anti-Babylonian conspiracies. The conclusion of the Egypt oracle repeats part of the Book of Hope (46:27-28, cf. 30:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Messages against Edom, Arabia, Phoenician cities, and Ammon generally condemn pride, cruelty, and idolatry. The oracle against Elam is unique. No other prophet speaks judgment against this people, whose dwelling east of Babylon meant rare contact with Judah. Jeremiah predicted that Elam would be doomed, then restored. Ezekiel counts Elamites among the inhabitants of Sheol (Ez 32:24).<\/p>\n<p>The final judgment indicates the unbiased attitude of the prophet. His messages placed him in an advantageous position with the Babylonians, who treated him with respect and kindness, in contrast to their cruelty to other Jews. But when God spoke against Babylon, Jeremiah uttered God’s words without respect to his own comfort, just as he had spoken against Egypt when silence would have been logical for self-preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 51 concludes “the words of Jeremiah.”<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 52 repeats historical facts previously stated prophetically by Jeremiah, and partially recorded also as history in chapter 39 (cf. 2 Kgs 25 and 2 Chr 36). The editor of Jeremiah evidently desired to climax the book with a historical confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but he included facts beyond those contained elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah (Person) #1; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEREMIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n\n<p>OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>• The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the first and third person, and even the second person, in the same context. For example, 32:6-7 reads: “Jeremiah said [third person], ‘The word of the <span>Lord<\/span> came to me: [first person] . . . your uncle will come to you [second person]’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of the passage of time provides the strongest argument against the Jeremian authorship of chapter 52. Jeremiah was born about 657 <span>BC<\/span>. Evil-merodoch released Jehoiachin (52:31) about 95 years later. Jeremiah 52:33 summarizes the continuation of events beyond this time. The problem of location also argues against Jeremian authorship, for Jeremiah took up residence in Egypt (43:6-7) while Jehoiachin dwelt in Babylon. Note also that Jeremiah concludes his writing with chapter 51, making chapter 52 a true editorial appendix. Since chapter 52 parallels 2 Kings 24:18–25:30, it may be that other portions of Jeremiah that parallel sections of 2 Kings may have been written by someone other than Jeremiah.<\/p>\n<p>The following table shows such portions and includes harmonic passages in 2 Chronicles. The first column shows historical (chronological) sequence. The last column provides a brief condensation of content.<\/p>\n<p>Baruch served as the secretary for Jeremiah. The relationship between the two men apparently lasted many years; the prophet gave a word of encouragement as he blessed his helper (45:5). According to the custom of the people, it would have been legitimate for the scribe to write some of the prophet’s messages in his own words. This would not deny inspiration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authenticity\">Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>That Jeremiah lived and actually wrote the major part of the book bearing his name is authenticated by numerous references in both biblical and nonbiblical sources (e.g., Dn 9; Ecclus 49; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 10; Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em>). The veracity of the historical sections of Jeremiah have abundant confirmation in contemporary biblical books and in the secular histories preserved in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia.<\/p>\n<p>Higher critics sought to discredit the portions of Jeremiah that were omitted by the Septuagint, or to credit passages to a later writer because of style differences (e.g., chs 30–33) or spelling differences (as found in chs 27–29) or linguistic problems (as in 10:11, written in Aramaic, but this may be a gloss). Another reason for discrediting Jeremiah’s authorship is that critics dated some prophecies later than indicated in the context. This results from their requiring that predictive writing follow the record of its fulfillment. None of these reasons is sufficient cause for doubting authenticity. The Hebrew text deserves priority over the Septuagint. Aramaic contact with the Jews became commonplace during this period (cf. Ezr 4–7; Dn 2–7) and therefore explains the presence of Aramaic. Different styles may be expected from the same writer due to differing circumstances and differing purposes. Baruch may have been inspired to write parts of this book and\/or edited what Jeremiah wrote. Prediction preceding fulfillment presents no problem for believers.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBookofJeremiahandtheSeptuagint\">The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>The special problems of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah demand attention. The Septuagint translators evidently made an inaccurate translation. About 2,300 Hebrew words are omitted from the Septuagint. After chapter 23, the mistranslation, omissions, and mixed chronological order indicate confusion. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls display texts with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint order, indicating the antiquity of both editions. Both have suffered corruption at the hands of scribes and the ravages of the ages. The Septuagint evidently veers much further from the original, yet it has invaluable clues to help suggest answers to some textual problems. The most evident major shift in the Septuagint consists of the removal of chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew order, and the placement of them in the spot from which 25:13b-14 was removed. These chapters are renumbered 26–31 but are mixed and changed considerably from the order of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>This is fully discussed in the previous entry. <em>See<\/em> Jeremiah (Person) #1.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The chronological sequence of the messages of Jeremiah constitutes a major problem that cannot be wholly solved. Nonetheless, the book was written during Jeremiah’s ministry (c. 627–586 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>After beginning his ministry in Anathoth, Jeremiah moved to Jerusalem, where he remained until he was forced to join the disobedient refugees who arrived in Egypt about 584 <span>BC<\/span>. Until the deportation of Jehoiachin (597 <span>BC<\/span>), Jeremiah addressed his messages to the king and the people residing in Judah. Later messages addressed the same group, plus the captives in Babylon (e.g., ch 29). After the departure to Egypt, he addressed Jews in that land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Part of God’s commission to Jeremiah stated the purpose of Jeremiah’s ministry: “Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. You are to uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them. You are to build others up and plant them” (1:10, <span>nlt<\/span>). The first four parts of the commission required that Jeremiah, appointed as a “chief governor” over nations, should wreck the existing religious and social structures by his preaching against moral and spiritual sin. Doubtless, the physical destruction caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians was the accoutrement for the truth uttered by the prophet. Jeremiah is consistent in his blasts at moral and religious wickedness, his call to submit to the punishment that God gives through Babylon, and his assurance that such submission will lead to blessing. When Zedekiah asks advice (38:14), we know what Jeremiah will say. When the captains of the refugees ask if they should go to Egypt, we already know the answer (42:3). We may also anticipate the obdurate rejection of God’s message on the part of the inquiring people, who apparently want to know God’s will but have no desire to obey it.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, part of Jeremiah’s purpose focuses on the most distant future when the new covenant will supplant the old (31:31-37), and a transformed people bent on obedience rather than sin will receive God’s promised kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Teaching\">Teaching<\/p>\n<p>National sin brings national punishment. No truth blazes so clearly as this. Gentiles as well as Jews stand under the same judgment, for God is not the God of Israel only.<\/p>\n<p>Individuals are not overlooked in divine judgments on nations. God sets before each the way of life and the way of death (21:8) and appeals to each to choose life (27:13).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah illustrates human depravity by questioning if people can change their skin color or leopards their spots (13:23). The depths of depravity reach beyond man’s ability to measure (17:9-10). People even love falsehood (5:30-31). Yet God promises to transform willing subjects who call on him (33:3) by giving them a “new heart” (24:7; 32:38-41) as the climatic provision of the new covenant (31:33-35). The Messiah, who accomplishes the saving work, is called the Lord our Righteousness, the King, the righteous Branch, the Branch of David (23:5-6; 33:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>A future nation will be made up of individuals who accept this salvation. Passing through the night of tribulation as of travail (30:6-7), the Jews will understand the true identity of their Messiah, will believe and receive him with repentant sorrow, will be cleansed (33:8), and will be regathered from all countries (32:37) by the omnipotent God (v 27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OutlineandContent\">Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p>Though many see no logical order, a careful reading of Jeremiah will reveal a grouping on the basis of content, as suggested by the following outline:<\/p>\n<li> I. Introduction (1)<\/li>\n<li> II. Oracles against the Jews (2–25)<\/li>\n<li>III. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah before the Siege (26–29)<\/li>\n<li> IV. The Book of Hope written during the Siege (30–33)<\/li>\n<li> V. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah after the Siege (34–45)<\/li>\n<li> VI. Oracles against the Nations (46–51)<\/li>\n<li>VII. Conclusion (52)<\/li>\n<p>The prophet opens his ministry with a series of utterances against the sins of Jerusalem (2:1–3:5), followed by similar messages (through ch 4), concluding with words of judgment (chs 5–6). The message in the temple gate (chs 7–10) leads into the proclamation against covenant breakers (chs 11–13). The lamentation over the drought (ch 14) and subsequent miseries (ch 15) compares with many similar expressions of grief. Jeremiah did not differ from other prophets in his use of object lessons. The rotted linen waistband (ch 13), the broken jug (ch 19), figs (ch 24), and ox yoke (chs 27–28) may be supplemented by human object lessons (ch 35), and even the prophet himself, whose celibacy (16:1-4), resistance to sympathetic consolation (16:5-7), and withdrawal from feasts (16:8-9) all served to illustrate and confirm his message.<\/p>\n<p>Places where Jeremiah proclaimed his messages helped bear home his point. He stood in the public gate, where kings came and went, to proclaim that judgment (fire) would come through the gate (17:19, 27; 39:3). Then he went to the potter’s house (ch 18), and then to Hinnom or Topath, which would be called the Valley of Slaughter (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>The persecution suffered by Jeremiah first hinted at (1:8), then predicted (v 19), expresses its venom privately from his home village (11:19-23). The prophet’s kindred join the opposition (12:6). Public opposition brings beatings and the stocks (20:2-3). Jeremiah prefers to keep silent rather than to speak and suffer (v 9), but he cannot withhold the word that is as fire in his bones. The result: all his familiars reproached, derided, terrorized, and denounced him, then sought his death (vv 7-18). Jeremiah escaped death at the hands of priests, prophets, and people only because he had a few faithful friends (26:8-24). When his prophecies began to materialize, hatred mounted. He was beaten and put into a dungeon for many days (37:14-17) on a false charge. Temporary relief at the guardhouse (v 21) lasted only a few days. Officials clamored again for his death (38:4) and put him into a cistern, where he sank in the mire (v 6). His rescue (v 10) preserved his life, but his imprisonment at the guardhouse continued (v 28). His writings were cut up and burned (36:23); his words were denied and rejected (43:1-7; 44:16).<\/p>\n<p>The “Book of Hope“ (chs 30–33) does contain some words of judgment (32:28-35), and other sections of the prophecy have a few bright spots (3:11-18; 16:14-16; 23:2-8; 29:10-14), but in a volume otherwise dark, these four chapters bring pleasant relief. The climax of hope, as indicated also in the longest NT quotation from Jeremiah (see Heb 8:8-12), predicts a new covenant (31:31-40). Other prophecies also describe the end of the Mosaic law and sacrament (e.g., 3:16), and the new covenant (32:40; 33:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of Jeremiah’s activity or messages from c. 594–589 <span>BC<\/span>. Zedekiah’s counselors made clandestine plans for throwing off Babylon’s yoke by alliances with neighbor nations. A traitor may have reported the conspiracy to Babylon (perhaps Edom). After Babylon attacked, Zedekiah sought a hopeful report from Jeremiah but did not get it.<\/p>\n<p>The Recabite faithfulness to the Nazarite vow (ch 35) dates to the days of Jehoiakim but as an object lesson fits the siege context. Recabites received a human command that they obeyed; Jews received a divine command that they rejected. Recabites will be blessed (35:18-19); Judah, judged (vv 15-17). The reading of the scroll to Jehoiakim and his scornful rejection of it (ch 36) illustrates the prophetic assertion (35:15) that destruction follows the rejection of God’s message given through the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>The siege comes into focus in chapter 37 with another inquiry from Zedekiah (the nonchronological chs 35–36 serve as an illustrative parenthesis). Jeremiah 37:11 moves forward to the time of the lifting of the siege of 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Nebuchadnezzar drove Pharaoh Hophra’s army back to Egypt. During the reprieve, Jeremiah sought to attend a meeting of relatives to settle family matters at or near Anathoth. Perhaps the trip involved initiating the purchase that would be made two years later (32:6-15). However, as he was leaving the city, he was arrested for desertion to the Babylonians and jailed in a dungeon cell until Zedekiah granted him privileged prisoner status.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s officers had ample cause for the accusation of sedition: Jeremiah had encouraged desertion (21:9; 38:2). Traitors deserved death, and this was their verdict against Jeremiah (38:4-5). The violence of the time encouraged the officers to select a cruel method of execution: let Jeremiah starve and bury himself in the mire at the bottom of an abandoned cistern. A sympathetic Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, made the rescue. Immediately, the unadulterated prophecies of judgment came forth again from Jeremiah’s lips, including a message to the king that reflected Jeremiah’s own recent experience: “[Your friends] have betrayed and misled you. When your feet sank in the mud, they left you to your fate” (38:22, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 39:1–43:7 records history from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span> to the flight into Egypt, including the liberation of Jeremiah (ch 39), appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (chs 40–41), a warning from God against going to Egypt (ch 42), and the obdurate disobedience of the people (43:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The latest writings of Jeremiah are found in chapter 44. The audience consisted of idolatrous Jews (44:4-6) gathered from various parts of Egypt as far as Aswan (Pathros). Jeremiah repeated the appeal of former prophets to reject false gods in favor of Jehovah, but to no avail (44:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>The message to Baruch (ch 45), written about 605 <span>BC<\/span>, is placed here to round out the main part of the book, which begins with the commission to “break down” and “pluck up” (1:10) and concludes with the same Hebrew words (45:4). If Baruch had ambition to obtain status in the Judean court like his brother Seraiah (51:59), he was advised that it would be useless because disaster would come, as the preceding chapters indicate.<\/p>\n<p>The oracles against the nations (46–51), introduced by a title superscription (46:1), constitute a distinct stylistic division similar to Isaiah 13–23, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1:3–2:16.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the prophecies against foreign nations in Jeremiah carry dates that show that they were written at different points during his ministry but were collected together for the book.<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy against Egypt opens with a colorful description of Egypt’s expulsion from Carchemish (605 <span>BC<\/span>) after a short occupancy (Jer 46:1-12). The second message (vv 13-26) may picture the attack on Egypt in 601 <span>BC<\/span> when Neco stopped Nebuchadnezzar at the border; the attack in 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Hophra lost in his attempt to aid Zedekiah; or (most probably) the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in 568 <span>BC<\/span>, when Babylon took advantage of the weakness of Egypt to occupy it. At that time Nebuchadnezzar set up his judgment throne as predicted (43:10) and meted out death sentences to all rebels, including those Jews who might have been implicated in anti-Babylonian conspiracies. The conclusion of the Egypt oracle repeats part of the Book of Hope (46:27-28, cf. 30:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Messages against Edom, Arabia, Phoenician cities, and Ammon generally condemn pride, cruelty, and idolatry. The oracle against Elam is unique. No other prophet speaks judgment against this people, whose dwelling east of Babylon meant rare contact with Judah. Jeremiah predicted that Elam would be doomed, then restored. Ezekiel counts Elamites among the inhabitants of Sheol (Ez 32:24).<\/p>\n<p>The final judgment indicates the unbiased attitude of the prophet. His messages placed him in an advantageous position with the Babylonians, who treated him with respect and kindness, in contrast to their cruelty to other Jews. But when God spoke against Babylon, Jeremiah uttered God’s words without respect to his own comfort, just as he had spoken against Egypt when silence would have been logical for self-preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 51 concludes “the words of Jeremiah.”<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 52 repeats historical facts previously stated prophetically by Jeremiah, and partially recorded also as history in chapter 39 (cf. 2 Kgs 25 and 2 Chr 36). The editor of Jeremiah evidently desired to climax the book with a historical confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but he included facts beyond those contained elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah (Person) #1; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEREMIAH, Book of OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets. Preview • Author • Authenticity • The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint • Background • Date • Origin and Destination • Purpose • Teaching • Outline and Content Author Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the firs...","summary_en":"JEREMIAH, Book of OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets. Preview • Author • Authenticity • The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint • Background • Date • Origin and Destination • Purpose • Teaching • Outline and Content Author Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the firs...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19278,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"New Jerusalem","title_en":"New Jerusalem","content_ro":"<h3>JERUSALEM, New<\/h3>\n<p>Phrase appearing only twice in the Bible, once near the beginning and once near the end of the book of Revelation (Rv 3:12; 21:2). In the first of the great visions of that book, the risen Christ speaks to his people in the midst of their conflict in this world. Among his promises to those who conquer is that they will one day be citizens of the new Jerusalem. The last of the book’s visions shows the fulfillment of this promise. There we see not only the victorious people of God but also the city that is to be their home in a new world.<\/p>\n<p>This does not, of course, answer the question “What is the new Jerusalem?” A description of what it is like would be relatively simple. An explanation of what it <em>is<\/em> would be more complicated.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionoftheCity\">Description of the City<\/p>\n<p>An angel takes John to a mountaintop to show him the new Jerusalem. In the account that follows (Rv 21:10–22:5), the first thing John notes is the light, like a great jewel-like lamp, that lights the city (“the glory of God,” 21:11). Then he describes its walls and gates (21:12-14). The 12 gates bear the names of the tribes of Israel, and the wall between each gate and the next forms a single “foundation,” or block, bearing the name of one of the 12 apostles of Christ. Next, the measurements of the city are given (vv 15-17). It is 1,400 miles (2,220 kilometers) each way—not only in breadth and in length but also in height—and its wall is 216 feet (65.8 meters) thick (or high?). By working out these equivalents in miles and feet, however, we miss what John would probably have thought much more important. According to the biblical units of measurement, the city is 12,000 stadia broad and its wall is 144 cubits thick. These numbers are symbolic; as multiples of 12, they signify perfection, as do other occurrences of 12 in Revelation (e.g., 7:4-8).<\/p>\n<p>After this, John describes the materials of which the new Jerusalem is built (21:18-21). The wall is of jasper; its foundation layers are encrusted with other precious stones; its gates are pearls; and the streets and buildings within are made of “transparent gold.” As for the city itself, John notes a series of things that it does <em>not<\/em> have (vv 22-27)—no temple, no sun or moon, no night, no closing of its gates, and no evil. Finally, there are the three wonderful things that it <em>does<\/em> have (22:1-5)—the river of the water of life, the tree of life, and the throne and presence of God himself.<\/p>\n<p>Such is the new Jerusalem as John describes it. But he wants us not so much to picture what the city looks like as to understand what it means.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BackgroundoftheCity\">Background of the City<\/p>\n<p>OT history presents the city of David, old Jerusalem, as the place where God’s rule over his people and his presence among them was centered. In that Jerusalem stood both the temple, where the priests served, and the throne of the kings who governed as God’s deputies. It was the metropolis, or “mother city,” of Israel, the people of God. But the whole Bible is about God’s redeeming a people for himself, out of all nations, in all ages—a greater Israel of which OT Israel is only the vanguard. So it is natural that the last revelation the Bible gives should be a vision of that greater people—home at last in the true mother city, a new and greater Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The OT prophets witnessed the decline of old Jerusalem. They watched with grief and anger as it disappointed the hope that it would live up to its high destiny. As it became infected with sin and folly, and as its kings and priests increasingly betrayed their calling, two of these prophets in particular began to look forward to a Jerusalem that one day would be what it was meant to be. Ezekiel (chs 40–48) foresaw the city and its temple reconstructed in detail; Isaiah (chs 52, 60–66) described this latter-day Jerusalem in even more glowing terms. The vision of both prophets tie in closely with the vision John records in Revelation 21–22.<\/p>\n<p>In the period between the OT and NT, Jewish writers became yet more disillusioned with the way things were going, and they encouraged their readers not so much with hopes of the renewal of the earthly Jerusalem as with imaginative descriptions of the heavenly one. This, they reckoned, existed already; at the end of the age it would come down from God out of heaven, the metropolis of his people, populous and beautiful, the place of his temple and throne. In fact, what was imagined by these apocalyptic writers is in many respects very like what would in due course actually be seen by John.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus develops all these lines of thought in quite a remarkable way. It is not simply that he foretells the final destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Mk 13; Lk 19:41-44). If that were all, it would leave a great question unanswered. For old Jerusalem existed for a purpose, as we have seen; and if it is to be destroyed, how can that purpose then be fulfilled? Where will God’s people then find his throne and his temple?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ answer is that, since the Incarnation, God’s rule and God’s presence are to be found <em>in him<\/em> (Mt 28:18; Jn 14:9). He himself is the “new Jerusalem”—an entirely new kind of Jerusalem. This is borne out by the word for “new” that John uses in Revelation. There are two distinct Greek words translated in English Bibles as “new.” Sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the emperor Hadrian built a “new” Jerusalem; that was the kind of “new” that simply meant the latest in a series of cities on the same site. But John’s vision is of a Jerusalem that is “new” in the sense of being fresh, clean, and different. The NT speaks in the same way of the new covenant and the new commandment (Jn 13:34; Heb 8:8), the new creation and the new man (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:15). John’s vision brings out the same truth by telling of seven things that will exist “no more” in the new heaven and earth: no more sea, death, sorrow, crying, pain, curse, or night (Rv 21:1, 4; 22:3-5). In these respects all will be new and different.<\/p>\n<p>There are five passages elsewhere in the NT that help to fill in the background to Revelation 21. In Galatians 4:26 Paul speaks of “Jerusalem above,” the mother city of all who receive salvation by faith, as opposed to the old Jerusalem, where those belong who seek to please God by trying to obey the law (v 25). In Ephesians 5:25-32 he speaks of the bride of Christ, by which he means the church; in John’s vision the “bride” is the “city” (Rv 21:9-10). In Philippians 3:20 we are told that the heavenly city is not simply the future home of believers but also the place of their present “citizenship.” Hebrews 12:22 makes the same point: those who believe have arrived already at the “heavenly Jerusalem.” In other words, <em>this<\/em> Jerusalem is the home of all God’s believing people, Jew and Gentile, from OT and NT times, and it seems not only to be future but also to exist already, in some sense, in the present. What, then, are we to make of John’s vision?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MeaningoftheCity\">Meaning of the City<\/p>\n<p>Some of those who expect a future Millennium (1,000-year earthly reign of Christ, between his second coming and final defeat of Satan) believe that the new Jerusalem belongs to the Millennium, because of certain indications that they think suit that period better than the eternal state that will follow it (Rv 21:24-26; 22:2). They visualize it as a literal, material city. It will presumably, then, be in the shape of a cube, or perhaps a pyramid, and some even picture it hovering like an immense spaceship above the surface of the earth.<\/p>\n<p>Most millennarians, however, and also many who do not believe in a millennium in the sense just mentioned, think that John is describing the city as it will be in eternity. They, too, may take it literally, or they think that giving the literal details in these chapters—the city’s measurements, materials, and so on—is the only way in which John could describe something that is in fact indescribable (though nonetheless real).<\/p>\n<p>In line with the message of the entire book of Revelation, many take the new Jerusalem to be the ideal city of God, which belongs not only to the future but also to the present. It exists here and now because it is a spiritual truth, not a material one. It is always “coming down . . . out of heaven” precisely because it comes to men “from God” (21:2). The fact remains, of course, that everything John records in the last two chapters of Revelation belongs to a world that will only appear after the first heaven and the first earth have passed away—a world that is (to us, at any rate) still future.<\/p>\n<p>Taking into account all these Scriptures, we may come closest to understanding the new Jerusalem if we see it as the community of Christ and his people, which will appear in its perfection only when this age has come to an end. Yet, in another sense, Christians belong to it already, and it gives them both an ideal to strive for in this world and a hope to anticipate in the next.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bride of Christ; Church; Jerusalem.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JERUSALEM, New<\/h3>\n<p>Phrase appearing only twice in the Bible, once near the beginning and once near the end of the book of Revelation (Rv 3:12; 21:2). In the first of the great visions of that book, the risen Christ speaks to his people in the midst of their conflict in this world. Among his promises to those who conquer is that they will one day be citizens of the new Jerusalem. The last of the book’s visions shows the fulfillment of this promise. There we see not only the victorious people of God but also the city that is to be their home in a new world.<\/p>\n<p>This does not, of course, answer the question “What is the new Jerusalem?” A description of what it is like would be relatively simple. An explanation of what it <em>is<\/em> would be more complicated.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionoftheCity\">Description of the City<\/p>\n<p>An angel takes John to a mountaintop to show him the new Jerusalem. In the account that follows (Rv 21:10–22:5), the first thing John notes is the light, like a great jewel-like lamp, that lights the city (“the glory of God,” 21:11). Then he describes its walls and gates (21:12-14). The 12 gates bear the names of the tribes of Israel, and the wall between each gate and the next forms a single “foundation,” or block, bearing the name of one of the 12 apostles of Christ. Next, the measurements of the city are given (vv 15-17). It is 1,400 miles (2,220 kilometers) each way—not only in breadth and in length but also in height—and its wall is 216 feet (65.8 meters) thick (or high?). By working out these equivalents in miles and feet, however, we miss what John would probably have thought much more important. According to the biblical units of measurement, the city is 12,000 stadia broad and its wall is 144 cubits thick. These numbers are symbolic; as multiples of 12, they signify perfection, as do other occurrences of 12 in Revelation (e.g., 7:4-8).<\/p>\n<p>After this, John describes the materials of which the new Jerusalem is built (21:18-21). The wall is of jasper; its foundation layers are encrusted with other precious stones; its gates are pearls; and the streets and buildings within are made of “transparent gold.” As for the city itself, John notes a series of things that it does <em>not<\/em> have (vv 22-27)—no temple, no sun or moon, no night, no closing of its gates, and no evil. Finally, there are the three wonderful things that it <em>does<\/em> have (22:1-5)—the river of the water of life, the tree of life, and the throne and presence of God himself.<\/p>\n<p>Such is the new Jerusalem as John describes it. But he wants us not so much to picture what the city looks like as to understand what it means.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BackgroundoftheCity\">Background of the City<\/p>\n<p>OT history presents the city of David, old Jerusalem, as the place where God’s rule over his people and his presence among them was centered. In that Jerusalem stood both the temple, where the priests served, and the throne of the kings who governed as God’s deputies. It was the metropolis, or “mother city,” of Israel, the people of God. But the whole Bible is about God’s redeeming a people for himself, out of all nations, in all ages—a greater Israel of which OT Israel is only the vanguard. So it is natural that the last revelation the Bible gives should be a vision of that greater people—home at last in the true mother city, a new and greater Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The OT prophets witnessed the decline of old Jerusalem. They watched with grief and anger as it disappointed the hope that it would live up to its high destiny. As it became infected with sin and folly, and as its kings and priests increasingly betrayed their calling, two of these prophets in particular began to look forward to a Jerusalem that one day would be what it was meant to be. Ezekiel (chs 40–48) foresaw the city and its temple reconstructed in detail; Isaiah (chs 52, 60–66) described this latter-day Jerusalem in even more glowing terms. The vision of both prophets tie in closely with the vision John records in Revelation 21–22.<\/p>\n<p>In the period between the OT and NT, Jewish writers became yet more disillusioned with the way things were going, and they encouraged their readers not so much with hopes of the renewal of the earthly Jerusalem as with imaginative descriptions of the heavenly one. This, they reckoned, existed already; at the end of the age it would come down from God out of heaven, the metropolis of his people, populous and beautiful, the place of his temple and throne. In fact, what was imagined by these apocalyptic writers is in many respects very like what would in due course actually be seen by John.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus develops all these lines of thought in quite a remarkable way. It is not simply that he foretells the final destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Mk 13; Lk 19:41-44). If that were all, it would leave a great question unanswered. For old Jerusalem existed for a purpose, as we have seen; and if it is to be destroyed, how can that purpose then be fulfilled? Where will God’s people then find his throne and his temple?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ answer is that, since the Incarnation, God’s rule and God’s presence are to be found <em>in him<\/em> (Mt 28:18; Jn 14:9). He himself is the “new Jerusalem”—an entirely new kind of Jerusalem. This is borne out by the word for “new” that John uses in Revelation. There are two distinct Greek words translated in English Bibles as “new.” Sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the emperor Hadrian built a “new” Jerusalem; that was the kind of “new” that simply meant the latest in a series of cities on the same site. But John’s vision is of a Jerusalem that is “new” in the sense of being fresh, clean, and different. The NT speaks in the same way of the new covenant and the new commandment (Jn 13:34; Heb 8:8), the new creation and the new man (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:15). John’s vision brings out the same truth by telling of seven things that will exist “no more” in the new heaven and earth: no more sea, death, sorrow, crying, pain, curse, or night (Rv 21:1, 4; 22:3-5). In these respects all will be new and different.<\/p>\n<p>There are five passages elsewhere in the NT that help to fill in the background to Revelation 21. In Galatians 4:26 Paul speaks of “Jerusalem above,” the mother city of all who receive salvation by faith, as opposed to the old Jerusalem, where those belong who seek to please God by trying to obey the law (v 25). In Ephesians 5:25-32 he speaks of the bride of Christ, by which he means the church; in John’s vision the “bride” is the “city” (Rv 21:9-10). In Philippians 3:20 we are told that the heavenly city is not simply the future home of believers but also the place of their present “citizenship.” Hebrews 12:22 makes the same point: those who believe have arrived already at the “heavenly Jerusalem.” In other words, <em>this<\/em> Jerusalem is the home of all God’s believing people, Jew and Gentile, from OT and NT times, and it seems not only to be future but also to exist already, in some sense, in the present. What, then, are we to make of John’s vision?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MeaningoftheCity\">Meaning of the City<\/p>\n<p>Some of those who expect a future Millennium (1,000-year earthly reign of Christ, between his second coming and final defeat of Satan) believe that the new Jerusalem belongs to the Millennium, because of certain indications that they think suit that period better than the eternal state that will follow it (Rv 21:24-26; 22:2). They visualize it as a literal, material city. It will presumably, then, be in the shape of a cube, or perhaps a pyramid, and some even picture it hovering like an immense spaceship above the surface of the earth.<\/p>\n<p>Most millennarians, however, and also many who do not believe in a millennium in the sense just mentioned, think that John is describing the city as it will be in eternity. They, too, may take it literally, or they think that giving the literal details in these chapters—the city’s measurements, materials, and so on—is the only way in which John could describe something that is in fact indescribable (though nonetheless real).<\/p>\n<p>In line with the message of the entire book of Revelation, many take the new Jerusalem to be the ideal city of God, which belongs not only to the future but also to the present. It exists here and now because it is a spiritual truth, not a material one. It is always “coming down . . . out of heaven” precisely because it comes to men “from God” (21:2). The fact remains, of course, that everything John records in the last two chapters of Revelation belongs to a world that will only appear after the first heaven and the first earth have passed away—a world that is (to us, at any rate) still future.<\/p>\n<p>Taking into account all these Scriptures, we may come closest to understanding the new Jerusalem if we see it as the community of Christ and his people, which will appear in its perfection only when this age has come to an end. Yet, in another sense, Christians belong to it already, and it gives them both an ideal to strive for in this world and a hope to anticipate in the next.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bride of Christ; Church; Jerusalem.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JERUSALEM, New Phrase appearing only twice in the Bible, once near the beginning and once near the end of the book of Revelation (Rv 3:12; 21:2). In the first of the great visions of that book, the risen Christ speaks to his people in the midst of their conflict in this world. Among his promises to those who conquer is that they will one day be citizens of the new Jerusalem. The last of the book’s visions shows the fulfillment of this promise. There we see not only the victorious people of Go...","summary_en":"JERUSALEM, New Phrase appearing only twice in the Bible, once near the beginning and once near the end of the book of Revelation (Rv 3:12; 21:2). In the first of the great visions of that book, the risen Christ speaks to his people in the midst of their conflict in this world. Among his promises to those who conquer is that they will one day be citizens of the new Jerusalem. The last of the book’s visions shows the fulfillment of this promise. There we see not only the victorious people of Go...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58826,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:8","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:8<\/strong> <em>found fault with the people:<\/em> Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a <em>new covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:8<\/strong> <em>found fault with the people:<\/em> Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a <em>new covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:8 found fault with the people: Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a new covenant.","summary_en":"8:8 found fault with the people: Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a new covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86452,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:8","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:8<\/strong> <em>found fault with the people:<\/em> Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a <em>new covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:8<\/strong> <em>found fault with the people:<\/em> Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a <em>new covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:8 found fault with the people: Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a new covenant.","summary_en":"8:8 found fault with the people: Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a new covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114078,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:8","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:8<\/strong> <em>found fault with the people:<\/em> Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a <em>new covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:8<\/strong> <em>found fault with the people:<\/em> Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a <em>new covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:8 found fault with the people: Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a new covenant.","summary_en":"8:8 found fault with the people: Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a new covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141704,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:8","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:8<\/strong> <em>found fault with the people:<\/em> Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a <em>new covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:8<\/strong> <em>found fault with the people:<\/em> Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a <em>new covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:8 found fault with the people: Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a new covenant.","summary_en":"8:8 found fault with the people: Because the people were unable to keep the terms of the old covenant (see study note on 8:7), God made a new covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64293,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The New Covenant","title_en":"The New Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>The New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). The great liability of the old covenant was that it lacked the power to enable people to do what it commanded (see Rom 8:3). The new covenant would be internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27). Thus, it would become possible for people everywhere (not just a select few) to fulfill God’s covenant plan for life as summed up in the two “Great Commandments” (Matt 22:35-40): “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God” (Deut 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The new covenant would achieve the goal that the old one pointed to but could not reach: creating new persons and a new community. The goal is a deep transformation of sinners, beginning with forgiveness of sins and culminating in a holiness exemplified by good works (Eph 1:4; 2:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 30–33 stands out in its optimistic view of Israel’s future. The high point of this section (31:31-34) is the announcement that the Lord God will form a new covenant with his people. This passage in Jeremiah points toward Jesus of Nazareth, whose death would seal this new covenant. Jesus applied the new covenant to himself when he instituted the communion ritual (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; see also 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Jesus’ death made him the mediator of the covenant for whoever believes in him (Heb 8:8-12; ch 9). Christians commemorate that reality each time they participate in Communion. According to the New Testament, all believers in Jesus Christ will know him directly by the activity of the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling has been made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. They will know him personally and experience him powerfully, as only a few did in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 11:1-9; 54:13-15; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37:24-28; Matt 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:25-36; 1 Cor 11:23-26; 2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8:8–9:28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). The great liability of the old covenant was that it lacked the power to enable people to do what it commanded (see Rom 8:3). The new covenant would be internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27). Thus, it would become possible for people everywhere (not just a select few) to fulfill God’s covenant plan for life as summed up in the two “Great Commandments” (Matt 22:35-40): “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God” (Deut 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The new covenant would achieve the goal that the old one pointed to but could not reach: creating new persons and a new community. The goal is a deep transformation of sinners, beginning with forgiveness of sins and culminating in a holiness exemplified by good works (Eph 1:4; 2:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 30–33 stands out in its optimistic view of Israel’s future. The high point of this section (31:31-34) is the announcement that the Lord God will form a new covenant with his people. This passage in Jeremiah points toward Jesus of Nazareth, whose death would seal this new covenant. Jesus applied the new covenant to himself when he instituted the communion ritual (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; see also 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Jesus’ death made him the mediator of the covenant for whoever believes in him (Heb 8:8-12; ch 9). Christians commemorate that reality each time they participate in Communion. According to the New Testament, all believers in Jesus Christ will know him directly by the activity of the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling has been made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. They will know him personally and experience him powerfully, as only a few did in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 11:1-9; 54:13-15; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37:24-28; Matt 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:25-36; 1 Cor 11:23-26; 2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8:8–9:28<\/p>","summary_ro":"The New Covenant The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities. The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hear...","summary_en":"The New Covenant The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities. The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hear...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91919,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The New Covenant","title_en":"The New Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>The New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). The great liability of the old covenant was that it lacked the power to enable people to do what it commanded (see Rom 8:3). The new covenant would be internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27). Thus, it would become possible for people everywhere (not just a select few) to fulfill God’s covenant plan for life as summed up in the two “Great Commandments” (Matt 22:35-40): “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God” (Deut 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The new covenant would achieve the goal that the old one pointed to but could not reach: creating new persons and a new community. The goal is a deep transformation of sinners, beginning with forgiveness of sins and culminating in a holiness exemplified by good works (Eph 1:4; 2:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 30–33 stands out in its optimistic view of Israel’s future. The high point of this section (31:31-34) is the announcement that the Lord God will form a new covenant with his people. This passage in Jeremiah points toward Jesus of Nazareth, whose death would seal this new covenant. Jesus applied the new covenant to himself when he instituted the communion ritual (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; see also 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Jesus’ death made him the mediator of the covenant for whoever believes in him (Heb 8:8-12; ch 9). Christians commemorate that reality each time they participate in Communion. According to the New Testament, all believers in Jesus Christ will know him directly by the activity of the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling has been made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. They will know him personally and experience him powerfully, as only a few did in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 11:1-9; 54:13-15; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37:24-28; Matt 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:25-36; 1 Cor 11:23-26; 2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8:8–9:28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). The great liability of the old covenant was that it lacked the power to enable people to do what it commanded (see Rom 8:3). The new covenant would be internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27). Thus, it would become possible for people everywhere (not just a select few) to fulfill God’s covenant plan for life as summed up in the two “Great Commandments” (Matt 22:35-40): “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God” (Deut 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The new covenant would achieve the goal that the old one pointed to but could not reach: creating new persons and a new community. The goal is a deep transformation of sinners, beginning with forgiveness of sins and culminating in a holiness exemplified by good works (Eph 1:4; 2:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 30–33 stands out in its optimistic view of Israel’s future. The high point of this section (31:31-34) is the announcement that the Lord God will form a new covenant with his people. This passage in Jeremiah points toward Jesus of Nazareth, whose death would seal this new covenant. Jesus applied the new covenant to himself when he instituted the communion ritual (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; see also 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Jesus’ death made him the mediator of the covenant for whoever believes in him (Heb 8:8-12; ch 9). Christians commemorate that reality each time they participate in Communion. According to the New Testament, all believers in Jesus Christ will know him directly by the activity of the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling has been made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. They will know him personally and experience him powerfully, as only a few did in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 11:1-9; 54:13-15; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37:24-28; Matt 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:25-36; 1 Cor 11:23-26; 2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8:8–9:28<\/p>","summary_ro":"The New Covenant The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities. The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hear...","summary_en":"The New Covenant The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities. The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hear...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119545,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The New Covenant","title_en":"The New Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>The New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). The great liability of the old covenant was that it lacked the power to enable people to do what it commanded (see Rom 8:3). The new covenant would be internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27). Thus, it would become possible for people everywhere (not just a select few) to fulfill God’s covenant plan for life as summed up in the two “Great Commandments” (Matt 22:35-40): “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God” (Deut 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The new covenant would achieve the goal that the old one pointed to but could not reach: creating new persons and a new community. The goal is a deep transformation of sinners, beginning with forgiveness of sins and culminating in a holiness exemplified by good works (Eph 1:4; 2:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 30–33 stands out in its optimistic view of Israel’s future. The high point of this section (31:31-34) is the announcement that the Lord God will form a new covenant with his people. This passage in Jeremiah points toward Jesus of Nazareth, whose death would seal this new covenant. Jesus applied the new covenant to himself when he instituted the communion ritual (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; see also 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Jesus’ death made him the mediator of the covenant for whoever believes in him (Heb 8:8-12; ch 9). Christians commemorate that reality each time they participate in Communion. According to the New Testament, all believers in Jesus Christ will know him directly by the activity of the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling has been made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. They will know him personally and experience him powerfully, as only a few did in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 11:1-9; 54:13-15; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37:24-28; Matt 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:25-36; 1 Cor 11:23-26; 2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8:8–9:28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). The great liability of the old covenant was that it lacked the power to enable people to do what it commanded (see Rom 8:3). The new covenant would be internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27). Thus, it would become possible for people everywhere (not just a select few) to fulfill God’s covenant plan for life as summed up in the two “Great Commandments” (Matt 22:35-40): “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God” (Deut 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The new covenant would achieve the goal that the old one pointed to but could not reach: creating new persons and a new community. The goal is a deep transformation of sinners, beginning with forgiveness of sins and culminating in a holiness exemplified by good works (Eph 1:4; 2:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 30–33 stands out in its optimistic view of Israel’s future. The high point of this section (31:31-34) is the announcement that the Lord God will form a new covenant with his people. This passage in Jeremiah points toward Jesus of Nazareth, whose death would seal this new covenant. Jesus applied the new covenant to himself when he instituted the communion ritual (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; see also 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Jesus’ death made him the mediator of the covenant for whoever believes in him (Heb 8:8-12; ch 9). Christians commemorate that reality each time they participate in Communion. According to the New Testament, all believers in Jesus Christ will know him directly by the activity of the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling has been made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. They will know him personally and experience him powerfully, as only a few did in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 11:1-9; 54:13-15; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37:24-28; Matt 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:25-36; 1 Cor 11:23-26; 2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8:8–9:28<\/p>","summary_ro":"The New Covenant The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities. The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hear...","summary_en":"The New Covenant The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities. The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hear...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147171,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The New Covenant","title_en":"The New Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>The New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). The great liability of the old covenant was that it lacked the power to enable people to do what it commanded (see Rom 8:3). The new covenant would be internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27). Thus, it would become possible for people everywhere (not just a select few) to fulfill God’s covenant plan for life as summed up in the two “Great Commandments” (Matt 22:35-40): “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God” (Deut 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The new covenant would achieve the goal that the old one pointed to but could not reach: creating new persons and a new community. The goal is a deep transformation of sinners, beginning with forgiveness of sins and culminating in a holiness exemplified by good works (Eph 1:4; 2:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 30–33 stands out in its optimistic view of Israel’s future. The high point of this section (31:31-34) is the announcement that the Lord God will form a new covenant with his people. This passage in Jeremiah points toward Jesus of Nazareth, whose death would seal this new covenant. Jesus applied the new covenant to himself when he instituted the communion ritual (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; see also 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Jesus’ death made him the mediator of the covenant for whoever believes in him (Heb 8:8-12; ch 9). Christians commemorate that reality each time they participate in Communion. According to the New Testament, all believers in Jesus Christ will know him directly by the activity of the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling has been made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. They will know him personally and experience him powerfully, as only a few did in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 11:1-9; 54:13-15; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37:24-28; Matt 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:25-36; 1 Cor 11:23-26; 2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8:8–9:28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The New Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities.<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). The great liability of the old covenant was that it lacked the power to enable people to do what it commanded (see Rom 8:3). The new covenant would be internalized through the power of the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27). Thus, it would become possible for people everywhere (not just a select few) to fulfill God’s covenant plan for life as summed up in the two “Great Commandments” (Matt 22:35-40): “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God” (Deut 6:5) and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). The new covenant would achieve the goal that the old one pointed to but could not reach: creating new persons and a new community. The goal is a deep transformation of sinners, beginning with forgiveness of sins and culminating in a holiness exemplified by good works (Eph 1:4; 2:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 30–33 stands out in its optimistic view of Israel’s future. The high point of this section (31:31-34) is the announcement that the Lord God will form a new covenant with his people. This passage in Jeremiah points toward Jesus of Nazareth, whose death would seal this new covenant. Jesus applied the new covenant to himself when he instituted the communion ritual (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; see also 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Jesus’ death made him the mediator of the covenant for whoever believes in him (Heb 8:8-12; ch 9). Christians commemorate that reality each time they participate in Communion. According to the New Testament, all believers in Jesus Christ will know him directly by the activity of the Holy Spirit, whose indwelling has been made possible through the sacrifice of Christ. They will know him personally and experience him powerfully, as only a few did in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 11:1-9; 54:13-15; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37:24-28; Matt 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:25-36; 1 Cor 11:23-26; 2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8:8–9:28<\/p>","summary_ro":"The New Covenant The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities. The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hear...","summary_en":"The New Covenant The key affirmation of the Sinai covenant was, “I will claim you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Exod 6:7; see Jer 31:33). The relationship between God and his people envisioned in the Sinai covenant was surrounded by laws chiseled in stone and a priestly class in charge of all religious institutions and activities. The new covenant would differ from the old in one primary way: It would no longer be external to the worshipers, but would now be written on their hear...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":58827,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:9","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:9<\/strong> God <em>made<\/em> a covenant <em>with their ancestors<\/em> at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • <em>I took them by the hand:<\/em> In rescuing his people from <em>the land of Egypt<\/em><em>,<\/em> God <em>led them<\/em> as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • <em>They did not remain faithful:<\/em> See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • <em>so I turned my back on them:<\/em> The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-53; 2 Chr 6:12-42).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:9<\/strong> God <em>made<\/em> a covenant <em>with their ancestors<\/em> at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • <em>I took them by the hand:<\/em> In rescuing his people from <em>the land of Egypt<\/em><em>,<\/em> God <em>led them<\/em> as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • <em>They did not remain faithful:<\/em> See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • <em>so I turned my back on them:<\/em> The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-53; 2 Chr 6:12-42).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:9 God made a covenant with their ancestors at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • I took them by the hand: In rescuing his people from the land of Egypt, God led them as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • They did not remain faithful: See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • so I turned my back on them: The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-5...","summary_en":"8:9 God made a covenant with their ancestors at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • I took them by the hand: In rescuing his people from the land of Egypt, God led them as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • They did not remain faithful: See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • so I turned my back on them: The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-5...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86453,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:9","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:9<\/strong> God <em>made<\/em> a covenant <em>with their ancestors<\/em> at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • <em>I took them by the hand:<\/em> In rescuing his people from <em>the land of Egypt<\/em><em>,<\/em> God <em>led them<\/em> as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • <em>They did not remain faithful:<\/em> See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • <em>so I turned my back on them:<\/em> The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-53; 2 Chr 6:12-42).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:9<\/strong> God <em>made<\/em> a covenant <em>with their ancestors<\/em> at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • <em>I took them by the hand:<\/em> In rescuing his people from <em>the land of Egypt<\/em><em>,<\/em> God <em>led them<\/em> as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • <em>They did not remain faithful:<\/em> See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • <em>so I turned my back on them:<\/em> The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-53; 2 Chr 6:12-42).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:9 God made a covenant with their ancestors at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • I took them by the hand: In rescuing his people from the land of Egypt, God led them as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • They did not remain faithful: See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • so I turned my back on them: The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-5...","summary_en":"8:9 God made a covenant with their ancestors at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • I took them by the hand: In rescuing his people from the land of Egypt, God led them as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • They did not remain faithful: See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • so I turned my back on them: The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-5...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114079,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:9","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:9<\/strong> God <em>made<\/em> a covenant <em>with their ancestors<\/em> at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • <em>I took them by the hand:<\/em> In rescuing his people from <em>the land of Egypt<\/em><em>,<\/em> God <em>led them<\/em> as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • <em>They did not remain faithful:<\/em> See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • <em>so I turned my back on them:<\/em> The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-53; 2 Chr 6:12-42).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:9<\/strong> God <em>made<\/em> a covenant <em>with their ancestors<\/em> at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • <em>I took them by the hand:<\/em> In rescuing his people from <em>the land of Egypt<\/em><em>,<\/em> God <em>led them<\/em> as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • <em>They did not remain faithful:<\/em> See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • <em>so I turned my back on them:<\/em> The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-53; 2 Chr 6:12-42).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:9 God made a covenant with their ancestors at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • I took them by the hand: In rescuing his people from the land of Egypt, God led them as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • They did not remain faithful: See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • so I turned my back on them: The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-5...","summary_en":"8:9 God made a covenant with their ancestors at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • I took them by the hand: In rescuing his people from the land of Egypt, God led them as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • They did not remain faithful: See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • so I turned my back on them: The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-5...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141705,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:9","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:9<\/strong> God <em>made<\/em> a covenant <em>with their ancestors<\/em> at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • <em>I took them by the hand:<\/em> In rescuing his people from <em>the land of Egypt<\/em><em>,<\/em> God <em>led them<\/em> as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • <em>They did not remain faithful:<\/em> See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • <em>so I turned my back on them:<\/em> The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-53; 2 Chr 6:12-42).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:9<\/strong> God <em>made<\/em> a covenant <em>with their ancestors<\/em> at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • <em>I took them by the hand:<\/em> In rescuing his people from <em>the land of Egypt<\/em><em>,<\/em> God <em>led them<\/em> as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • <em>They did not remain faithful:<\/em> See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • <em>so I turned my back on them:<\/em> The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-53; 2 Chr 6:12-42).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:9 God made a covenant with their ancestors at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • I took them by the hand: In rescuing his people from the land of Egypt, God led them as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • They did not remain faithful: See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • so I turned my back on them: The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-5...","summary_en":"8:9 God made a covenant with their ancestors at Sinai (Exod 19:1-8; 24:7-8; 34:27-28; Deut 4:13). • I took them by the hand: In rescuing his people from the land of Egypt, God led them as a parent might lead a child that could not fend for itself (see Exod 12–14). • They did not remain faithful: See Heb 3:7-19; Num 14:1-38; Deut 9; Ps 106. • so I turned my back on them: The covenant warned that if the people turned away, God would turn away from them (see Deut 28:15-68; 30:11-20; 1 Kgs 8:22-5...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":15763,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heart","title_en":"Heart","content_ro":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","summary_en":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15981,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Hebrews","title_en":"Letter to the Hebrews","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","summary_en":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58828,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:10","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:10<\/strong> Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the <em>new covenant<\/em> is that God’s <em>laws<\/em> would be in people’s <em>minds<\/em> and <em>on their hearts<\/em>. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:10<\/strong> Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the <em>new covenant<\/em> is that God’s <em>laws<\/em> would be in people’s <em>minds<\/em> and <em>on their hearts<\/em>. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:10 Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the new covenant is that God’s laws would be in people’s minds and on their hearts. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.","summary_en":"8:10 Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the new covenant is that God’s laws would be in people’s minds and on their hearts. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86454,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:10","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:10<\/strong> Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the <em>new covenant<\/em> is that God’s <em>laws<\/em> would be in people’s <em>minds<\/em> and <em>on their hearts<\/em>. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:10<\/strong> Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the <em>new covenant<\/em> is that God’s <em>laws<\/em> would be in people’s <em>minds<\/em> and <em>on their hearts<\/em>. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:10 Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the new covenant is that God’s laws would be in people’s minds and on their hearts. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.","summary_en":"8:10 Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the new covenant is that God’s laws would be in people’s minds and on their hearts. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114080,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:10","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:10<\/strong> Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the <em>new covenant<\/em> is that God’s <em>laws<\/em> would be in people’s <em>minds<\/em> and <em>on their hearts<\/em>. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:10<\/strong> Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the <em>new covenant<\/em> is that God’s <em>laws<\/em> would be in people’s <em>minds<\/em> and <em>on their hearts<\/em>. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:10 Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the new covenant is that God’s laws would be in people’s minds and on their hearts. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.","summary_en":"8:10 Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the new covenant is that God’s laws would be in people’s minds and on their hearts. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141706,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:10","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:10<\/strong> Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the <em>new covenant<\/em> is that God’s <em>laws<\/em> would be in people’s <em>minds<\/em> and <em>on their hearts<\/em>. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:10<\/strong> Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the <em>new covenant<\/em> is that God’s <em>laws<\/em> would be in people’s <em>minds<\/em> and <em>on their hearts<\/em>. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:10 Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the new covenant is that God’s laws would be in people’s minds and on their hearts. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.","summary_en":"8:10 Under the old covenant, the people were commanded to take the words of the law to heart (Deut 32:46), and the kings of Israel and Judah were judged on whether or not they followed the law of God wholeheartedly (2 Kgs 10:31; 2 Chr 31:21). A difference in the new covenant is that God’s laws would be in people’s minds and on their hearts. People would have renewed hearts and minds, with God’s law as an intrinsic, internal motivation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64620,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Knowing God","title_en":"Knowing God","content_ro":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","summary_en":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92246,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Knowing God","title_en":"Knowing God","content_ro":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","summary_en":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119872,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Knowing God","title_en":"Knowing God","content_ro":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","summary_en":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147498,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Knowing God","title_en":"Knowing God","content_ro":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","summary_en":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":15982,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Hebrews","title_en":"Letter to the Hebrews","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","summary_en":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58829,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:11","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:11<\/strong> All those in the new covenant <em>know the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>;<\/em> intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:11<\/strong> All those in the new covenant <em>know the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>;<\/em> intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:11 All those in the new covenant know the Lord; intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.","summary_en":"8:11 All those in the new covenant know the Lord; intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86455,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:11","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:11<\/strong> All those in the new covenant <em>know the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>;<\/em> intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:11<\/strong> All those in the new covenant <em>know the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>;<\/em> intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:11 All those in the new covenant know the Lord; intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.","summary_en":"8:11 All those in the new covenant know the Lord; intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114081,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:11","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:11<\/strong> All those in the new covenant <em>know the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>;<\/em> intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:11<\/strong> All those in the new covenant <em>know the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>;<\/em> intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:11 All those in the new covenant know the Lord; intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.","summary_en":"8:11 All those in the new covenant know the Lord; intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141707,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:11","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:11<\/strong> All those in the new covenant <em>know the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>;<\/em> intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:11<\/strong> All those in the new covenant <em>know the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>;<\/em> intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:11 All those in the new covenant know the Lord; intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.","summary_en":"8:11 All those in the new covenant know the Lord; intimate personal relationship with the Lord is in the very nature of the new covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":15983,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Hebrews","title_en":"Letter to the Hebrews","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","summary_en":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58830,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:12","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:12<\/strong> A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would <em>forgive their wickedness<\/em> and <em>never again remember their sins<\/em>. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:12<\/strong> A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would <em>forgive their wickedness<\/em> and <em>never again remember their sins<\/em>. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:12 A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would forgive their wickedness and never again remember their sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).","summary_en":"8:12 A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would forgive their wickedness and never again remember their sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86456,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:12","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:12<\/strong> A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would <em>forgive their wickedness<\/em> and <em>never again remember their sins<\/em>. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:12<\/strong> A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would <em>forgive their wickedness<\/em> and <em>never again remember their sins<\/em>. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:12 A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would forgive their wickedness and never again remember their sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).","summary_en":"8:12 A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would forgive their wickedness and never again remember their sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114082,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:12","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:12<\/strong> A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would <em>forgive their wickedness<\/em> and <em>never again remember their sins<\/em>. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:12<\/strong> A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would <em>forgive their wickedness<\/em> and <em>never again remember their sins<\/em>. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:12 A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would forgive their wickedness and never again remember their sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).","summary_en":"8:12 A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would forgive their wickedness and never again remember their sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141708,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:12","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:12<\/strong> A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would <em>forgive their wickedness<\/em> and <em>never again remember their sins<\/em>. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:12<\/strong> A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would <em>forgive their wickedness<\/em> and <em>never again remember their sins<\/em>. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:12 A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would forgive their wickedness and never again remember their sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).","summary_en":"8:12 A final characteristic of the new covenant is that God would forgive their wickedness and never again remember their sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses his people completely from sin (9:13-15; 10:14-18, 22; 1 Jn 1:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":7946,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Covenant, the New","title_en":"Covenant, the New","content_ro":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\n<p>A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, <span>rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ANewCovenant\">A New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\n<p>Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SuperiorityoftheNewCovenant\">Superiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n<p>1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COVENANT, The New<\/h3>\n<p>A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremiah saw God making with Israel “after those days” (vv 32-34) with the covenant God had made with his people in the days of Moses. The contrast is seen, first of all, in the internal nature of the new covenant. Whereas the old covenant was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18; 34:27-32; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:11; 10:3-4) and in a book (Ex 24:7; cf. the phrase “old written code,” Rom 7:6, <span>rsv<\/span>), the new covenant is to be written on the human heart. One result is a clearer revelation of what God demands; another is the enablement of believers to fulfill those demands (see Rom 8:2-4). The interior nature of the new covenant is spoken of in several other passages (Ez 11:19-21; 36:26-27) and made explicit in the prophet Joel of a time when God “will pour out [his] spirit on all flesh” (Jl 2:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>A second contrast is in the way God’s people know him under the two covenants. There is no doubt that Israel under the old covenant “knew” God; God had revealed himself, though at times the nation tended to forget this (Jgs 2:10; Hos 4:1, 6). What the prophets envisioned in the new covenant is a unique personal knowledge of God by each individual member of the covenant community.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the two covenants differ in regard to God’s dealing with human sin. Jeremiah promised that God would forgive the iniquity of his people and blot out their sin. Israel already knew that God delighted in mercy and forgiveness (Ex 34:6-7), but Jeremiah was saying that God would never again remember their sin (Jer 31:34). Under the old covenant there was a reminder of sin year after year (Heb 10:3); under the new covenant no remembrance of sin remains (v 14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ANewCovenant\">A New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>The expression “new covenant” is found at least six times in the NT (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; and probably Lk 22:20, according to some manuscripts). In certain Greek manuscripts the phrase is also found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where “new” seems to have been added by various scribes to “blood of the covenant,” in order to make these accounts conform to parallel accounts of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians or possibly in Luke.<\/p>\n<p>Even though the term “new” is not found in the accounts in Matthew and Mark in the best Greek manuscripts, and was therefore probably not part of the original text, it is clear from all four accounts that Jesus saw the Lord’s Supper as instituting a different and therefore “new” covenant. The covenant was being sealed by his sacrificial death, that is, by his blood, just as the Mosaic covenant was sealed by the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:6-8). The cup of the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the blood of Christ’s sacrifice, sealing the new covenant God has at last made with his people. The new covenant, ratified by Christ’s death, is what the church therefore commemorates each time it celebrates the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In his institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus did not elucidate what the “newness” of the covenant entailed. Elsewhere he mentioned a “baptism with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; and Jn 1:33, where this promise is found on the lips of John the Baptist; cf. also 1 Cor 12:13). Yet both OT prophecies refer to the same new covenant that God would establish in the future, as shown in 2 Corinthians 3:6. There the apostle Paul stated that God “has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jer 31:31), not “in a written code but in the Spirit” (<span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Jl 2:28-32), for “the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SuperiorityoftheNewCovenant\">Superiority of the New Covenant<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul was showing that in contrast to the old (Mosaic) covenant (v 14), which was a dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone (v 7), the new covenant instituted by Jesus is one of far greater splendor (vv 8-9), written on the human heart by the Spirit of the living God himself (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant concept is treated most exhaustively and systematically in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the longest OT quotation found in the NT. In Hebrews 12:24 a different Greek word for “new” is used, but the meaning remains the same. The theme of the new covenant dominates the book of Hebrews, which was written to encourage faltering Christians by demonstrating the superiority of the Christian faith over their old Jewish beliefs and practices. In Hebrews the new covenant is seen as better than the old “obsolete” covenant in a number of ways.<\/p>\n<p>1. The new covenant has a better priesthood than the old covenant, since there is no longer any need for a continual change of priests due to death (Heb 7:23). One continual priest now lives forever to make intercession before God on behalf of his people (vv 24-25).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new covenant priest is better than those of the old covenant, since Jesus does not have to offer sacrifices continually for his own sins and then for the sins of his people. He has instead made one complete and perfect offering (7:27; 9:25-28; 10:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new covenant has a better sacrifice than the old covenant; what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, since the atonement they brought could at best be only partial (10:2-3), the blood of Christ has done once for all (9:11-14; 10:1-10).<\/li>\n<li>4. The new covenant is built on “better promises” than the old (8:6).<\/li>\n<li>5. Whereas the old covenant was imperfect (8:7) and thus became obsolete (8:13), the new covenant is perfect and eternal (13:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Whereas the old covenant provided a believer with no direct access to God (9:6-8), the new covenant provides a direct access to God that can purify and perfect the believer’s conscience (cf. 9:14 with 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>7. The new covenant possesses a better “surety,” or guarantee, an oath sworn by God himself (7:20-22).<\/li>\n<li>8. The new covenant assures the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of each believer. The new covenant community has been touched by the promised Spirit (6:4), who, according to Paul, is both the seal and guarantee of their inheritance (see 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The new covenant and its accompanying new commandment are both fulfillments of what was implicit in the old. The new covenant is written on the heart of each member of the new covenant community by the Holy Spirit. The power of God’s Spirit within, enabling the believer to carry out the new commandment (Rom 8:2-4; Gal 5:16-25), is a distinctive feature of the new covenant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","summary_en":"COVENANT, The New A gracious provision of God given through Jesus Christ for the redemption of fallen humanity—replacing and fulfilling the old covenant, which was expressed primarily through the Mosaic law. The expression “new covenant” is found principally in the NT. Although the concept of a new covenant is found in several places in the OT (Ez 34:23-31; 37:24-28; Jl 2:12-32), the actual phrase occurs only once (Jer 31:31-34). That passage contrasts the new covenant that the prophet Jeremi...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15979,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Hebrews","title_en":"Letter to the Hebrews","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREWS, Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and practical, theological and pastoral. In short, it builds a compelling case for the superiority of Christianity. Hebrews also reflects the impassioned concern of a pastor’s heart. Those who have experienced God’s ultimate work of grace in Christ are urged to hold fast to God’s final word of revelation in his Son.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike most other NT epistles, Hebrews does not begin like a letter. There is no introductory salutation, the writer is not identified, and no mention is made of those to whom the document is addressed. The author characterizes the work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, <span>rsv<\/span>), which suggests a sermon or oral homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Nonetheless, its conclusion is that of a conventional letter (Heb 13:22-25). Some have detected a gradual transition in the document from an essay to a more specifically epistolary form (cf. 2:1; 4:1; 13:22-25). The evidence thus suggests that the author may have cast the original homiletic “word of exhortation” into letter form when the need to communicate in writing with his Christian friends became urgent.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Who wrote the book is not directly stated in the letter. Since the late second century, various authorities have linked the document with the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (d. 220) theorized that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew for Jews and that Luke translated it into Greek. However, this suggestion has not been widely received by modern scholars. Clement’s pupil Origen (d. 254) stated more generally that the thoughts of the letter are Pauline but that the style is unlike that of the known writings of the apostle. Other early authorities, such as Jerome (d. 419) and Augustine (d. 430), persuaded that canonicity demanded apostolic authorship, likewise affirmed that Paul was the author.<\/p>\n<p>Yet a number of factors argue against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The anonymity of the letter is contrary to the consistent pattern of Paul’s introduction in the opening salutation of his letters. Moreover, Hebrews 2:3 indicates the writer was discipled by eyewitnesses of the Lord. Yet Paul insists that his knowledge of Christ was gained from a firsthand encounter with the risen Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). F. F. Bruce evaluates the authorship of Hebrews as follows: “We may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of OT quotations is not Paul’s.”<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian tradition suggests that Barnabas may have written Hebrews. According to Tertullian (d. 220), many early authorities believed that Barnabas was responsible for the letter. Acts 4:36 (<span>asv<\/span>) speaks of him as a “son of exhortation” (cf. Heb 13:22). Furthermore, as a Levite, Barnabas would have been familiar with the Jewish sacrificial ritual so prominent in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>Luther was the first to suggest that Hebrews may have been penned by Apollos, “an excellent man of learning, who had been a disciple of the apostles and learned much from them, and who was very well versed in Scripture.” As a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), Apollos would have been familiar with the typological interpretation evident in Hebrews. Clearly Apollos was the sort of man who was qualified to write Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Other names have been suggested as possible authors. Calvin surmised that either Luke or Clement of Rome was responsible for the letter. It is noted that the Greek of Hebrews resembles the language and style of the third Gospel and Acts. Others theorize that Hebrews may have been written by Silas, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who would have been thoroughly familiar with the Levitical ritual. Silas is described as one of “the church leaders” (Acts 15:22). He was a coworker with Paul in the gentile mission, and apparently was known in Rome as well as in Jerusalem (1 Pt 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, it is probable that the author of Hebrews was a second-generation Jewish Christian, a master of classical Greek whose Bible was the Septuagint, conversant with first-century Alexandrian philosophy, and a creative apologist for the Christian faith. As to the identity of that author, we can affirm no more than Origen in the third century: “But as to who actually wrote the Letter, God alone knows.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The very early title of the letter, “To Hebrews,” suggests that the book concerns Jewish Christians living in the Dispersion. The letter itself offers a few hints of the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. Not long after becoming Christians, the readers of the letter were exposed to severe persecution (Heb 10:32-36). During their trial, the new believers endured imprisonment, confiscation of personal property, and public ridicule. Yet the persecution had not been fatal; they had not yet been called upon to lay down their lives in martyrdom (12:4). Amid the excitement of their newfound faith in Christ, they had demonstrated practical concern and love by ministering to fellow believers in need (6:10) and comforting others who had been harassed for their faith (10:34).<\/p>\n<p>But since the time of those earlier trials, the readers had made little progress in Christian maturity (5:11-13). Moreover, in the face of a new wave of persecution, and despondent over an apparent delay in the Lord’s coming, the believers had begun to waver and abandon hope. Indeed, they threatened to renounce Jesus Christ and to revert back to the security of the Jewish religion that enjoyed the protection of Roman law.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we read that because of the strange, new teachings of certain Judaizers who sought to draw them back to their former religion (13:9), the wavering believers had neglected to assemble together (10:25) and had lost confidence in their spiritual leaders (13:17). Faced with the possibility that these Jewish Christians might abandon their faith altogether, the writer sternly warns them of the tragic consequences of renouncing the Son (6:4-6; 10:26-31; 13:12-19) and urges them to renew their commitment to Christ, God’s foremost and final revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Lacking firm information as to the author and recipients of the letter, no certainty exists as to the date of the writing. We have noted that the author of Hebrews, and probably his readers as well, had been discipled by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus (2:3). Further evidence in the letter suggests that Paul probably was not alive. Timothy, Paul’s younger associate, was still living (13:23).<\/p>\n<p>The absence of any mention in Hebrews of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is significant for dating the letter. In terms of his argument that the old covenant had passed away and the legal priesthood had been superseded, the writer would scarcely have omitted mention of the temple’s destruction had he written the letter later than <span>AD<\/span> 70. Hebrews 9:6-10 and 10:1-4, 11-14 plainly suggest that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered. Hence, it may be supposed with some degree of certainty that the letter was written prior to <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it was written after Paul’s death, that would put it after <span>AD<\/span> 67, the traditional date of his execution. Thus, Hebrews may have been written in the period <span>AD<\/span> 67–70.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>The place from which Hebrews was written is also uncertain. Some manuscripts of the letter bear the subscription “written from Rome” or “written from Italy.” Such notations are educated deductions drawn from the statement “The Christians from Italy send you their greetings” (13:24). Most probably this indicates that the writer is extending greetings to a church in Italy on behalf of Italian Christians associated with him in another land, possibly Asia. Nevertheless, we cannot locate the point of origin with any certainty.<\/p>\n<p>It has been suggested that the letter was written to a group of Jewish converts to Christianity. Yet the precise community to which it was sent is a matter of debate. Opinions vary from Judea to Spain. Tradition has it that Hebrews was directed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. But against a Palestinian destination it may be argued: (1) the readers had had no personal contact with Jesus (2:3), an unlikely event for mid-first-century residents of Palestine; (2) the statement in 12:4 that his readers had not yet given their lives could hardly be said of Palestinian Christians of the period; (3) the generosity of the believers (10:34; 13:16) was inconsistent with the poverty of the Jerusalem church; and (4) the general tone of the letter is Hellenistic rather than rabbinical.<\/p>\n<p>Other proposals for the destination of Hebrews include (1) Caesarea, on the supposition of Lukan authorship; (2) Syrian Antioch or Cyprus, assuming Barnabas wrote the letter; (3) Ephesus, in the light of the conversion of many Jews during Paul’s ministry in that city; (4) Colosse, noting certain similarities between the Colossian heresy and the false beliefs of the “Hebrews”; and (5) Alexandria, because of the apparent influence of the philosopher Philo Judaeus in the letter.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis that Hebrews was directed to a group of Jewish Christians in Rome has found favor with a number of scholars. Arguments in support of a Roman destination include the following facts: (1) The letter was first known in Rome no later than <span>AD<\/span> 96. (2) Romans 11:13, 18 suggests that the church at Rome consisted of a Jewish-Christian minority. (3) References to persecution and suffering endured by the readers (Heb 10:32-33; 12:4) are consistent with known repressive measures exacted by the Roman authorities. (4) There is a good possibility that saints who “come from Italy” would convey greetings to their brethren in Rome. (5) The Jewish community in Rome preserved certain features of nonconformist or sectarian Judaism that would explain several notable similarities between the theology and praxis of the Qumran community and that expressed in Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that the letter was addressed to a small subgroup within a local church. The exhortation in 5:12 (<span>rsv<\/span>)—“by this time you ought to be teachers”—hardly would have been relevant to an entire congregation. Hebrews 13:7, 24 lends further support to the theory that the letter was sent to a small group, perhaps to a “house church” within a larger assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Tentatively, one might conclude that the addressees were converts from Judaism who dwelt in the Dispersion. Hence they were familiar with OT Judaism and were acquainted with the religious philosophy of the Greek world. Possibly the readers comprised a house fellowship that tended to disassociate itself from the parent group (10:25). The existence of such house churches in Rome is confirmed by Romans 16:5, 14-15.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>In response to the threat that his Jewish-Christian friends might renounce Christianity and revert to Judaism, the writer by a “word of exhortation” (13:22) communicated to them the finality of the Christian revelation. He sought also to inform his despondent, vacillating readers that Christ, the object of God’s final revelation, is vastly superior to the greatest of Judaism’s heroes. The author, in addition, affirmed the heavenly and eternal character of the salvation secured by Christ. Whereas the legal sacrificial system was powerless to effect the remission of sin, Christ the eternal High Priest “is able, once and forever, to save everyone who comes to God through him” (7:25, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In short, the writer commended to his readers the need for patient endurance amid the persecution and sufferings to which the heirs of eternal salvation are inevitably exposed. Just as Jesus, the forerunner of our faith, suffered and patiently endured in anticipation of eternal reward, so ought harassed, oppressed believers “take a new grip with your tired hands and stand firm on your shaky legs” (12:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) in anticipation of their reception in that eternal “kingdom that cannot be destroyed” (12:28, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The author’s final purpose for writing was to proclaim the fearful judgment that awaits those who repudiate Jesus Christ. Since “our God is a consuming fire” (12:29, <span>nlt<\/span>), “what makes us think that we can escape if we are indifferent to this great salvation” (2:3, <span>nlt<\/span>)?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Next to Romans, Hebrews is the most doctrinal book in the NT. The writer develops a series of weighty arguments to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel of Christ to the religion of Judaism. Since Jesus is final both as to his person and his work, Christianity is the ultimate and normative faith. The book’s particularism runs counter to the spirit of the modern world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Former Revelation (1:1-4)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer acknowledges that God revealed himself to the prophets of old in many ways—through dreams, visions, audible speech, and mighty acts. But “in these last days” (the advent of the end times, cf. 9:26) God spoke finally and definitively through his own Son (1:2). Central to the argument is the fact that in one way or another the prophets received an eternal word from God. Yet given the intimate relation of the Son to the Father, God’s latest revelation has come forth from the very depths of his own being.<\/p>\n<p>Identification of the Son as the pinnacle of divine revelation leads to a concise but profound statement of Christ’s person and his cosmic work. The Son reflects the glory of God in that the sum of the divine attributes brilliantly shine through his person. Moreover, he bears the very image and stamp of God’s nature (1:3), as the wax bears the impress of the seal. Jesus as God’s final word of revelation is truly the divine and eternal Son of God. Christ’s excellence is further displayed in the fact that he is the mighty agent through whom the universe was created (v 2) and by whom the cosmic order is sustained (v 3). In the moral realm he has wrought the purification of sins and now sits enthroned on God’s right hand (cf. 8:1). God’s pleasure toward the Son is seen in that he has appointed Christ heir and head of all (1:2). His name is surpassed by none save God the Father (v 4).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Angels (1:5–2:18)<\/h5>\n<p>Angels enjoyed an exalted status in biblical and postbiblical Judaism. Traditionally the Jews believed that angels praised God upon his throne, mediated God’s revelation to men, attended to God’s will, and gave succor to the people of God. Angels were far superior to men in power and knowledge. According to the Jewish Apocrypha, angels ruled the stars and were responsible for the rise and fall of civilizations. In Qumran thought, angelic beings would engage in a final cosmic struggle with Belial and the forces of evil at the end of the age.<\/p>\n<p>Against this background the writer of Hebrews argues that the Son is vastly superior to the angels. To prove his point, the author assembles a string of well-known OT texts and applies them directly to the Son. God never said of any angel, “Today I have become your Father” (Ps 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Yet just such a claim was made on behalf of the Son (Heb 1:5). When the Son incarnated himself in the world, he received the obedient worship of angels (v 6). His is the sovereignty and the eternality and the majesty at God’s right hand (vv 8, 11-12). By contrast, angels are “only servants” (v 14) that rank below the Son in dignity and might.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 2:1-4 the writer parenthetically warns his wavering congregation of the danger of drifting away from the truth of God. If disobedience to the law mediated by angels resulted in stern punishment, how much more severe would be God’s judgment on those who trampled under foot the revelation delivered by the Son? If God’s saving grace in Christ is neglected, retribution will surely follow (2:3).<\/p>\n<p>The mention of angels turns the writer’s mind to Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation (2:5-18). Psalm 8, a song about the smallness and yet the significance of man, is applied to the experience of Jesus. In assuming human flesh and blood, Jesus was made “for a little while . . . lower than the angels” (Heb 2:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). But subsequent to the completion of his earthly work, he was elevated above the angels and crowned with the glory and honor of heaven (v 9). The theological implications of Christ’s descent and ascent are carefully spelled out: Christ descended to earth (1) to bring many children to glory (v 10), (2) to destroy the devil (v 14), (3) to deliver his people from the bondage of death (v 15), and (4) to make an offering on the cross for the sins of the people (v 17). He ascended to heaven (1) to intercede on our behalf as a faithful High Priest (v 17), and (2) to succor those who are sorely tempted (v 18). The perfect summary of Christ’s person and work is given in Hebrews 2:9: “What we do see is Jesus, who ‘for a little while was made lower than the angels’ and now is ‘crowned with glory and honor’ because he suffered death for us. Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone in all the world” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)<\/h5>\n<p>Jewish Christians contemplating reversion to Judaism surely believed that Moses was one of the greatest figures in Israel’s history. So esteemed was the one who led Israel out of Egypt through the wilderness and who gave them the Law that there was no one in Israel’s history so honored as Moses. Yet the author of Hebrews argues that Moses, though faithful to his calling, was but a servant in the house of God. Jesus, by contrast, was not a servant but a Son; he was not a mere dweller in the house but the very builder of the structure. Jesus, therefore, far transcends the revered figure of Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Practical implications are drawn from Jesus’ superiority to Moses. From Psalm 95:7-11 the writer rehearses the tragic experience of Israel under Moses during the desert wanderings (Heb 3:7-19). Throughout the 40-year wilderness experience the people hardened their hearts and rebelled against God. In turn God was provoked by their stubbornness and swore that those who sinned would never enter the rest he was going to provide (vv 10-11, 18). The writer thus argues that if disobedience to God under Moses had serious consequences, forsaking Christ will be much more perilous. Hence the wavering Christians are urged to watch lest due to an evil, unbelieving heart they should fall away from the living God (v 12). Nothing short of steadfast persistence will lead to the attainment of the heavenly goal (v 14).<\/p>\n<p>Joshua, likewise, was regarded as a great leader of Israel. Yet because of disobedience, the people under Joshua’s leadership failed to enter the rest that God had planned. That rest spoken of corresponds to the Sabbath rest of God (4:3-4), and is a concept closely related to salvation. It is a spiritual reality that is achieved by turning from our own empty works and trusting in the finished work of Christ (v 10). The author reminds the readers that “there is a special rest [a Sabbath rest] still waiting for the people of God” (v 9, <span>nlt<\/span>), one that only Christ can provide. Christians not only benefit from this Sabbath rest in the present age but anticipate its full realization in the age to come. One of the chief means of ensuring entry into the Sabbath rest of salvation is the Word of God (v 12). The living and powerful Word penetrates the innermost depths of the soul, reveals our impoverished condition, and strengthens the trusting heart.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priesthood of the Son (4:14–7:28)<\/h5>\n<p>Almost half of Hebrews is devoted to the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The writer goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the revered Aaronic priestly system has been superseded by the High Priest “in the line of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11). This central theme had been anticipated earlier when Christ was referred to as “our merciful and faithful High Priest before God” who has made atonement for sins (2:17, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews makes the claim that Jesus’ priesthood is the ultimate ground of the believers’ confidence (4:14-16). On three counts Jesus surpasses the old legal priestly order. First, he is an <em>exalted<\/em> high priest (v 14). The Jewish high priest climbed the mount to enter the temple sanctuary. But Jesus, our great high priest, has ascended to heaven itself and entered the sanctuary on high. He ministers in no earthly tabernacle but in the very presence of God. Second, Jesus is an <em>empathetic<\/em> high priest (v 15a). Fully God and fully man, Jesus suffers along with his people in their trials and afflictions. From heaven’s perspective he knows fully what his people are called upon to endure. He “feels” our hurts, and he does so perfectly. Finally, Jesus is a <em>sinless<\/em> high priest (v 15b). Day in and day out (7:27), year in and year out, the Levitical priests were required to bring sacrifices for their own sins. Yet Jesus had no sin that needed cleansing, for “he is holy and blameless, unstained by sin” (v 26, <span>nlt<\/span>). In view of Jesus’ priestly perfections, sorely tempted Christians are urged to come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need (4:16).<\/p>\n<p>For those not convinced that Jesus was indeed a legitimate priest, two prerequisites for priesthood are detailed. First, if the high priest is to represent humanity before God, he must be taken from among men (5:1-2). And second, he must be called by God to high priestly office, as was Aaron (v 4). Christ has fully satisfied these qualifications. From Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 it is shown that Jesus did not take this office upon himself but was appointed by God (Heb 5:5-6). Moreover, from the obedience that he had to learn (v 8) and from the agony of the Gethsemane experience (v 7) it is clear that Jesus was in every way a man. Nevertheless, Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was not a priest after the order of Aaron but a high priest in the line of Melchizedek (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>After introducing the theme of Christ as a Melchizedekian high priest, the writer recalls that his readers were not ready for such advanced teaching. Although not new converts (5:12), his friends had remained spiritually immature and sluggish. Hence the writer issues the challenge to press on to Christian maturity, to be ready for the solid food of advanced teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In his digression the writer warns not only against spiritual immaturity but also against “apostasy.” The question now arises whether the author’s apostasy teaching in Hebrews 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 contradicts the NT doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Undoubtedly it does not. Some authorities hold that those addressed were not true Christians, hence the issue is not one of apostasy. It is possible, like Judas Iscariot or Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), to possess considerable knowledge of the gospel and fall short of personal commitment. But the writer makes it quite clear that in the case of his addressees he is persuaded otherwise (Heb 6:9). The most reasonable view is that in these two hortatory passages the writer advances a hypothetical argument warning his friends of the utter seriousness of reverting back to Judaism. That is, if a falling away were to occur, renewal would be impossible unless Christ were to die a second time. The writer sums up the point of these difficult passages with the words “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Nevertheless, followers of Christ may confidently lay hold of God’s promises, confirmed by solemn oath, to see them through their trials (6:13-18). God may be trusted to hold the believer fast.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrews 7 contains an intricate argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the old legal order. Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Salem (Gn 14:18-20), is regarded as a primordial type of Christ. He is “king of righteousness” and “king of peace” (Heb 7:2). The solemn priest from Salem has figuratively what Christ possesses actually: neither mother nor father, neither beginning nor end of life (v 3). Melchizedek is shown to be superior to Abraham on three counts: (1) Melchizedek blessed the patriarch (vv 1, 7); (2) he accepted tithes from Abraham (vv 2-6); and (3) Melchizedek lives on since the OT nowhere mentions his death (v 8). It follows that since Levi was in the loins of Abraham as seed (v 10), Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priests. And inasmuch as Christ is a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek (v 15), it follows that the Son of God is more excellent than the old legal priesthood.<\/p>\n<p>The result is that the old Levitical priesthood has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The demise of the old order was inevitable, for its repetitive animal sacrifices could never effect spiritual perfection (7:11). It was a system characterized by weakness and uselessness (v 18). By contrast, Christ’s priesthood is indestructible, eternal, uninterrupted, efficacious, final, and perfect (vv 16, 21, 24-27). Forgiveness and reconciliation is possible only through Christ, our great High Priest.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Priestly Work of the Son (8:1–10:39)<\/h5>\n<p>Since Christ’s priestly office far excels the old order, it follows that his priestly ministration is superior to all that has gone before. The theme of Christ as high priest in a better sanctuary is introduced (8:1-5). The writer utilizes Plato’s distinction between the ideal form in heaven and the imperfect copy on earth to argue that the Levitical sanctuary and sacrifices are mere shadows of the heavenly realities: (1) Christ ministers in the true tent that is the heavenly sanctuary (vv 2, 5); (2) he discharges his high priestly service in the very presence of the Father, which results in a far more effective ministry (vv 1, 6); and (3) his oblation on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice (v 3). How unreasonable it is that his Christian readers should go back to the old Jewish priestly system!<\/p>\n<p>Christ is the minister of a new and better covenant (8:6-13). The old covenant established by God with the nation’s fathers was not to be despised; nevertheless, it had become ineffectual and obsolete (v 13). Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) foresaw the new covenant that God would inaugurate with his people. This new covenant sealed by Christ involves (1) the immediate work of the Holy Spirit on the mind and heart (Heb 8:10); (2) a personal and intimate knowledge of God (v 11); and (3) the full absolution of sins (v 12). This new and better covenant has been established on the work of Christ, the great High Priest.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 gives a detailed comparison of the efficacy of priestly service under the old and new covenants. The Levitical priests ministered in a material sanctuary on earth (vv 1-5). Features of the tabernacle and its furnishings are described to highlight their obsolescence. More important, however, is the character of the sacrificial ritual conducted in the earthly sanctuary. The Jewish priests in their daily service were not permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, which contained the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat—the place of propitiation of sins (v 6). The high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies, and then but once a year on the Day of Atonement, and only after sacrificing for his own sins (v 7). The inaccessibility of the Holy of Holies signified that access to the presence of God had not been opened. The presence of the curtain symbolized that the people had no way to the throne of God, the priests had no way, and the high priest had a limited way and only once a year. Moreover, the sacrifices brought by the Jewish priests could not purify the conscience but merely dealt with external ritual cleansing (vv 9-10). A truly effectual sacrifice must await “the time of reformation” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s priestly ministration is shown to be far more efficacious. First, the Christian’s High Priest has brought a better sacrifice (9:11-14), and here we arrive at the heart of the message of Hebrews. Employing the imagery of the tabernacle, the author demonstrates that Christ our High Priest has accomplished what the Jewish priests failed to do. He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not repeatedly, but <em>once<\/em> for all, thereby effecting a completed redemption (v 12). Christ brought to the altar, not the blood of bulls and goats, but his own life’s blood. The Lord did not merely lay down a material body, but he presented himself to God through the eternal Spirit (v 14). Christ’s better sacrifice thus goes beyond cleansing of the flesh to the purification of the defiled conscience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Christ through his death has instituted a better covenant (9:15-23). The teaching of Hebrews 8:6-13 is developed further. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats (9:19). But the new covenant was ratified with the blood of Christ, God’s own Son. The new covenant thus could accomplish what the old covenant merely foreshadowed—forgiveness and cleansing of sins (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>Third, Christ ministers in a better tabernacle (9:24-28). Our Lord entered, not into a merely earthly sanctuary, but into the holy place of heaven, there to represent us (v 24). Access to the throne is not limited to one day per year, for he is continually in the presence of the Father. Nor is it necessary that repeated sacrifices be made. Christ’s single sacrifice on the cross has conquered sin once and for all (v 26). In sum, as regards the sanctuary, the covenant, and the sacrifices, the Christian’s High Priest is vastly superior to the old Jewish order.<\/p>\n<p>In order to drive home these crucial points, the writer in chapter 10 expands on the theme of the absolute finality of Christ’s high priestly work. The earlier argument concerning the futile character of the Levitical sacrifices (9:6-14) is repeated for emphasis (10:1-4). The Mosaic ceremonial legislation called for repetitive sacrifices, which could never perfect the worshiper (v 1). Instead of purifying one’s life, they served only as a yearly reminder of sin (v 3) until Christ should come.<\/p>\n<p>The writer discovers in Psalm 40:6-8 a prediction that the eternal Christ would become man for the purpose of offering himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:5-10). Once again the sanctifying power of Christ’s single self-oblation is emphasized (v 10). The vivid contrast is again drawn between the ineffective ministry of the Jewish priests who stand during the daily ritual (v 11), and the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now seated at the right hand of God (v 12). Since Jesus “by that one offering . . . perfected forever all those whom he is making holy” (v 14, <span>nlt<\/span>), nothing can be added to what the seated Sovereign has accomplished (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the manifest superiority of Christ’s priestly office and work, the struggling Christians are exhorted to appropriate the means of grace at their disposal (10:19-39). In the midst of trials and persecution they should remember that Christ has effectively opened the way to God (vv 19-20). They are summoned to come to God in faith with hearts cleansed by Christ’s sacrifice (v 22). Those tempted to revert to legal religion should hold fast and support one another in love (vv 23-24). The means of grace afforded by corporate worship should not be neglected (v 25). In short, the wavering Jewish Christians are summoned to renewed endurance and fidelity to their Lord (vv 26-31). What God has promised to his people he will surely make good.<\/p>\n<h5>The Superiority of the Life of Faith (11:1–12:29)<\/h5>\n<p>The discussion of faith and endurance as the solution to despondency (10:36-38) prompts a fuller consideration of the faith theme. Faith is a prominent concept in the book of Hebrews, as attested by the fact that the word occurs some 35 times in the letter. The Pauline idea of faith as the means of legal justification is adapted to the particular circumstances of the threatened Jewish Christians. The concept of faith is broader in this book than the strictly saving faith discussed by Paul, in that it leads to spiritual salvation (11:39-40). Faith is the power by which heaven’s unseen realities are laid hold of to satisfy the soul. Faith enables the Christian disciple to view the world and interpret the flow of history from the divine perspective. Faith is the means of victory over the world of sin and woe. Through faith the believer approaches the throne of grace (4:16) with the confidence and assurance that God will enable him to overcome.<\/p>\n<p>The victory faith affords is amply illustrated from the history of God’s OT people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah in the primal history; Abraham, the father of faith; Moses, the leader of the young nation; and many valiant prophets and martyrs serve as living memorials to faith’s overcoming power. And yet God has something better in store for his sanctified people, the church (11:40): the reality of the living Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Yet the greatest model of steadfast endurance in suffering is Jesus, “the Originator and Perfecter of our faith” (12:2, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). When surrounded with trials, the Christian needs to recall Christ, who in anticipation of the heavenly crown endured the cross and its shame. The Christian’s trials are trivial compared with what Jesus Christ was called upon to suffer (v 3). Moreover, for the people of God, suffering and persecution prove to be disguised blessings. The rod of discipline confirms our status as children of the living God (vv 5-10). But beyond this, the sovereign God is able to transform the Christian’s suffering into inestimable blessing (v 11). Hence the wavering saints should strive for spiritual wholeness and maturity, taking care lest they be overtaken by bitterness and resentment (v 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Exhortations and Benediction (13:1-25)<\/h5>\n<p>The writer in his closing words challenges his Christian friends to be faithful to the tasks that lie at hand. They are to show continued love to the brethren, to extend hospitality to strangers, to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to be content with what they now possess, and to be obedient to their spiritual leaders (13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The readers are warned against the trickery of the Judaizers, who would lead them astray from Jesus Christ, the one who remains “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). Spiritual determination is strengthened by recalling the example of Christ, who “suffered outside the city gates” for their salvation (v 12). As the people of God, they are challenged to follow Christ “outside the camp,” bearing abuse for him (v 13). Patient endurance is possible when the Christian realizes that he has no enduring city here (v 14). His goal is the heavenly Jerusalem, the eternal city of God.<\/p>\n<p>The anonymous letter to the unknown “Hebrews” closes with a glorious benediction. The Christian’s God is described as the great “God of peace” (13:20), and Jesus is “the great Shepherd of the sheep,” who established a new and eternal covenant and then rose triumphant from the dead. And the promise is made to the trusting soul that the triune God would “equip you with all you need for doing his will” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The letter to the Hebrews is rich in doctrinal teaching. It discloses more about the historical Jesus than any other NT letter. It alone explains the atoning work of Christ under the rubric of the Melchizedekian priest. The letter’s discussion of repentance, justification, sanctification, and perseverance makes it a mine of salvation teaching. Its explication of old and new covenants, impending judgment, and the world to come make a significant contribution to Christian theology. And the letter’s teaching on faith, endurance, and the practical Christian combine to make Hebrews one of the most important documents God has given to the church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","summary_en":"HEBREWS, Letter to the One of the most profound and enigmatic books in the NT. The identity of its author, the time of its writing, and the people and place to which it was sent are all shrouded in mystery. Yet, in spite of the uncertainty, Hebrews remains one of the most timely and relevant books in the Bible. Some 300 years ago John Owen, the English Puritan, appropriately remarked: “No doubt the Epistle next in importance to Romans is this to the Hebrews.” The letter is both doctrinal and ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":58831,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:13","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:13<\/strong> The word <em>new<\/em> in <em>“new” covenant<\/em> emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered <em>old<\/em> or <em>obsolete<\/em> and was thus <em>out of date<\/em>. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:13<\/strong> The word <em>new<\/em> in <em>“new” covenant<\/em> emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered <em>old<\/em> or <em>obsolete<\/em> and was thus <em>out of date<\/em>. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:13 The word new in “new” covenant emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered old or obsolete and was thus out of date. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.","summary_en":"8:13 The word new in “new” covenant emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered old or obsolete and was thus out of date. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":86457,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:13","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:13<\/strong> The word <em>new<\/em> in <em>“new” covenant<\/em> emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered <em>old<\/em> or <em>obsolete<\/em> and was thus <em>out of date<\/em>. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:13<\/strong> The word <em>new<\/em> in <em>“new” covenant<\/em> emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered <em>old<\/em> or <em>obsolete<\/em> and was thus <em>out of date<\/em>. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:13 The word new in “new” covenant emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered old or obsolete and was thus out of date. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.","summary_en":"8:13 The word new in “new” covenant emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered old or obsolete and was thus out of date. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114083,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:13","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:13<\/strong> The word <em>new<\/em> in <em>“new” covenant<\/em> emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered <em>old<\/em> or <em>obsolete<\/em> and was thus <em>out of date<\/em>. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:13<\/strong> The word <em>new<\/em> in <em>“new” covenant<\/em> emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered <em>old<\/em> or <em>obsolete<\/em> and was thus <em>out of date<\/em>. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:13 The word new in “new” covenant emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered old or obsolete and was thus out of date. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.","summary_en":"8:13 The word new in “new” covenant emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered old or obsolete and was thus out of date. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":141709,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Evrei 8:13","title_en":"Study Note: Evrei 8:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>8:13<\/strong> The word <em>new<\/em> in <em>“new” covenant<\/em> emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered <em>old<\/em> or <em>obsolete<\/em> and was thus <em>out of date<\/em>. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>8:13<\/strong> The word <em>new<\/em> in <em>“new” covenant<\/em> emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered <em>old<\/em> or <em>obsolete<\/em> and was thus <em>out of date<\/em>. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.<\/p>","summary_ro":"8:13 The word new in “new” covenant emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered old or obsolete and was thus out of date. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.","summary_en":"8:13 The word new in “new” covenant emphasizes that, once God had enacted this covenant, the Sinai covenant was considered old or obsolete and was thus out of date. Its time of usefulness was over and its termination was imminent.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}