Lesson One
In Context and Out of Context
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
John 5:46-47
- Heb 8:5 and 10:1 speak of the ‘shadows’ in the Torah and the Tabernacle system. 2 nd Century church ‘fathers’ saw this in terms of Plato – that a shadow is a bad thing. But a shadow is a picture of a shape. What is the shape?
- Approaching Scripture with a preconceived theology often blinds us. We must observe as best we can with our theological glasses removed.
- Heb 5:11-14: The Epistle to the Hebrews is the most refined of all the Apostolic Scriptures. The concepts are anything but simple. Why does the writer speak like this to the recipients? Maybe we are coming at the issues from the opposite direction from the recipients. Who were they, and what did they know that we don’t?
Who, Who, When, Where
- Who wrote the book? Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandria, attributing it to Paul, originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. We have no such document. The Greek is highly refined, unlike Paul’s. Writer knows Timothy (13:23) and is known to the recipients.
- The writer uses a lot of information only found in the Mishnah – plus reliance upon midrashic stories and the early rabbinic style.
- Who received it? Earliest manuscripts have “To Hebrews” in the text. 5:12 indicates not young believers. Intimately acquainted with Temple/Tabernacle etc.
- Acts 6:1, 2Cor 11:22, Phil 3:5: Hebrew speakers? Judean, Jerusalemite?
- When? 13:23 reference to Timothy. No record, but assumed after 2Tim 4:21. This would be after 62 CE. Temple sacrifices and Levitical verbs are present tense. Likely before 66 CE when Jewish revolt began.
- Where: From Italy. 13:24.
- The traditional view of why this book is written is an anachronism (out of time context).
- Hebrews 12:18:29: This provides the framework for traditional interpretation of this book.
- Matthew Henry says, “Here the apostle goes on to engage the professing Hebrews to perseverance in their Christian course and conflict, and not to relapse again into Judaism…”
- Why, if arguing about the overturning of the “Judaic system”, is the writer reluctant to tell them to leave it? He never does.
- Not understanding the Hebraic literary device, kal v’chomer, traditional interpretations remove the foundation of the entire book’s argument.
- This dismissive view, in a way, speaks to believers and says, “nothing to see here… move on…” No wonder this pristine book is so neglected.
- There are deep truths here if we will ignore such opinions.
- Why written? 13:22: Written as a letter of exhortation.
- 2:1-3; 3:12; 4:14; 5:12-6:1; 10:24-30; 12:25 (1:1): Warning and encouragement to endure, and to press in deeper.
- What is it all about? 2:5: Olam haba [the world to come]. Olam hazeh [present world] will serve as an illustration of olam haba.
- Parts of Acts describe the likely recipients of Hebrews.
- Acts 1:12: Sabbath’s day journey. About ½ mile. NOT a written Torah command? So, why mention it?
- 2:1-2: Pentecost: Shavu’ot. Lev 23:15ff. Not a ‘Christian’ holiday.
- All in one place. Ha-Makom. The Place. Where a multitude could gather to hear Peter.
- 2:16: 3 rd Hour. Where would a man in Jerusalem be on Shavu’ot at the shacharit prayer time [morning prayers]?
- 2:37-41: What were they to do? Added to what? (vs 41, 47).
- 2:38: Immersed. Not originally a ‘Christian’ practice. Mikvaot [immersion pools] ring the Temple.
- 2:42: Literally, the prayers. Shacharit, Minchah, Ma’ariv. 3 prayer times. Amidah, Sh’ma, etc.
- 2:46: One accord, in the Temple. The Temple was the Jerusalem believers’ worship center.
- The context of the Epistle to the Hebrews is important for us to discover, because it is not our culture that is being addressed.
- Some of the traditional interpretation anachronistically discounts the historical account of Acts, as well as the very obvious words used to make ‘light to heavy’ comparisons.
- We must be diligent in our observation – it will make all the difference in digging deep into this book.
- In the end, our basic theology may not be changed, but we will be.