Hebrews chapter 5
5:1-10 Three qualifications for the Levitical priest are presented in verses 1-4. First, he must minister in behalf of
other men by offering sacrifices for sins. Second, he must have compassion on those who inadvertently sin out of
ignorance. Third, he must be appointed by or called of God. In verses 5-10 the author demonstrates that Christ
meets these requirements. He reverses the order showing, first, Christ's divine appointment (verses 5, 6), second,
in verses 7, 8, His compassion--probably relating His Gethsemane experience (Mark 14:32-42), and third, in verses
9, 10, His perfect offering for sin.
5:11-14 The third warning passage of Hebrews, 5:11-6:20 (see the note on 2:1), does not involve insecurity of
salvation as many suppose, but immaturity (see 6:4-6). The author wishes to continue discussing Melchizedek but
must wait until chapter 7, because his readers are dull of hearing. This adjective (Greek nothroi), which is used
elsewhere in the New Testament only at Hebrews 6:12, is there translated "slothful." The warning of this passage is
that what is now described as lazy hearing can result in an entire life of sluggishness (6:12).
Hebrews chapter 6
6:1-3 The readers are encouraged to go on to maturity by leaving the elementary teachings of the Word. The word
perfection (Greek teleiotes) has both an absolute and a relative sense. Its relative sense involving maturity is
expressed here. The six representative doctrines listed here involve three sets: the elementary teachings
concerning conversion itself, the post-conversion experiences, and teachings on "last things." Eschatology is
included here among the first truths, rather than as deeper truth. The mere study of last things does not
demonstrate spiritual maturity. The practical changes these eschatological truths produce manifest maturity.
6:4-6 This passage does not teach that one can lose his salvation through disbelief or apostasy. These verses
refer to a hypothetical situation whereby the author stresses what would happen to a saved person if he could fall
away. The author does not believe one can lose his salvation, or that his readers had (verse 9); but he so speaks
to demonstrate the folly some might have in imagining that they can turn back to Judaism without suffering loss.
Though the author is not writing about his readers (verse 4, those), he still is writing for their sakes (verse 9, you). If
they shall fall away is the translation given to the fifth participle of the passage. This is a legitimate and even
common grammatical usage by the author within the warning passages (2:3; 10:26; and even 6:8). The first four
participles refer to actual blessings whereas number five describes a potential situation, and so can be translated
unlike the first four.
The important point about Hebrews 6 is that it agrees with the general tenor of Scripture concerning the security of
the born-again believer. One basis for the security of the believer involves the promises recorded in God's Word
(verses 18-20; 7:24, 25; 8:12; 10:10-14; John 10:28-30; Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:13, 14; 4:30; Philippians
1:6; 1 John 5:13). Yet, an even stronger basis for security is found within the nature of the new life God gives.
Though conversion involves man's will, it is God's will that produces regeneration (John 1:13). Thus, salvation in
infinitely more than a decision that one can make or break. It is the work of God that transforms one from darkness
to light (1 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:13), from death to life (John 5:24), from a child of the Devil to a son of God
(Romans 8:14-17). It is a completed, regenerating work (10:14; Ephesians 2:8--"You are saved," or "You have
been saved and stand saved"--Greek perfect tense).
6:13-18 God's covenant with Abraham, which involves salvation (Galatians 3:15-25), is secure, being based upon
two immutable things, that is, elements that cannot change. First, God's promise is based on His own unchanging
Word. He cannot lie, nor will He allow His Word to fail (Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; 17:17). Further, His Word was
confirmed by an oath. And since He can swear by none greater, He swears by Himself. He rests His Word on His
holy character.
6:19, 20 Starting at the end of verse 18, the author uses three pictures to demonstrate the security of being in
Christ. First, it is described as a safe retreat for the believer, as were the six cities of refuge in the Old Testament to
those allowed their protection (Numbers 35:6-32). Second, our hope is sure and steadfast as is a well-placed,
unbending anchor. Our anchor is not located in the deepest sea but in the highest heaven. The third figure is that
of a forerunner. Though the figure changes, the location does not. Our forerunner is likewise positioned in the
sanctuary of heaven. As our forerunner, Jesus is far different from the Old Testament priests. In the sanctuary they
could intercede for the people, but they could not lead the people in themselves. As our forerunner, Jesus has
opened the way before us, that eventually (and certainly) we might enter in with Him.
Hebrews chapter 7
7:1-3 Melchizedek appears only briefly in the Old Testament, yet our author minutely scrutinizes him. (See Genesis
14:18-20; Psalm 110:4.) Being by interpretation: The writer sees in Melchizedek a type or figure of Christ and draws
parallels between the two. Without father, without mother: What is true of Melchizedek typically only because of
silence is intrinsically true of Christ. Melchizedek is without parents only in that they are unknown. He is without
descent in that his genealogy has not been preserved. Genealogy was essential to a priest, for under the Levitical
system one could not serve if he could not prove his pedigree (Ezra 2:62; Nehemiah 7:64). Melchizedek had no
papers. Further, he is without beginning and ending due to the Old Testament never mentioning his birth and
death. The author explicitly states his point when he declares that Melchizedek is made like, or resembles, the Son
of God. But has the author taken too much liberty with his typology? No, for God Himself first made the similar
connection in Psalm 110:4, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."
Some understand these verses in Hebrews to suggest that Melchizedek was a theophany, appearance of Christ
Himself, rather than a historical king at Salem. Neither Hebrews nor Genesis, however, supports that view. Even in
Hebrews, such phrases as made like unto the son of God (verse 3) and "after the order of Melchizedek" (verse 17)
indicate a clear distinction between Melchizedek and Christ. The Genesis account provides sufficient historical data
to disallow the idea that this is a temporary manifestation. This Melchizedek was a king of a literal city in Canaan.
The setting of Genesis 14 is unlike any of the settings involving a theophany. In those settings the theophany is
recognized as the Lord or is declared within the text to be the Lord (Genesis 16: 7-13; 18:1-33; 22:1-14; Exodus
3:2-4). Further, to argue from etymology that since the name means "king of righteousness," Melchizedek is not
historical, lacks substance. Both historical and archaeological evidence demonstrate that the Jebusite kings of that
area used compound names including -zedek for their titles. For example, Adoni-zedek was the Jebusite king of the
same city several centuries later (Joshua 10:1).
7:4-10 Even Abraham, the great patriarch of the Jewish people, considered Melchizedek enough superior that he
tithed him willingly and humbly of his spoils. So, Levi and the entire Levitical priesthood which proceeded from
Abraham, are inferior to Melchizedek and his priesthood. Even though Abraham was the recipient of the covenant
(and later, his descendant Moses, of the Law), he is the receiver, rather than the bestower, of the blessing. Thus
Melchizedek is his better, and is certainly superior to Abraham's offspring.
7:11, 12 The author raises the question as to why the Old Testament should make reference to another
priesthood. If the Levitical priesthood were producing perfection, meaning completion or fulfillment of its role, why is
another needed? The old system pronounced its own doom by speaking of another. Further, the author teaches
that the passing of the Levitical priesthood necessitates the removal of the Mosaic Law, for they are inextricably
united. The law did not produce the Levitical priesthood; rather the priesthood required the law. Both Moses and
Aaron were chosen by God before the law was given. The law was given at Sinai to provide the procedures and
ordinances for the functioning of the priesthood God had already established. So our author accurately
acknowledges that the passing of the Levitical priesthood demands the passing of the Mosaic legal system. Note
Paul's teachings concerning the passing of the law in relation to the believer (Romans 7:1-6; 10:4; 2 Corinthians
3:7-11; Galatians 3:9-25). God has not, however, annihilated the law. He has removed it from the life of the believer
because it can neither save nor sanctify. The unsaved man, however, still lies under its convicting and condemning
work (1 Timothy 1:8-11).
7:15-28 Though the author had repeatedly mentioned the unending nature of the Melchizedekian priesthood, this
now becomes the central point. Because of its unending nature it provides a better hope and an unchangable
priesthood, resulting in an unending salvation and intercession through a perfect, one-time sacrifice.
Hebrews chapter 8
8:7-13 Many important truths can be gleaned from this passage regarding the new covenant, quoted from Jeremiah
31:31-34. First, during Jeremiah's day it was future and was something new. Second, it will be established with the
house of Israel and with the house of Judah. This statement is very precise. It involves the Jewish people at a time
when they will again be united. When Jeremiah revealed this prophecy, Israel was scattered throughout the Middle
East, and Judah had just recently begun its exile in Babylon. This new covenant made with the Jewish people would
come after they were regathered to Israel (Jeremiah 30:1-3) and after a time of severe tribulation identified as "the
time of Jacob's trouble" (Jeremiah 30:7). Third, it is unlike the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai (verse 9). It is
different in that the old covenant had been conditional. When Israel abandoned it, God also abandoned them. The
new covenant is a promise. Fourth, this new covenant is based upon an inner, spiritual change. It is not written on
stone, but in their hearts (Ezekiel 36:26, 27; 2 Corinthians 3:6-8). Its followers are those who know the Lord.
This relation of the new covenant to the Gentile, church-age believer is viewed in one of several ways. First,
amillennialists believe that the church replaces Israel and so this covenant is fulfilled by the church. A second view
proposes that this covenant, as Jeremiah 31 suggests, is for the nation of Israel alone. The third view suggests that
two new covenants exist: one for Israel and one for the church. The fourth (and probably the best) view is that there
is one new covenant which God will one day fulfill with Israel and in which the church participates soteriologically
today. In other words, though the covenant is not fulfilled, Christ's death has initiated its present benefits for those
who will someday share in its ultimate blessings when it is fulfilled with Israel. This view allows the witness of both
the Old and New Testaments to stand. Further, nowhere does Scripture speak of two new covenants, any more
than it speaks of two old covenants. Paul was a minister of this new covenant to the churches (2 Corinthians 3:6).
The ordinance of the Lord's Supper which has been given to the church is based upon the sacrifice of the new
covenant--Christ's death. Many references to the new covenant within the New Testament clearly relate it to the
church (12:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6), and others also relate it to Israel (verse 10; 12:23, 24;
Romans 11:27). As heirs of Christ's kingdom, the church partakes of the new covenant's spiritual blessings today
and will in the future share in its fulfillment with Israel.
Hebrews chapter 9
9:4 Verses 1-5 describe the contents of the two chambers of the Mosaic tabernacle. A problem occurs in verse 4 in
that the golden censer (altar of incense) was physically located in the outer first chamber, whereas the "Holiest of
all," or Holy of Holies (verse 3), contained only the ark of the covenant. The author's careful choice of the word had
(note, by contrast, his earlier word wherein in verse 2) provides the latitude needed to express the altar's liturgical
function with the Holy of Holies despite its location in the outer, Holy Place. This altar was physically located in the
Holy Place so that incense could be placed upon fresh coals morning and evening, yet it was located immediately in
front of the Holy of Holies so that its fragrant cloud might enter the Holy of Holies and cover the ark of the covenant.
See Exodus 30:6; 40:5; Leviticus 16:12, 13.
9:6, 7 The priests enter the Holy Place daily to perform their interminable tasks. Morning and evening the lamps
were trimmed, and the coals with incense were placed upon the golden altar. The showbread was replaced weekly.
But the Holy of Holies was a closed chamber into which the high priest alone ventured one day a year, on the Day
of Atonement (Leviticus 16:5-34).
9:8-10 The Holy Ghost this signifying: Through this typological picture of the tabernacle, the Holy Spirit was
showing that man did not possess direct and complete access to God (and would not) while the tabernacle with its
Mosaic Law still stood. The tabernacle further served as a figure, a physical picture or symbol, for all to see. Just as
access was not open to the Holy of Holies, so access to God was not complete. Man's conscience was always left
unsatisfied. Since he must return repeatedly, and since he never knew what happened within closed chambers, he
could never feel he had been completely and permanently cleansed. This would continue only until the time of
reformation when Christ would establish a new order, the new covenant
9:11, 12 The reference in verse 12 to the holy place (Greek ta hagia) needs to be understood as the Holy of
Holies. This Greek phrase is not used consistently for any one part of the tabernacle. In verse 2 it is used for the
Holy Place; in verse 25 it has reference to the Holy of Holies. Thus, the usage of the phrase must be determined by
the demands of the context. Verses 11 and 12 clearly relate to the inner sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, as have the
preceding verses (verses 7-10). These two verses present the essentials in operating the new covenant: a superior
sanctuary and an infinitely superior sacrifice. Christ has opened the inner sanctuary and heavenly tabernacle, quite
in contrast to the closed sanctuary of the earthly.