Site:SS lessons/NT lesson 37

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Jump to: navigation, search

This page allows you to see all the commentary pages together for this New Testament Gospel Doctrine lesson. Click on the heading to go to a specific page. Click the edit links below to edit text on any pages.


Heb 1:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 1-2
Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1: Sundry times and in divers manners. In Greek, the beginning of this verse reads "Polumeros kai polutropos palai" (In many parts and in many ways of old). The emphatic polu- prefix on two of these opening words is a somewhat common literary device for texts of this period. Here these words seem to be emphasizing either the extent of the Old Testament prophecies or the fragmentary or varied natures of these writings. If the former, this can be taken as pointing to how the prophecies are incomplete until the coming of Christ; if the latter, this can be taken as pointing toward the way in which Christ unifies these various prophecies, or how Christ is yet another of these diverse prophets. (Cf. the NET notes for this verse).
  • Heb 1:5-14: Overview. Verses 5-14 begin include a series of seven Old Testament quotations. First, Ps 2:7 is quoted in vese 5a establishing divine sonship of Christ. This passage is interpreted as messianic by others as well (e.g. Acts 4:25-26; Acts 13:33; Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15). Second, 2 Sam 7:14 is quoted in verse 5b, also in establishing the sonship of Christ. This passage also seems to be interpreted or at least applied messianically in John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Luke 1:32-33 (interestingly, 2 Sam 7:14 is applied to the sonship of believers in 2 Cor 6:18 and Rev 21:7). Third, Ps 97:7 is (seemingly) quoted in verse 6 (or, this might be a quotation of the LXX version of Deut 32:43 which is longer than the MT and has an interesting parallelism between "sons of God" and "angels of God"). This passage depicts the angels worshipping the son. Fourth, Ps 104:4 is quoted in verse 7, again following the LXX instead of the MT which has God making the natural elements into servants rather than the reverse which we read here and in the LXX. Fifth, Ps 45:6-7 is quoted in verse 8, although here God is speaking to the Son promising him an everlasting kingdom whereas in the psalm the psalmist is addressing the king as God. Sixth, in Ps 102:25-27 is quoted in verses 10-12 describing God's role in creation and endlessness (again, the psalmist is addressing God whereas here the words are applied to Christ). Seventh, Ps 110:1 is quoted in verse 13, a passage commonly applied messianically, here establishing the sonship of Christ once again, with an emphasis on the "right hand," sitting position of the son relative to God.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1. Though this does not reflect the Greek, the English text begins with "God," set off from the remainder of the sentence by a comma. What does this accomplish in feel and tone as one begins to read? Why would the translators do this?
  • Heb 1:1. The language of this first verse is generally exalted in English, with a rhetorical flair. How well does this style reflect the oratorical nature of the Greek? Is this translation justified? What does this rhetorical style accomplish?
  • Heb 1:1. Why does the author mention "the fathers" instead of "our fathers"? Does this reflect the cultural orientation of the author? Does it rather suggest that "the fathers" here are not the general ancestors of the Jews at the time of the writing/speaking of this text? What might one read into the phrase?
  • Heb 1:1. If "the fathers" does not mean "the ancestors of the Jews," but something more specialized, which "prophets" spoke to "the fathers"? Is there a set of particular stories in mind here?
  • Usually time is paired with place in the scriptural idiom. Why is "times" paired with "manners" in this opening of the story? Is there some uniformity of place to be posited here?
  • Heb 1:1. If "God" is the subject of the first sentence, the verb that describes the action God performs does not appear at all until verse 2. What does this relativization do to the material of verse 1? Why would the author postpone the action? Why would the author at once make parenthetical and yet give priority to the contents of this first verse?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author call his times the "last days"?
  • Heb 1:2. Verse 1 mentions "the fathers," while this verse mentions "his Son." Though verse 1 marks "the fathers" as the ones being taught and this verse marks the "Son" as the one teaching, is there meant to be any implicit connection between these terms?
  • Heb 1:2. What does "heir of all things" entail for the "Son"? Is it significant that the Son was "appointed heir" and not born to be heir?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author bother to mention the creation in this verse at all, especially when the theme seems to be so completely unconnected with the other themes of the verse?
  • Heb 1:2. The word translated "worlds" in verse 2 is literally the word "eons." What does it mean to make eons? How is it that the Son was involved in making eons?
  • Heb 1:2. Is it significant at all that the "he" who appoints and who takes up the Son in making the worlds is only called "God" and not at all "the Father"? Does this suggest a different understanding in Hebrews of the relation between Christ and God?
  • Heb 1:3. Why is the Son called "the brightness of his [God's] glory"? What sort of a relationship does this imply between the Son and God?
  • Heb 1:3. If the "his" that is italicized in the first phrase of the verse does not reflect the Greek, the phrase might be read "Who being the brightness of glory." How does this change the meaning of this phrase?
  • Heb 1:3. What does the author of Hebrews mean by glory? Where else does this author use the term, and do any other instances provide a basis for understanding what the term means here?
  • Heb 1:3. The phrase "express image" is a translation of a single Greek word: character, obviously the word behind the English "character." How should this word be understood here?
  • Heb 1:3. Is it important that the Son is said here to be the "character" of God's person, rather than the icon? Does this imply something besides physical appearance or representation?
  • Heb 1:3. The Greek word translated "person" is also rather difficult, and is a word that was involved in the hottest theological debates about Trinitarianism anciently. It could be translated "person," "substance," or even "reality." How is this term best read here?
  • Heb 1:3. How does the Son uphold all things by the word of his power? Is it significant that "word" here reflects a different Greek word from John's famous "In the beginning was the Word"? What is "the word of his power"? Whose power is it?
  • Heb 1:3. Does "by himself" imply that the author believes Jesus to have completed the atonement without the help of the Father? Why would the author bother to add this emphatic "by himself"? Might it emphasize lack of help from other sources, perhaps the angels mentioned in the next verse?
  • Heb 1:3. What is the significance of the right hand? Does Ps 110:1 help here?
  • Heb 1:3. Does this act of being seated by God imply some kind of return? Is it significant that the author of Hebrews seems to have understood Jesus to have been first a man and then a God, rather than a God, then a man, and then a God?
  • Heb 1:4. What does it mean to be "so much better than the angels"? Why is this important to the author?
  • Heb 1:4. It seems clear that "inheritance" is key to understanding the distinction between Jesus and the angels. But how should this be read against the Old Testament tradition of calling the angels the "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:4. How is the name the Son inherits "more excellent" than the name the angels inherit? Does "more excellent" ultimately imply that the angels also inherit names? Was this author familiar with Phil 2:9-10?
  • Heb 1:4. Why is the "name" so important here? What kind of a name could the author have in mind? Might this be connected with the Old Testament traditions about the tetragrammaton (YHWH)?
  • Heb 1:5. Is the direct relation of begetting of great importance here? Is it this begetting literal? If it is, does the author understand this to be the difference between this "Son" and the angels or "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:5. The phrase the author reports God as saying to the Son is a quotation of Ps 2:7. Why would the author focus on that verse specifically? What is so significant about the psalms for the author? Is his reading of the psalm justified in modern terms? What is the relation--even at this early point--between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. Only in this verse is God first called a "Father" to the "Son." Why does the author wait so long to draw this point out?
  • Heb 1:5. The latter part of the verse (following "And again") is a quotation of 2 Sam 7:14. Why would the author take that text as referring to the Son/Jesus? Is this a justified reading? How does this second quotation in a single verse adjust one's understanding of the relationship between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. The language of the second quotation seems to imply a covenant that comes later, rather than something implicit in birth, as does the language of the first quotation on closer inspection. What is the significance of taking up these verses for the Son when they seem to imply that He only became the Son, only came to be begotten?
  • Heb 1:5. Both of the quotations in this verse come from royal settings in the Old Testament. How does this royalty theme play into the theme the author is addressing here?
  • Heb 1:5. What is the relation between "the angels" in this verse and "the prophets" in the first verse?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the rhetorical function of "And again"? In the scriptures translated/dictated by Joseph Smith, this phrase seems to mark breaks in the text. Does it do so here?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of calling the Son the "firstbegotten," which constitutes something of a departure from the theme to this point (simply "begotten")?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation the author draws on here does not appear in the Masoretic text (Deut 32:43), though it does appear in both the (Greek) Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts (the Dead Sea Scrolls). Does this suggest anything about the theological position of the author?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation is lifted from the "Song of Moses." Is it significant that the author draws on that most important piece of Old Testament literature?
  • Heb 1:6. Why does the author attribute the phrase to a situation of bringing "the firstbegotten into the world"? What does such an event have to do with the "Song of Moses"?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of the image presented here as a whole (the firstbegotten being presented before so many angels who sing and shout praises to him)? How might this be connected with other scriptures?
  • Heb 1:6. Why would God make an announcement to the angels if He is introducing the Son to the world?
  • Heb 1:6. Might this be connected with the angelic chorus visiting the shepherds?
  • Heb 1:7. This verse quotes Ps 104:4. Why would the author choose to take up that psalm in particular?
  • Heb 1:7. The point of this verse (when it is read against the next verse) is to suggest a difference between the angels and the Son. How is the word "ministers" significant in this comparison?
  • Heb 1:7. Is it significant that the author quotes God as saying something "of" the angels, but (in the next verse) something "unto" the Son?
  • Heb 1:7. The verse from Psalm 104 sets up two parallelisms: "angels" is parallel to "ministers," and "spirits" is parallel to "a flame of fire." What can be drawn from these parallelisms?
  • Heb 1:7. Wouldn't one assume that God makes spirits into angels, not angels into spirits? And wouldn't one assume that God makes flames of fire into ministers, not ministers into a flame of fire? What does it mean for the author of the psalm to put the other way around?
  • Heb 1:7. How does this verse (and the next as well) relate to verse 6? Might these two verses be read as fleshing out the worship scene described there?
  • Heb 1:7. What does this verse suggest about the author's attitude towards the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:8. This verse and the next quote Ps 45:6-7, where the psalmist is quite clearly the speaker. Why would the author attribute these words to God Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. What is the difference (implied by the "But") between the one on the throne and the angels? What does it mean that these angels or ministers would worship Him?
  • Heb 1:8. Is it significant that the throne of the Son is here described as being "for ever and ever"? Does this contradict the earlier implication that the Son had only become the Son?
  • Heb 1:8. How might the tenor of this verse suggest a connection with D&C 121:45-46? What might the content of that cross reference suggest for the meaning of this verse?
  • Heb 1:8. Why, in this quoted psalm, does the song address the nature of the throne and of the sceptre, but not of "God" (the Son?) Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. Why is this the first time the Son is specifically called "God"? What is the significance of that naming? Should it be understood strictly? Is there any other way to understand it (especially in light of the following verse)?
  • Heb 1:9. If the former verse only addresses the royal accoutrements, this verse addresses the nature of "God" directly. What is significant about this shift or about the order in which these addresses are made?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would the psalmist bother to point out what "God" loves and hates? What is meant here by righteousness? Is it significant that the sceptre described in the last verses was a "sceptre of righteousness"?
  • Heb 1:9. How might this language be connected with Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 20:5-6?
  • Heb 1:9. The author gets some mileage out of the word "therefore." Should it be read so strictly? What does its presence here ultimately signify? How else might this psalm be read? Could there be two different singing parts at work in the original?
  • Heb 1:9. t appears that the author reads "thy God" to imply that "God" has a "God." Is this a justified reading of the original psalm? What does this reading suggest about the author's relation to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:9. What would it mean for a God to have a God? How is the Son a God and the Father a God also? Did the author of Hebrews have as brought a theology as Latter-day Saint do today?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would one God anoint another? How is this anointing connected with the throne and sceptre of the previous verse?
  • Heb 1:9. Why does the psalmist call the oil "the oil of gladness"? What does this phrase mean?
  • Heb 1:9. How does anointing set one "above [one's] fellows"? Who would the Son's "fellows" have been? What relation obtains between angels and gods here? Might this have been an influence on Joseph Smith's thinking?
  • Heb 1:10. The word "And" here is meant to mark a leap from one quotation to another (this and the following two verses quote Ps 102:25-27). Why doesn't the author make this leap clearer? Would the author be content with a conflation of two very different psalms?
  • Heb 1:10. How does this near conflation of two psalms affect one's reading of them? Does one sense a disruption in flow? Is there any way to read them as a continuous thought? Is this what the author intended?
  • Heb 1:10. Is one to assume that the author understands these words also to be spoken by God to the Son (as God)? Why would God call the Son Lord?
  • Heb 1:10. This quotation imputes to the Son the work of creation. Where else might such an idea be found in the Bible? Does the apparent split between Father and Son imply a kind of division of labor here?
  • Heb 1:10. The author picks up the psalmist's parallel of "earth" and "heaven," a double structure the author uses over and over again through the text. This same double structure is very prevalent in the JST. What significance is there to the pairing of heaven and earth? Why would it appear so much in the JST? Why does the author take the pair up so thoroughly in his own text?
  • Heb 1:10. What does it mean to lay "the foundation of the earth"? Should this be understood in physical terms or in spiritual terms? What kind of a cosmological picture is being drawn here?
  • Heb 1:10. Is it significant that the psalmist, and hence the author, takes the Son back to "the beginning"? How might this point be read?
  • Heb 1:10. The psalmist mentions the "hands" of the Son. How should one read this anthropomorphism?
  • Heb 1:10. How might this creation business be read against the apparent becoming of the Son?
  • Heb 1:10. How might the phrasing of this verse generally be connected up with the content of Moses 1?
  • Heb 1:11. This verse (and the next as well) continues a quotation of Ps 102:25-27. How does the author's quotation of these verses reveal his relation to the Old Testament in general?
  • Heb 1:11. If the previous verse revealed the Son to be the creator, this verse compares that creation to Him and to the detriment of the creation. Why would the author make that comparison? Why would the author spend more time describing the creation and the dissolution of that creation and so little time on the relative permanence of the Creator?
  • Heb 1:11. If the pair of heaven and earth are so prevalent in Hebrews (and in the JST), how should the fact that this verse declares that "they shall perish" be read? Does this mark a kind of devaluation of one of Hebrews' most important themes?
  • Heb 1:11. What does it mean to say "but thou remainest"? It is clearly set in parallel to "they shall perish." Does this offer any insight into what this phrase means?
  • Heb 1:11. hat kind of a relation is implied between the Creator and His creation here? Might this be a source for traditional theological understandings of that relation?
  • Heb 1:11. hat does it mean to say that the heaven and the earth will "wax old as doth a garment"? What does this metaphor accomplish? Is it a good comparison? Might there be allusions in this metaphor (to ancient temple clothing perhaps)?
  • Heb 1:12. The first part of this verse sets up a parallelism to the last phrase of the previous verse. How does this phrase expand on the former? How should one think about the differences in imagery?
  • Heb 1:12. Again the heaven and the earth are pictured as clothing. Why would the author choose to employ this imagery? What would it mean to "fold... up" or to "roll... up" (NRSV) the heaven and the earth? Does this imply some kind of intertwining or continuity between the heaven and the earth?
  • Heb 1:12. Why does this phrase suggest action on the part of the Lord, whereas the former seems to suggest something beyond the will of the Lord? Might the former be related to space while this phrase is related to time?
  • Heb 1:12. What does it mean to say that the Son is "the same"? How is this phrase related to the phrase "but thou remainest"? Can this phrase be understood temporally, or does it imply some kind of non-temporality?
  • Heb 1:12. Parallel to the last phrase is "thy years shall not fail"? If the first part of the parallel suggests some kind of non-temporality, why does this suggest temporality? What does it mean to say the Son's "years shall not fail"?
  • Heb 1:12. This verse concludes a five-verse stretch meant to set up the Son as over against the angels (who are described in quotation as well in verse 7). Why would the author have quoted especially these last three verses, when they seem to have little relation to the author's assertions about the angels?
  • Heb 1:12. How do verses 10-12 expand verses 8-9? If the earlier verses present the exaltation of an earthly figure, these last three verses present an unchangeable God from all eternity. How can these be reconciled? Why would the author choose to put these side by side?
  • Heb 1:12. What can all of these verses together tell us about the theological presuppositions of the author? Why can they tell us about the author's relationship to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:13. After five verses on the Son, the author returns to question of the angels. Why would the author come back to the lesser? Is there a need to make a stronger case still?
  • Heb 1:13. Why does the author make this verse a question rather than an assertion? Does this weaken the argument or strengthen it? Should this question be understood to be rhetorical? What effect do rhetorical questions have on thinking? What appeal does a rhetorical question make, and what presuppositions guide it?
  • Heb 1:13. How should one read the particularity of the question asked here? That is, why does the author put the question in terms of "to which of the angels" rather than something like "Has He ever said to an angel"? What does this particularity accomplish? Why is it significant that the reader is called on to identify? Might there be a positive answer? Might that answer be the Son Himself (an angel exalted)?
  • Heb 1:13. he saying that concludes the verse is a quotation of Ps 110:1, and that psalm will become central to the argument of the whole book. Why would the author introduce this most central psalm in a question, and an ambiguous one at that? What effect does this have on the argument that will come?
  • Heb 1:13. Taking up a quotation of the Old Testament within so particular a question is really a unique literary device. How does this further articulate the author's relationship to the Old Testament? What else might this tell us about the author's thinking?
  • Heb 1:13. There may be an allusion to this same verse in the psalms in verse 3. What connection is there between this verse and that one? Why would there be a connection made here? Does this full-blown quotation strengthen the possibility of verse 3 being an allusion?
  • Heb 1:13. What is the significance, again, of the right hand? What would it mean to sit there?
  • Heb 1:13. If verse 3 mentions the right hand, it does not mention this question of enemies. How should one interpret the saying about the enemies? What would it mean for enemies to become a footstool?
  • Heb 1:13. If God (apparently the Father) is the one who will put the enemies of the Son under His feet, what is the work of the Son? Does this verse suggest a kind of absolute exaltation without any effort on the Son's part?
  • Heb 1:13. Because of the question-structure of this verse, the author seems to assume that angels would have enemies. What would an angel's enemy be? Might this be connected with Joseph Smith's teachings about spirits seeking power over one another?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse adds a second question to the first, this one phrased negatively. What is the difference between the negative and positive questions? Does this follow-up with a negative question affect the foregoing positive question? Does it function in any way as a kind of answer? If it does, how can an author answer a positive question with a negative question? What are the literary consequences of this?
  • Heb 1:14. f the previous verse focuses on particularity, this verse moves to universality. Does this question answer the first question by making that shift? Does this verse amount to a denial of any kind of particularity amongst angels?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse is the first since verse 4 that does not contain a quotation of the Old Testament. Why would the author leave off the Old Testament here? How does a question without quotation differ from a question with quotation? Why would the author choose to place the quotation within the positive question?
  • Heb 1:14. That this verse leaves off quotation highlights how lengthy a stretch of varied quotations there are in this chapter. Why would the author string so many together at the very beginning of the book (something the author never does again so continuously)? How do these quotations strengthen the argument? How might they weaken it? What is the significance of quotation or allusion?
  • Heb 1:14. What does it mean to speak of "ministering spirits"? Why would this title apply to "all" angels?
  • Heb 1:14. If the angels are all "sent forth," does this verse imply that God does say something to the angels, though none of them is chosen to sit on the throne?
  • Heb 1:14. Who are the "heirs of salvation"? What kind of a theology is implied in this statement? Is it significant that this phrase is introduced within a rhetorical question? How does the question format of the verse alter the nature of that theology?
  • Heb 1:14. Is there any significance in the phrase "who shall"? Why are the heirs displaced to the future? How might this affect the theology behind the phrase "heirs of salvation"?
  • Heb 1:14. What kind of a worldview (view, perhaps, of the plan of salvation) is behind this question? What is the function of angels? How do they relate to the Son in these terms?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4

Heb 1:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 1-2
Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1: Sundry times and in divers manners. In Greek, the beginning of this verse reads "Polumeros kai polutropos palai" (In many parts and in many ways of old). The emphatic polu- prefix on two of these opening words is a somewhat common literary device for texts of this period. Here these words seem to be emphasizing either the extent of the Old Testament prophecies or the fragmentary or varied natures of these writings. If the former, this can be taken as pointing to how the prophecies are incomplete until the coming of Christ; if the latter, this can be taken as pointing toward the way in which Christ unifies these various prophecies, or how Christ is yet another of these diverse prophets. (Cf. the NET notes for this verse).
  • Heb 1:5-14: Overview. Verses 5-14 begin include a series of seven Old Testament quotations. First, Ps 2:7 is quoted in vese 5a establishing divine sonship of Christ. This passage is interpreted as messianic by others as well (e.g. Acts 4:25-26; Acts 13:33; Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15). Second, 2 Sam 7:14 is quoted in verse 5b, also in establishing the sonship of Christ. This passage also seems to be interpreted or at least applied messianically in John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Luke 1:32-33 (interestingly, 2 Sam 7:14 is applied to the sonship of believers in 2 Cor 6:18 and Rev 21:7). Third, Ps 97:7 is (seemingly) quoted in verse 6 (or, this might be a quotation of the LXX version of Deut 32:43 which is longer than the MT and has an interesting parallelism between "sons of God" and "angels of God"). This passage depicts the angels worshipping the son. Fourth, Ps 104:4 is quoted in verse 7, again following the LXX instead of the MT which has God making the natural elements into servants rather than the reverse which we read here and in the LXX. Fifth, Ps 45:6-7 is quoted in verse 8, although here God is speaking to the Son promising him an everlasting kingdom whereas in the psalm the psalmist is addressing the king as God. Sixth, in Ps 102:25-27 is quoted in verses 10-12 describing God's role in creation and endlessness (again, the psalmist is addressing God whereas here the words are applied to Christ). Seventh, Ps 110:1 is quoted in verse 13, a passage commonly applied messianically, here establishing the sonship of Christ once again, with an emphasis on the "right hand," sitting position of the son relative to God.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1. Though this does not reflect the Greek, the English text begins with "God," set off from the remainder of the sentence by a comma. What does this accomplish in feel and tone as one begins to read? Why would the translators do this?
  • Heb 1:1. The language of this first verse is generally exalted in English, with a rhetorical flair. How well does this style reflect the oratorical nature of the Greek? Is this translation justified? What does this rhetorical style accomplish?
  • Heb 1:1. Why does the author mention "the fathers" instead of "our fathers"? Does this reflect the cultural orientation of the author? Does it rather suggest that "the fathers" here are not the general ancestors of the Jews at the time of the writing/speaking of this text? What might one read into the phrase?
  • Heb 1:1. If "the fathers" does not mean "the ancestors of the Jews," but something more specialized, which "prophets" spoke to "the fathers"? Is there a set of particular stories in mind here?
  • Usually time is paired with place in the scriptural idiom. Why is "times" paired with "manners" in this opening of the story? Is there some uniformity of place to be posited here?
  • Heb 1:1. If "God" is the subject of the first sentence, the verb that describes the action God performs does not appear at all until verse 2. What does this relativization do to the material of verse 1? Why would the author postpone the action? Why would the author at once make parenthetical and yet give priority to the contents of this first verse?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author call his times the "last days"?
  • Heb 1:2. Verse 1 mentions "the fathers," while this verse mentions "his Son." Though verse 1 marks "the fathers" as the ones being taught and this verse marks the "Son" as the one teaching, is there meant to be any implicit connection between these terms?
  • Heb 1:2. What does "heir of all things" entail for the "Son"? Is it significant that the Son was "appointed heir" and not born to be heir?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author bother to mention the creation in this verse at all, especially when the theme seems to be so completely unconnected with the other themes of the verse?
  • Heb 1:2. The word translated "worlds" in verse 2 is literally the word "eons." What does it mean to make eons? How is it that the Son was involved in making eons?
  • Heb 1:2. Is it significant at all that the "he" who appoints and who takes up the Son in making the worlds is only called "God" and not at all "the Father"? Does this suggest a different understanding in Hebrews of the relation between Christ and God?
  • Heb 1:3. Why is the Son called "the brightness of his [God's] glory"? What sort of a relationship does this imply between the Son and God?
  • Heb 1:3. If the "his" that is italicized in the first phrase of the verse does not reflect the Greek, the phrase might be read "Who being the brightness of glory." How does this change the meaning of this phrase?
  • Heb 1:3. What does the author of Hebrews mean by glory? Where else does this author use the term, and do any other instances provide a basis for understanding what the term means here?
  • Heb 1:3. The phrase "express image" is a translation of a single Greek word: character, obviously the word behind the English "character." How should this word be understood here?
  • Heb 1:3. Is it important that the Son is said here to be the "character" of God's person, rather than the icon? Does this imply something besides physical appearance or representation?
  • Heb 1:3. The Greek word translated "person" is also rather difficult, and is a word that was involved in the hottest theological debates about Trinitarianism anciently. It could be translated "person," "substance," or even "reality." How is this term best read here?
  • Heb 1:3. How does the Son uphold all things by the word of his power? Is it significant that "word" here reflects a different Greek word from John's famous "In the beginning was the Word"? What is "the word of his power"? Whose power is it?
  • Heb 1:3. Does "by himself" imply that the author believes Jesus to have completed the atonement without the help of the Father? Why would the author bother to add this emphatic "by himself"? Might it emphasize lack of help from other sources, perhaps the angels mentioned in the next verse?
  • Heb 1:3. What is the significance of the right hand? Does Ps 110:1 help here?
  • Heb 1:3. Does this act of being seated by God imply some kind of return? Is it significant that the author of Hebrews seems to have understood Jesus to have been first a man and then a God, rather than a God, then a man, and then a God?
  • Heb 1:4. What does it mean to be "so much better than the angels"? Why is this important to the author?
  • Heb 1:4. It seems clear that "inheritance" is key to understanding the distinction between Jesus and the angels. But how should this be read against the Old Testament tradition of calling the angels the "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:4. How is the name the Son inherits "more excellent" than the name the angels inherit? Does "more excellent" ultimately imply that the angels also inherit names? Was this author familiar with Phil 2:9-10?
  • Heb 1:4. Why is the "name" so important here? What kind of a name could the author have in mind? Might this be connected with the Old Testament traditions about the tetragrammaton (YHWH)?
  • Heb 1:5. Is the direct relation of begetting of great importance here? Is it this begetting literal? If it is, does the author understand this to be the difference between this "Son" and the angels or "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:5. The phrase the author reports God as saying to the Son is a quotation of Ps 2:7. Why would the author focus on that verse specifically? What is so significant about the psalms for the author? Is his reading of the psalm justified in modern terms? What is the relation--even at this early point--between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. Only in this verse is God first called a "Father" to the "Son." Why does the author wait so long to draw this point out?
  • Heb 1:5. The latter part of the verse (following "And again") is a quotation of 2 Sam 7:14. Why would the author take that text as referring to the Son/Jesus? Is this a justified reading? How does this second quotation in a single verse adjust one's understanding of the relationship between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. The language of the second quotation seems to imply a covenant that comes later, rather than something implicit in birth, as does the language of the first quotation on closer inspection. What is the significance of taking up these verses for the Son when they seem to imply that He only became the Son, only came to be begotten?
  • Heb 1:5. Both of the quotations in this verse come from royal settings in the Old Testament. How does this royalty theme play into the theme the author is addressing here?
  • Heb 1:5. What is the relation between "the angels" in this verse and "the prophets" in the first verse?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the rhetorical function of "And again"? In the scriptures translated/dictated by Joseph Smith, this phrase seems to mark breaks in the text. Does it do so here?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of calling the Son the "firstbegotten," which constitutes something of a departure from the theme to this point (simply "begotten")?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation the author draws on here does not appear in the Masoretic text (Deut 32:43), though it does appear in both the (Greek) Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts (the Dead Sea Scrolls). Does this suggest anything about the theological position of the author?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation is lifted from the "Song of Moses." Is it significant that the author draws on that most important piece of Old Testament literature?
  • Heb 1:6. Why does the author attribute the phrase to a situation of bringing "the firstbegotten into the world"? What does such an event have to do with the "Song of Moses"?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of the image presented here as a whole (the firstbegotten being presented before so many angels who sing and shout praises to him)? How might this be connected with other scriptures?
  • Heb 1:6. Why would God make an announcement to the angels if He is introducing the Son to the world?
  • Heb 1:6. Might this be connected with the angelic chorus visiting the shepherds?
  • Heb 1:7. This verse quotes Ps 104:4. Why would the author choose to take up that psalm in particular?
  • Heb 1:7. The point of this verse (when it is read against the next verse) is to suggest a difference between the angels and the Son. How is the word "ministers" significant in this comparison?
  • Heb 1:7. Is it significant that the author quotes God as saying something "of" the angels, but (in the next verse) something "unto" the Son?
  • Heb 1:7. The verse from Psalm 104 sets up two parallelisms: "angels" is parallel to "ministers," and "spirits" is parallel to "a flame of fire." What can be drawn from these parallelisms?
  • Heb 1:7. Wouldn't one assume that God makes spirits into angels, not angels into spirits? And wouldn't one assume that God makes flames of fire into ministers, not ministers into a flame of fire? What does it mean for the author of the psalm to put the other way around?
  • Heb 1:7. How does this verse (and the next as well) relate to verse 6? Might these two verses be read as fleshing out the worship scene described there?
  • Heb 1:7. What does this verse suggest about the author's attitude towards the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:8. This verse and the next quote Ps 45:6-7, where the psalmist is quite clearly the speaker. Why would the author attribute these words to God Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. What is the difference (implied by the "But") between the one on the throne and the angels? What does it mean that these angels or ministers would worship Him?
  • Heb 1:8. Is it significant that the throne of the Son is here described as being "for ever and ever"? Does this contradict the earlier implication that the Son had only become the Son?
  • Heb 1:8. How might the tenor of this verse suggest a connection with D&C 121:45-46? What might the content of that cross reference suggest for the meaning of this verse?
  • Heb 1:8. Why, in this quoted psalm, does the song address the nature of the throne and of the sceptre, but not of "God" (the Son?) Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. Why is this the first time the Son is specifically called "God"? What is the significance of that naming? Should it be understood strictly? Is there any other way to understand it (especially in light of the following verse)?
  • Heb 1:9. If the former verse only addresses the royal accoutrements, this verse addresses the nature of "God" directly. What is significant about this shift or about the order in which these addresses are made?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would the psalmist bother to point out what "God" loves and hates? What is meant here by righteousness? Is it significant that the sceptre described in the last verses was a "sceptre of righteousness"?
  • Heb 1:9. How might this language be connected with Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 20:5-6?
  • Heb 1:9. The author gets some mileage out of the word "therefore." Should it be read so strictly? What does its presence here ultimately signify? How else might this psalm be read? Could there be two different singing parts at work in the original?
  • Heb 1:9. t appears that the author reads "thy God" to imply that "God" has a "God." Is this a justified reading of the original psalm? What does this reading suggest about the author's relation to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:9. What would it mean for a God to have a God? How is the Son a God and the Father a God also? Did the author of Hebrews have as brought a theology as Latter-day Saint do today?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would one God anoint another? How is this anointing connected with the throne and sceptre of the previous verse?
  • Heb 1:9. Why does the psalmist call the oil "the oil of gladness"? What does this phrase mean?
  • Heb 1:9. How does anointing set one "above [one's] fellows"? Who would the Son's "fellows" have been? What relation obtains between angels and gods here? Might this have been an influence on Joseph Smith's thinking?
  • Heb 1:10. The word "And" here is meant to mark a leap from one quotation to another (this and the following two verses quote Ps 102:25-27). Why doesn't the author make this leap clearer? Would the author be content with a conflation of two very different psalms?
  • Heb 1:10. How does this near conflation of two psalms affect one's reading of them? Does one sense a disruption in flow? Is there any way to read them as a continuous thought? Is this what the author intended?
  • Heb 1:10. Is one to assume that the author understands these words also to be spoken by God to the Son (as God)? Why would God call the Son Lord?
  • Heb 1:10. This quotation imputes to the Son the work of creation. Where else might such an idea be found in the Bible? Does the apparent split between Father and Son imply a kind of division of labor here?
  • Heb 1:10. The author picks up the psalmist's parallel of "earth" and "heaven," a double structure the author uses over and over again through the text. This same double structure is very prevalent in the JST. What significance is there to the pairing of heaven and earth? Why would it appear so much in the JST? Why does the author take the pair up so thoroughly in his own text?
  • Heb 1:10. What does it mean to lay "the foundation of the earth"? Should this be understood in physical terms or in spiritual terms? What kind of a cosmological picture is being drawn here?
  • Heb 1:10. Is it significant that the psalmist, and hence the author, takes the Son back to "the beginning"? How might this point be read?
  • Heb 1:10. The psalmist mentions the "hands" of the Son. How should one read this anthropomorphism?
  • Heb 1:10. How might this creation business be read against the apparent becoming of the Son?
  • Heb 1:10. How might the phrasing of this verse generally be connected up with the content of Moses 1?
  • Heb 1:11. This verse (and the next as well) continues a quotation of Ps 102:25-27. How does the author's quotation of these verses reveal his relation to the Old Testament in general?
  • Heb 1:11. If the previous verse revealed the Son to be the creator, this verse compares that creation to Him and to the detriment of the creation. Why would the author make that comparison? Why would the author spend more time describing the creation and the dissolution of that creation and so little time on the relative permanence of the Creator?
  • Heb 1:11. If the pair of heaven and earth are so prevalent in Hebrews (and in the JST), how should the fact that this verse declares that "they shall perish" be read? Does this mark a kind of devaluation of one of Hebrews' most important themes?
  • Heb 1:11. What does it mean to say "but thou remainest"? It is clearly set in parallel to "they shall perish." Does this offer any insight into what this phrase means?
  • Heb 1:11. hat kind of a relation is implied between the Creator and His creation here? Might this be a source for traditional theological understandings of that relation?
  • Heb 1:11. hat does it mean to say that the heaven and the earth will "wax old as doth a garment"? What does this metaphor accomplish? Is it a good comparison? Might there be allusions in this metaphor (to ancient temple clothing perhaps)?
  • Heb 1:12. The first part of this verse sets up a parallelism to the last phrase of the previous verse. How does this phrase expand on the former? How should one think about the differences in imagery?
  • Heb 1:12. Again the heaven and the earth are pictured as clothing. Why would the author choose to employ this imagery? What would it mean to "fold... up" or to "roll... up" (NRSV) the heaven and the earth? Does this imply some kind of intertwining or continuity between the heaven and the earth?
  • Heb 1:12. Why does this phrase suggest action on the part of the Lord, whereas the former seems to suggest something beyond the will of the Lord? Might the former be related to space while this phrase is related to time?
  • Heb 1:12. What does it mean to say that the Son is "the same"? How is this phrase related to the phrase "but thou remainest"? Can this phrase be understood temporally, or does it imply some kind of non-temporality?
  • Heb 1:12. Parallel to the last phrase is "thy years shall not fail"? If the first part of the parallel suggests some kind of non-temporality, why does this suggest temporality? What does it mean to say the Son's "years shall not fail"?
  • Heb 1:12. This verse concludes a five-verse stretch meant to set up the Son as over against the angels (who are described in quotation as well in verse 7). Why would the author have quoted especially these last three verses, when they seem to have little relation to the author's assertions about the angels?
  • Heb 1:12. How do verses 10-12 expand verses 8-9? If the earlier verses present the exaltation of an earthly figure, these last three verses present an unchangeable God from all eternity. How can these be reconciled? Why would the author choose to put these side by side?
  • Heb 1:12. What can all of these verses together tell us about the theological presuppositions of the author? Why can they tell us about the author's relationship to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:13. After five verses on the Son, the author returns to question of the angels. Why would the author come back to the lesser? Is there a need to make a stronger case still?
  • Heb 1:13. Why does the author make this verse a question rather than an assertion? Does this weaken the argument or strengthen it? Should this question be understood to be rhetorical? What effect do rhetorical questions have on thinking? What appeal does a rhetorical question make, and what presuppositions guide it?
  • Heb 1:13. How should one read the particularity of the question asked here? That is, why does the author put the question in terms of "to which of the angels" rather than something like "Has He ever said to an angel"? What does this particularity accomplish? Why is it significant that the reader is called on to identify? Might there be a positive answer? Might that answer be the Son Himself (an angel exalted)?
  • Heb 1:13. he saying that concludes the verse is a quotation of Ps 110:1, and that psalm will become central to the argument of the whole book. Why would the author introduce this most central psalm in a question, and an ambiguous one at that? What effect does this have on the argument that will come?
  • Heb 1:13. Taking up a quotation of the Old Testament within so particular a question is really a unique literary device. How does this further articulate the author's relationship to the Old Testament? What else might this tell us about the author's thinking?
  • Heb 1:13. There may be an allusion to this same verse in the psalms in verse 3. What connection is there between this verse and that one? Why would there be a connection made here? Does this full-blown quotation strengthen the possibility of verse 3 being an allusion?
  • Heb 1:13. What is the significance, again, of the right hand? What would it mean to sit there?
  • Heb 1:13. If verse 3 mentions the right hand, it does not mention this question of enemies. How should one interpret the saying about the enemies? What would it mean for enemies to become a footstool?
  • Heb 1:13. If God (apparently the Father) is the one who will put the enemies of the Son under His feet, what is the work of the Son? Does this verse suggest a kind of absolute exaltation without any effort on the Son's part?
  • Heb 1:13. Because of the question-structure of this verse, the author seems to assume that angels would have enemies. What would an angel's enemy be? Might this be connected with Joseph Smith's teachings about spirits seeking power over one another?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse adds a second question to the first, this one phrased negatively. What is the difference between the negative and positive questions? Does this follow-up with a negative question affect the foregoing positive question? Does it function in any way as a kind of answer? If it does, how can an author answer a positive question with a negative question? What are the literary consequences of this?
  • Heb 1:14. f the previous verse focuses on particularity, this verse moves to universality. Does this question answer the first question by making that shift? Does this verse amount to a denial of any kind of particularity amongst angels?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse is the first since verse 4 that does not contain a quotation of the Old Testament. Why would the author leave off the Old Testament here? How does a question without quotation differ from a question with quotation? Why would the author choose to place the quotation within the positive question?
  • Heb 1:14. That this verse leaves off quotation highlights how lengthy a stretch of varied quotations there are in this chapter. Why would the author string so many together at the very beginning of the book (something the author never does again so continuously)? How do these quotations strengthen the argument? How might they weaken it? What is the significance of quotation or allusion?
  • Heb 1:14. What does it mean to speak of "ministering spirits"? Why would this title apply to "all" angels?
  • Heb 1:14. If the angels are all "sent forth," does this verse imply that God does say something to the angels, though none of them is chosen to sit on the throne?
  • Heb 1:14. Who are the "heirs of salvation"? What kind of a theology is implied in this statement? Is it significant that this phrase is introduced within a rhetorical question? How does the question format of the verse alter the nature of that theology?
  • Heb 1:14. Is there any significance in the phrase "who shall"? Why are the heirs displaced to the future? How might this affect the theology behind the phrase "heirs of salvation"?
  • Heb 1:14. What kind of a worldview (view, perhaps, of the plan of salvation) is behind this question? What is the function of angels? How do they relate to the Son in these terms?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4

Heb 1:11-14

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 1-2
Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1: Sundry times and in divers manners. In Greek, the beginning of this verse reads "Polumeros kai polutropos palai" (In many parts and in many ways of old). The emphatic polu- prefix on two of these opening words is a somewhat common literary device for texts of this period. Here these words seem to be emphasizing either the extent of the Old Testament prophecies or the fragmentary or varied natures of these writings. If the former, this can be taken as pointing to how the prophecies are incomplete until the coming of Christ; if the latter, this can be taken as pointing toward the way in which Christ unifies these various prophecies, or how Christ is yet another of these diverse prophets. (Cf. the NET notes for this verse).
  • Heb 1:5-14: Overview. Verses 5-14 begin include a series of seven Old Testament quotations. First, Ps 2:7 is quoted in vese 5a establishing divine sonship of Christ. This passage is interpreted as messianic by others as well (e.g. Acts 4:25-26; Acts 13:33; Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15). Second, 2 Sam 7:14 is quoted in verse 5b, also in establishing the sonship of Christ. This passage also seems to be interpreted or at least applied messianically in John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Luke 1:32-33 (interestingly, 2 Sam 7:14 is applied to the sonship of believers in 2 Cor 6:18 and Rev 21:7). Third, Ps 97:7 is (seemingly) quoted in verse 6 (or, this might be a quotation of the LXX version of Deut 32:43 which is longer than the MT and has an interesting parallelism between "sons of God" and "angels of God"). This passage depicts the angels worshipping the son. Fourth, Ps 104:4 is quoted in verse 7, again following the LXX instead of the MT which has God making the natural elements into servants rather than the reverse which we read here and in the LXX. Fifth, Ps 45:6-7 is quoted in verse 8, although here God is speaking to the Son promising him an everlasting kingdom whereas in the psalm the psalmist is addressing the king as God. Sixth, in Ps 102:25-27 is quoted in verses 10-12 describing God's role in creation and endlessness (again, the psalmist is addressing God whereas here the words are applied to Christ). Seventh, Ps 110:1 is quoted in verse 13, a passage commonly applied messianically, here establishing the sonship of Christ once again, with an emphasis on the "right hand," sitting position of the son relative to God.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1. Though this does not reflect the Greek, the English text begins with "God," set off from the remainder of the sentence by a comma. What does this accomplish in feel and tone as one begins to read? Why would the translators do this?
  • Heb 1:1. The language of this first verse is generally exalted in English, with a rhetorical flair. How well does this style reflect the oratorical nature of the Greek? Is this translation justified? What does this rhetorical style accomplish?
  • Heb 1:1. Why does the author mention "the fathers" instead of "our fathers"? Does this reflect the cultural orientation of the author? Does it rather suggest that "the fathers" here are not the general ancestors of the Jews at the time of the writing/speaking of this text? What might one read into the phrase?
  • Heb 1:1. If "the fathers" does not mean "the ancestors of the Jews," but something more specialized, which "prophets" spoke to "the fathers"? Is there a set of particular stories in mind here?
  • Usually time is paired with place in the scriptural idiom. Why is "times" paired with "manners" in this opening of the story? Is there some uniformity of place to be posited here?
  • Heb 1:1. If "God" is the subject of the first sentence, the verb that describes the action God performs does not appear at all until verse 2. What does this relativization do to the material of verse 1? Why would the author postpone the action? Why would the author at once make parenthetical and yet give priority to the contents of this first verse?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author call his times the "last days"?
  • Heb 1:2. Verse 1 mentions "the fathers," while this verse mentions "his Son." Though verse 1 marks "the fathers" as the ones being taught and this verse marks the "Son" as the one teaching, is there meant to be any implicit connection between these terms?
  • Heb 1:2. What does "heir of all things" entail for the "Son"? Is it significant that the Son was "appointed heir" and not born to be heir?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author bother to mention the creation in this verse at all, especially when the theme seems to be so completely unconnected with the other themes of the verse?
  • Heb 1:2. The word translated "worlds" in verse 2 is literally the word "eons." What does it mean to make eons? How is it that the Son was involved in making eons?
  • Heb 1:2. Is it significant at all that the "he" who appoints and who takes up the Son in making the worlds is only called "God" and not at all "the Father"? Does this suggest a different understanding in Hebrews of the relation between Christ and God?
  • Heb 1:3. Why is the Son called "the brightness of his [God's] glory"? What sort of a relationship does this imply between the Son and God?
  • Heb 1:3. If the "his" that is italicized in the first phrase of the verse does not reflect the Greek, the phrase might be read "Who being the brightness of glory." How does this change the meaning of this phrase?
  • Heb 1:3. What does the author of Hebrews mean by glory? Where else does this author use the term, and do any other instances provide a basis for understanding what the term means here?
  • Heb 1:3. The phrase "express image" is a translation of a single Greek word: character, obviously the word behind the English "character." How should this word be understood here?
  • Heb 1:3. Is it important that the Son is said here to be the "character" of God's person, rather than the icon? Does this imply something besides physical appearance or representation?
  • Heb 1:3. The Greek word translated "person" is also rather difficult, and is a word that was involved in the hottest theological debates about Trinitarianism anciently. It could be translated "person," "substance," or even "reality." How is this term best read here?
  • Heb 1:3. How does the Son uphold all things by the word of his power? Is it significant that "word" here reflects a different Greek word from John's famous "In the beginning was the Word"? What is "the word of his power"? Whose power is it?
  • Heb 1:3. Does "by himself" imply that the author believes Jesus to have completed the atonement without the help of the Father? Why would the author bother to add this emphatic "by himself"? Might it emphasize lack of help from other sources, perhaps the angels mentioned in the next verse?
  • Heb 1:3. What is the significance of the right hand? Does Ps 110:1 help here?
  • Heb 1:3. Does this act of being seated by God imply some kind of return? Is it significant that the author of Hebrews seems to have understood Jesus to have been first a man and then a God, rather than a God, then a man, and then a God?
  • Heb 1:4. What does it mean to be "so much better than the angels"? Why is this important to the author?
  • Heb 1:4. It seems clear that "inheritance" is key to understanding the distinction between Jesus and the angels. But how should this be read against the Old Testament tradition of calling the angels the "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:4. How is the name the Son inherits "more excellent" than the name the angels inherit? Does "more excellent" ultimately imply that the angels also inherit names? Was this author familiar with Phil 2:9-10?
  • Heb 1:4. Why is the "name" so important here? What kind of a name could the author have in mind? Might this be connected with the Old Testament traditions about the tetragrammaton (YHWH)?
  • Heb 1:5. Is the direct relation of begetting of great importance here? Is it this begetting literal? If it is, does the author understand this to be the difference between this "Son" and the angels or "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:5. The phrase the author reports God as saying to the Son is a quotation of Ps 2:7. Why would the author focus on that verse specifically? What is so significant about the psalms for the author? Is his reading of the psalm justified in modern terms? What is the relation--even at this early point--between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. Only in this verse is God first called a "Father" to the "Son." Why does the author wait so long to draw this point out?
  • Heb 1:5. The latter part of the verse (following "And again") is a quotation of 2 Sam 7:14. Why would the author take that text as referring to the Son/Jesus? Is this a justified reading? How does this second quotation in a single verse adjust one's understanding of the relationship between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. The language of the second quotation seems to imply a covenant that comes later, rather than something implicit in birth, as does the language of the first quotation on closer inspection. What is the significance of taking up these verses for the Son when they seem to imply that He only became the Son, only came to be begotten?
  • Heb 1:5. Both of the quotations in this verse come from royal settings in the Old Testament. How does this royalty theme play into the theme the author is addressing here?
  • Heb 1:5. What is the relation between "the angels" in this verse and "the prophets" in the first verse?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the rhetorical function of "And again"? In the scriptures translated/dictated by Joseph Smith, this phrase seems to mark breaks in the text. Does it do so here?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of calling the Son the "firstbegotten," which constitutes something of a departure from the theme to this point (simply "begotten")?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation the author draws on here does not appear in the Masoretic text (Deut 32:43), though it does appear in both the (Greek) Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts (the Dead Sea Scrolls). Does this suggest anything about the theological position of the author?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation is lifted from the "Song of Moses." Is it significant that the author draws on that most important piece of Old Testament literature?
  • Heb 1:6. Why does the author attribute the phrase to a situation of bringing "the firstbegotten into the world"? What does such an event have to do with the "Song of Moses"?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of the image presented here as a whole (the firstbegotten being presented before so many angels who sing and shout praises to him)? How might this be connected with other scriptures?
  • Heb 1:6. Why would God make an announcement to the angels if He is introducing the Son to the world?
  • Heb 1:6. Might this be connected with the angelic chorus visiting the shepherds?
  • Heb 1:7. This verse quotes Ps 104:4. Why would the author choose to take up that psalm in particular?
  • Heb 1:7. The point of this verse (when it is read against the next verse) is to suggest a difference between the angels and the Son. How is the word "ministers" significant in this comparison?
  • Heb 1:7. Is it significant that the author quotes God as saying something "of" the angels, but (in the next verse) something "unto" the Son?
  • Heb 1:7. The verse from Psalm 104 sets up two parallelisms: "angels" is parallel to "ministers," and "spirits" is parallel to "a flame of fire." What can be drawn from these parallelisms?
  • Heb 1:7. Wouldn't one assume that God makes spirits into angels, not angels into spirits? And wouldn't one assume that God makes flames of fire into ministers, not ministers into a flame of fire? What does it mean for the author of the psalm to put the other way around?
  • Heb 1:7. How does this verse (and the next as well) relate to verse 6? Might these two verses be read as fleshing out the worship scene described there?
  • Heb 1:7. What does this verse suggest about the author's attitude towards the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:8. This verse and the next quote Ps 45:6-7, where the psalmist is quite clearly the speaker. Why would the author attribute these words to God Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. What is the difference (implied by the "But") between the one on the throne and the angels? What does it mean that these angels or ministers would worship Him?
  • Heb 1:8. Is it significant that the throne of the Son is here described as being "for ever and ever"? Does this contradict the earlier implication that the Son had only become the Son?
  • Heb 1:8. How might the tenor of this verse suggest a connection with D&C 121:45-46? What might the content of that cross reference suggest for the meaning of this verse?
  • Heb 1:8. Why, in this quoted psalm, does the song address the nature of the throne and of the sceptre, but not of "God" (the Son?) Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. Why is this the first time the Son is specifically called "God"? What is the significance of that naming? Should it be understood strictly? Is there any other way to understand it (especially in light of the following verse)?
  • Heb 1:9. If the former verse only addresses the royal accoutrements, this verse addresses the nature of "God" directly. What is significant about this shift or about the order in which these addresses are made?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would the psalmist bother to point out what "God" loves and hates? What is meant here by righteousness? Is it significant that the sceptre described in the last verses was a "sceptre of righteousness"?
  • Heb 1:9. How might this language be connected with Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 20:5-6?
  • Heb 1:9. The author gets some mileage out of the word "therefore." Should it be read so strictly? What does its presence here ultimately signify? How else might this psalm be read? Could there be two different singing parts at work in the original?
  • Heb 1:9. t appears that the author reads "thy God" to imply that "God" has a "God." Is this a justified reading of the original psalm? What does this reading suggest about the author's relation to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:9. What would it mean for a God to have a God? How is the Son a God and the Father a God also? Did the author of Hebrews have as brought a theology as Latter-day Saint do today?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would one God anoint another? How is this anointing connected with the throne and sceptre of the previous verse?
  • Heb 1:9. Why does the psalmist call the oil "the oil of gladness"? What does this phrase mean?
  • Heb 1:9. How does anointing set one "above [one's] fellows"? Who would the Son's "fellows" have been? What relation obtains between angels and gods here? Might this have been an influence on Joseph Smith's thinking?
  • Heb 1:10. The word "And" here is meant to mark a leap from one quotation to another (this and the following two verses quote Ps 102:25-27). Why doesn't the author make this leap clearer? Would the author be content with a conflation of two very different psalms?
  • Heb 1:10. How does this near conflation of two psalms affect one's reading of them? Does one sense a disruption in flow? Is there any way to read them as a continuous thought? Is this what the author intended?
  • Heb 1:10. Is one to assume that the author understands these words also to be spoken by God to the Son (as God)? Why would God call the Son Lord?
  • Heb 1:10. This quotation imputes to the Son the work of creation. Where else might such an idea be found in the Bible? Does the apparent split between Father and Son imply a kind of division of labor here?
  • Heb 1:10. The author picks up the psalmist's parallel of "earth" and "heaven," a double structure the author uses over and over again through the text. This same double structure is very prevalent in the JST. What significance is there to the pairing of heaven and earth? Why would it appear so much in the JST? Why does the author take the pair up so thoroughly in his own text?
  • Heb 1:10. What does it mean to lay "the foundation of the earth"? Should this be understood in physical terms or in spiritual terms? What kind of a cosmological picture is being drawn here?
  • Heb 1:10. Is it significant that the psalmist, and hence the author, takes the Son back to "the beginning"? How might this point be read?
  • Heb 1:10. The psalmist mentions the "hands" of the Son. How should one read this anthropomorphism?
  • Heb 1:10. How might this creation business be read against the apparent becoming of the Son?
  • Heb 1:10. How might the phrasing of this verse generally be connected up with the content of Moses 1?
  • Heb 1:11. This verse (and the next as well) continues a quotation of Ps 102:25-27. How does the author's quotation of these verses reveal his relation to the Old Testament in general?
  • Heb 1:11. If the previous verse revealed the Son to be the creator, this verse compares that creation to Him and to the detriment of the creation. Why would the author make that comparison? Why would the author spend more time describing the creation and the dissolution of that creation and so little time on the relative permanence of the Creator?
  • Heb 1:11. If the pair of heaven and earth are so prevalent in Hebrews (and in the JST), how should the fact that this verse declares that "they shall perish" be read? Does this mark a kind of devaluation of one of Hebrews' most important themes?
  • Heb 1:11. What does it mean to say "but thou remainest"? It is clearly set in parallel to "they shall perish." Does this offer any insight into what this phrase means?
  • Heb 1:11. hat kind of a relation is implied between the Creator and His creation here? Might this be a source for traditional theological understandings of that relation?
  • Heb 1:11. hat does it mean to say that the heaven and the earth will "wax old as doth a garment"? What does this metaphor accomplish? Is it a good comparison? Might there be allusions in this metaphor (to ancient temple clothing perhaps)?
  • Heb 1:12. The first part of this verse sets up a parallelism to the last phrase of the previous verse. How does this phrase expand on the former? How should one think about the differences in imagery?
  • Heb 1:12. Again the heaven and the earth are pictured as clothing. Why would the author choose to employ this imagery? What would it mean to "fold... up" or to "roll... up" (NRSV) the heaven and the earth? Does this imply some kind of intertwining or continuity between the heaven and the earth?
  • Heb 1:12. Why does this phrase suggest action on the part of the Lord, whereas the former seems to suggest something beyond the will of the Lord? Might the former be related to space while this phrase is related to time?
  • Heb 1:12. What does it mean to say that the Son is "the same"? How is this phrase related to the phrase "but thou remainest"? Can this phrase be understood temporally, or does it imply some kind of non-temporality?
  • Heb 1:12. Parallel to the last phrase is "thy years shall not fail"? If the first part of the parallel suggests some kind of non-temporality, why does this suggest temporality? What does it mean to say the Son's "years shall not fail"?
  • Heb 1:12. This verse concludes a five-verse stretch meant to set up the Son as over against the angels (who are described in quotation as well in verse 7). Why would the author have quoted especially these last three verses, when they seem to have little relation to the author's assertions about the angels?
  • Heb 1:12. How do verses 10-12 expand verses 8-9? If the earlier verses present the exaltation of an earthly figure, these last three verses present an unchangeable God from all eternity. How can these be reconciled? Why would the author choose to put these side by side?
  • Heb 1:12. What can all of these verses together tell us about the theological presuppositions of the author? Why can they tell us about the author's relationship to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:13. After five verses on the Son, the author returns to question of the angels. Why would the author come back to the lesser? Is there a need to make a stronger case still?
  • Heb 1:13. Why does the author make this verse a question rather than an assertion? Does this weaken the argument or strengthen it? Should this question be understood to be rhetorical? What effect do rhetorical questions have on thinking? What appeal does a rhetorical question make, and what presuppositions guide it?
  • Heb 1:13. How should one read the particularity of the question asked here? That is, why does the author put the question in terms of "to which of the angels" rather than something like "Has He ever said to an angel"? What does this particularity accomplish? Why is it significant that the reader is called on to identify? Might there be a positive answer? Might that answer be the Son Himself (an angel exalted)?
  • Heb 1:13. he saying that concludes the verse is a quotation of Ps 110:1, and that psalm will become central to the argument of the whole book. Why would the author introduce this most central psalm in a question, and an ambiguous one at that? What effect does this have on the argument that will come?
  • Heb 1:13. Taking up a quotation of the Old Testament within so particular a question is really a unique literary device. How does this further articulate the author's relationship to the Old Testament? What else might this tell us about the author's thinking?
  • Heb 1:13. There may be an allusion to this same verse in the psalms in verse 3. What connection is there between this verse and that one? Why would there be a connection made here? Does this full-blown quotation strengthen the possibility of verse 3 being an allusion?
  • Heb 1:13. What is the significance, again, of the right hand? What would it mean to sit there?
  • Heb 1:13. If verse 3 mentions the right hand, it does not mention this question of enemies. How should one interpret the saying about the enemies? What would it mean for enemies to become a footstool?
  • Heb 1:13. If God (apparently the Father) is the one who will put the enemies of the Son under His feet, what is the work of the Son? Does this verse suggest a kind of absolute exaltation without any effort on the Son's part?
  • Heb 1:13. Because of the question-structure of this verse, the author seems to assume that angels would have enemies. What would an angel's enemy be? Might this be connected with Joseph Smith's teachings about spirits seeking power over one another?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse adds a second question to the first, this one phrased negatively. What is the difference between the negative and positive questions? Does this follow-up with a negative question affect the foregoing positive question? Does it function in any way as a kind of answer? If it does, how can an author answer a positive question with a negative question? What are the literary consequences of this?
  • Heb 1:14. f the previous verse focuses on particularity, this verse moves to universality. Does this question answer the first question by making that shift? Does this verse amount to a denial of any kind of particularity amongst angels?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse is the first since verse 4 that does not contain a quotation of the Old Testament. Why would the author leave off the Old Testament here? How does a question without quotation differ from a question with quotation? Why would the author choose to place the quotation within the positive question?
  • Heb 1:14. That this verse leaves off quotation highlights how lengthy a stretch of varied quotations there are in this chapter. Why would the author string so many together at the very beginning of the book (something the author never does again so continuously)? How do these quotations strengthen the argument? How might they weaken it? What is the significance of quotation or allusion?
  • Heb 1:14. What does it mean to speak of "ministering spirits"? Why would this title apply to "all" angels?
  • Heb 1:14. If the angels are all "sent forth," does this verse imply that God does say something to the angels, though none of them is chosen to sit on the throne?
  • Heb 1:14. Who are the "heirs of salvation"? What kind of a theology is implied in this statement? Is it significant that this phrase is introduced within a rhetorical question? How does the question format of the verse alter the nature of that theology?
  • Heb 1:14. Is there any significance in the phrase "who shall"? Why are the heirs displaced to the future? How might this affect the theology behind the phrase "heirs of salvation"?
  • Heb 1:14. What kind of a worldview (view, perhaps, of the plan of salvation) is behind this question? What is the function of angels? How do they relate to the Son in these terms?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4

Heb 2:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 1-2
Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1: Sundry times and in divers manners. In Greek, the beginning of this verse reads "Polumeros kai polutropos palai" (In many parts and in many ways of old). The emphatic polu- prefix on two of these opening words is a somewhat common literary device for texts of this period. Here these words seem to be emphasizing either the extent of the Old Testament prophecies or the fragmentary or varied natures of these writings. If the former, this can be taken as pointing to how the prophecies are incomplete until the coming of Christ; if the latter, this can be taken as pointing toward the way in which Christ unifies these various prophecies, or how Christ is yet another of these diverse prophets. (Cf. the NET notes for this verse).
  • Heb 1:5-14: Overview. Verses 5-14 begin include a series of seven Old Testament quotations. First, Ps 2:7 is quoted in vese 5a establishing divine sonship of Christ. This passage is interpreted as messianic by others as well (e.g. Acts 4:25-26; Acts 13:33; Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15). Second, 2 Sam 7:14 is quoted in verse 5b, also in establishing the sonship of Christ. This passage also seems to be interpreted or at least applied messianically in John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Luke 1:32-33 (interestingly, 2 Sam 7:14 is applied to the sonship of believers in 2 Cor 6:18 and Rev 21:7). Third, Ps 97:7 is (seemingly) quoted in verse 6 (or, this might be a quotation of the LXX version of Deut 32:43 which is longer than the MT and has an interesting parallelism between "sons of God" and "angels of God"). This passage depicts the angels worshipping the son. Fourth, Ps 104:4 is quoted in verse 7, again following the LXX instead of the MT which has God making the natural elements into servants rather than the reverse which we read here and in the LXX. Fifth, Ps 45:6-7 is quoted in verse 8, although here God is speaking to the Son promising him an everlasting kingdom whereas in the psalm the psalmist is addressing the king as God. Sixth, in Ps 102:25-27 is quoted in verses 10-12 describing God's role in creation and endlessness (again, the psalmist is addressing God whereas here the words are applied to Christ). Seventh, Ps 110:1 is quoted in verse 13, a passage commonly applied messianically, here establishing the sonship of Christ once again, with an emphasis on the "right hand," sitting position of the son relative to God.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1. Though this does not reflect the Greek, the English text begins with "God," set off from the remainder of the sentence by a comma. What does this accomplish in feel and tone as one begins to read? Why would the translators do this?
  • Heb 1:1. The language of this first verse is generally exalted in English, with a rhetorical flair. How well does this style reflect the oratorical nature of the Greek? Is this translation justified? What does this rhetorical style accomplish?
  • Heb 1:1. Why does the author mention "the fathers" instead of "our fathers"? Does this reflect the cultural orientation of the author? Does it rather suggest that "the fathers" here are not the general ancestors of the Jews at the time of the writing/speaking of this text? What might one read into the phrase?
  • Heb 1:1. If "the fathers" does not mean "the ancestors of the Jews," but something more specialized, which "prophets" spoke to "the fathers"? Is there a set of particular stories in mind here?
  • Usually time is paired with place in the scriptural idiom. Why is "times" paired with "manners" in this opening of the story? Is there some uniformity of place to be posited here?
  • Heb 1:1. If "God" is the subject of the first sentence, the verb that describes the action God performs does not appear at all until verse 2. What does this relativization do to the material of verse 1? Why would the author postpone the action? Why would the author at once make parenthetical and yet give priority to the contents of this first verse?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author call his times the "last days"?
  • Heb 1:2. Verse 1 mentions "the fathers," while this verse mentions "his Son." Though verse 1 marks "the fathers" as the ones being taught and this verse marks the "Son" as the one teaching, is there meant to be any implicit connection between these terms?
  • Heb 1:2. What does "heir of all things" entail for the "Son"? Is it significant that the Son was "appointed heir" and not born to be heir?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author bother to mention the creation in this verse at all, especially when the theme seems to be so completely unconnected with the other themes of the verse?
  • Heb 1:2. The word translated "worlds" in verse 2 is literally the word "eons." What does it mean to make eons? How is it that the Son was involved in making eons?
  • Heb 1:2. Is it significant at all that the "he" who appoints and who takes up the Son in making the worlds is only called "God" and not at all "the Father"? Does this suggest a different understanding in Hebrews of the relation between Christ and God?
  • Heb 1:3. Why is the Son called "the brightness of his [God's] glory"? What sort of a relationship does this imply between the Son and God?
  • Heb 1:3. If the "his" that is italicized in the first phrase of the verse does not reflect the Greek, the phrase might be read "Who being the brightness of glory." How does this change the meaning of this phrase?
  • Heb 1:3. What does the author of Hebrews mean by glory? Where else does this author use the term, and do any other instances provide a basis for understanding what the term means here?
  • Heb 1:3. The phrase "express image" is a translation of a single Greek word: character, obviously the word behind the English "character." How should this word be understood here?
  • Heb 1:3. Is it important that the Son is said here to be the "character" of God's person, rather than the icon? Does this imply something besides physical appearance or representation?
  • Heb 1:3. The Greek word translated "person" is also rather difficult, and is a word that was involved in the hottest theological debates about Trinitarianism anciently. It could be translated "person," "substance," or even "reality." How is this term best read here?
  • Heb 1:3. How does the Son uphold all things by the word of his power? Is it significant that "word" here reflects a different Greek word from John's famous "In the beginning was the Word"? What is "the word of his power"? Whose power is it?
  • Heb 1:3. Does "by himself" imply that the author believes Jesus to have completed the atonement without the help of the Father? Why would the author bother to add this emphatic "by himself"? Might it emphasize lack of help from other sources, perhaps the angels mentioned in the next verse?
  • Heb 1:3. What is the significance of the right hand? Does Ps 110:1 help here?
  • Heb 1:3. Does this act of being seated by God imply some kind of return? Is it significant that the author of Hebrews seems to have understood Jesus to have been first a man and then a God, rather than a God, then a man, and then a God?
  • Heb 1:4. What does it mean to be "so much better than the angels"? Why is this important to the author?
  • Heb 1:4. It seems clear that "inheritance" is key to understanding the distinction between Jesus and the angels. But how should this be read against the Old Testament tradition of calling the angels the "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:4. How is the name the Son inherits "more excellent" than the name the angels inherit? Does "more excellent" ultimately imply that the angels also inherit names? Was this author familiar with Phil 2:9-10?
  • Heb 1:4. Why is the "name" so important here? What kind of a name could the author have in mind? Might this be connected with the Old Testament traditions about the tetragrammaton (YHWH)?
  • Heb 1:5. Is the direct relation of begetting of great importance here? Is it this begetting literal? If it is, does the author understand this to be the difference between this "Son" and the angels or "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:5. The phrase the author reports God as saying to the Son is a quotation of Ps 2:7. Why would the author focus on that verse specifically? What is so significant about the psalms for the author? Is his reading of the psalm justified in modern terms? What is the relation--even at this early point--between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. Only in this verse is God first called a "Father" to the "Son." Why does the author wait so long to draw this point out?
  • Heb 1:5. The latter part of the verse (following "And again") is a quotation of 2 Sam 7:14. Why would the author take that text as referring to the Son/Jesus? Is this a justified reading? How does this second quotation in a single verse adjust one's understanding of the relationship between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. The language of the second quotation seems to imply a covenant that comes later, rather than something implicit in birth, as does the language of the first quotation on closer inspection. What is the significance of taking up these verses for the Son when they seem to imply that He only became the Son, only came to be begotten?
  • Heb 1:5. Both of the quotations in this verse come from royal settings in the Old Testament. How does this royalty theme play into the theme the author is addressing here?
  • Heb 1:5. What is the relation between "the angels" in this verse and "the prophets" in the first verse?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the rhetorical function of "And again"? In the scriptures translated/dictated by Joseph Smith, this phrase seems to mark breaks in the text. Does it do so here?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of calling the Son the "firstbegotten," which constitutes something of a departure from the theme to this point (simply "begotten")?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation the author draws on here does not appear in the Masoretic text (Deut 32:43), though it does appear in both the (Greek) Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts (the Dead Sea Scrolls). Does this suggest anything about the theological position of the author?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation is lifted from the "Song of Moses." Is it significant that the author draws on that most important piece of Old Testament literature?
  • Heb 1:6. Why does the author attribute the phrase to a situation of bringing "the firstbegotten into the world"? What does such an event have to do with the "Song of Moses"?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of the image presented here as a whole (the firstbegotten being presented before so many angels who sing and shout praises to him)? How might this be connected with other scriptures?
  • Heb 1:6. Why would God make an announcement to the angels if He is introducing the Son to the world?
  • Heb 1:6. Might this be connected with the angelic chorus visiting the shepherds?
  • Heb 1:7. This verse quotes Ps 104:4. Why would the author choose to take up that psalm in particular?
  • Heb 1:7. The point of this verse (when it is read against the next verse) is to suggest a difference between the angels and the Son. How is the word "ministers" significant in this comparison?
  • Heb 1:7. Is it significant that the author quotes God as saying something "of" the angels, but (in the next verse) something "unto" the Son?
  • Heb 1:7. The verse from Psalm 104 sets up two parallelisms: "angels" is parallel to "ministers," and "spirits" is parallel to "a flame of fire." What can be drawn from these parallelisms?
  • Heb 1:7. Wouldn't one assume that God makes spirits into angels, not angels into spirits? And wouldn't one assume that God makes flames of fire into ministers, not ministers into a flame of fire? What does it mean for the author of the psalm to put the other way around?
  • Heb 1:7. How does this verse (and the next as well) relate to verse 6? Might these two verses be read as fleshing out the worship scene described there?
  • Heb 1:7. What does this verse suggest about the author's attitude towards the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:8. This verse and the next quote Ps 45:6-7, where the psalmist is quite clearly the speaker. Why would the author attribute these words to God Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. What is the difference (implied by the "But") between the one on the throne and the angels? What does it mean that these angels or ministers would worship Him?
  • Heb 1:8. Is it significant that the throne of the Son is here described as being "for ever and ever"? Does this contradict the earlier implication that the Son had only become the Son?
  • Heb 1:8. How might the tenor of this verse suggest a connection with D&C 121:45-46? What might the content of that cross reference suggest for the meaning of this verse?
  • Heb 1:8. Why, in this quoted psalm, does the song address the nature of the throne and of the sceptre, but not of "God" (the Son?) Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. Why is this the first time the Son is specifically called "God"? What is the significance of that naming? Should it be understood strictly? Is there any other way to understand it (especially in light of the following verse)?
  • Heb 1:9. If the former verse only addresses the royal accoutrements, this verse addresses the nature of "God" directly. What is significant about this shift or about the order in which these addresses are made?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would the psalmist bother to point out what "God" loves and hates? What is meant here by righteousness? Is it significant that the sceptre described in the last verses was a "sceptre of righteousness"?
  • Heb 1:9. How might this language be connected with Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 20:5-6?
  • Heb 1:9. The author gets some mileage out of the word "therefore." Should it be read so strictly? What does its presence here ultimately signify? How else might this psalm be read? Could there be two different singing parts at work in the original?
  • Heb 1:9. t appears that the author reads "thy God" to imply that "God" has a "God." Is this a justified reading of the original psalm? What does this reading suggest about the author's relation to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:9. What would it mean for a God to have a God? How is the Son a God and the Father a God also? Did the author of Hebrews have as brought a theology as Latter-day Saint do today?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would one God anoint another? How is this anointing connected with the throne and sceptre of the previous verse?
  • Heb 1:9. Why does the psalmist call the oil "the oil of gladness"? What does this phrase mean?
  • Heb 1:9. How does anointing set one "above [one's] fellows"? Who would the Son's "fellows" have been? What relation obtains between angels and gods here? Might this have been an influence on Joseph Smith's thinking?
  • Heb 1:10. The word "And" here is meant to mark a leap from one quotation to another (this and the following two verses quote Ps 102:25-27). Why doesn't the author make this leap clearer? Would the author be content with a conflation of two very different psalms?
  • Heb 1:10. How does this near conflation of two psalms affect one's reading of them? Does one sense a disruption in flow? Is there any way to read them as a continuous thought? Is this what the author intended?
  • Heb 1:10. Is one to assume that the author understands these words also to be spoken by God to the Son (as God)? Why would God call the Son Lord?
  • Heb 1:10. This quotation imputes to the Son the work of creation. Where else might such an idea be found in the Bible? Does the apparent split between Father and Son imply a kind of division of labor here?
  • Heb 1:10. The author picks up the psalmist's parallel of "earth" and "heaven," a double structure the author uses over and over again through the text. This same double structure is very prevalent in the JST. What significance is there to the pairing of heaven and earth? Why would it appear so much in the JST? Why does the author take the pair up so thoroughly in his own text?
  • Heb 1:10. What does it mean to lay "the foundation of the earth"? Should this be understood in physical terms or in spiritual terms? What kind of a cosmological picture is being drawn here?
  • Heb 1:10. Is it significant that the psalmist, and hence the author, takes the Son back to "the beginning"? How might this point be read?
  • Heb 1:10. The psalmist mentions the "hands" of the Son. How should one read this anthropomorphism?
  • Heb 1:10. How might this creation business be read against the apparent becoming of the Son?
  • Heb 1:10. How might the phrasing of this verse generally be connected up with the content of Moses 1?
  • Heb 1:11. This verse (and the next as well) continues a quotation of Ps 102:25-27. How does the author's quotation of these verses reveal his relation to the Old Testament in general?
  • Heb 1:11. If the previous verse revealed the Son to be the creator, this verse compares that creation to Him and to the detriment of the creation. Why would the author make that comparison? Why would the author spend more time describing the creation and the dissolution of that creation and so little time on the relative permanence of the Creator?
  • Heb 1:11. If the pair of heaven and earth are so prevalent in Hebrews (and in the JST), how should the fact that this verse declares that "they shall perish" be read? Does this mark a kind of devaluation of one of Hebrews' most important themes?
  • Heb 1:11. What does it mean to say "but thou remainest"? It is clearly set in parallel to "they shall perish." Does this offer any insight into what this phrase means?
  • Heb 1:11. hat kind of a relation is implied between the Creator and His creation here? Might this be a source for traditional theological understandings of that relation?
  • Heb 1:11. hat does it mean to say that the heaven and the earth will "wax old as doth a garment"? What does this metaphor accomplish? Is it a good comparison? Might there be allusions in this metaphor (to ancient temple clothing perhaps)?
  • Heb 1:12. The first part of this verse sets up a parallelism to the last phrase of the previous verse. How does this phrase expand on the former? How should one think about the differences in imagery?
  • Heb 1:12. Again the heaven and the earth are pictured as clothing. Why would the author choose to employ this imagery? What would it mean to "fold... up" or to "roll... up" (NRSV) the heaven and the earth? Does this imply some kind of intertwining or continuity between the heaven and the earth?
  • Heb 1:12. Why does this phrase suggest action on the part of the Lord, whereas the former seems to suggest something beyond the will of the Lord? Might the former be related to space while this phrase is related to time?
  • Heb 1:12. What does it mean to say that the Son is "the same"? How is this phrase related to the phrase "but thou remainest"? Can this phrase be understood temporally, or does it imply some kind of non-temporality?
  • Heb 1:12. Parallel to the last phrase is "thy years shall not fail"? If the first part of the parallel suggests some kind of non-temporality, why does this suggest temporality? What does it mean to say the Son's "years shall not fail"?
  • Heb 1:12. This verse concludes a five-verse stretch meant to set up the Son as over against the angels (who are described in quotation as well in verse 7). Why would the author have quoted especially these last three verses, when they seem to have little relation to the author's assertions about the angels?
  • Heb 1:12. How do verses 10-12 expand verses 8-9? If the earlier verses present the exaltation of an earthly figure, these last three verses present an unchangeable God from all eternity. How can these be reconciled? Why would the author choose to put these side by side?
  • Heb 1:12. What can all of these verses together tell us about the theological presuppositions of the author? Why can they tell us about the author's relationship to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:13. After five verses on the Son, the author returns to question of the angels. Why would the author come back to the lesser? Is there a need to make a stronger case still?
  • Heb 1:13. Why does the author make this verse a question rather than an assertion? Does this weaken the argument or strengthen it? Should this question be understood to be rhetorical? What effect do rhetorical questions have on thinking? What appeal does a rhetorical question make, and what presuppositions guide it?
  • Heb 1:13. How should one read the particularity of the question asked here? That is, why does the author put the question in terms of "to which of the angels" rather than something like "Has He ever said to an angel"? What does this particularity accomplish? Why is it significant that the reader is called on to identify? Might there be a positive answer? Might that answer be the Son Himself (an angel exalted)?
  • Heb 1:13. he saying that concludes the verse is a quotation of Ps 110:1, and that psalm will become central to the argument of the whole book. Why would the author introduce this most central psalm in a question, and an ambiguous one at that? What effect does this have on the argument that will come?
  • Heb 1:13. Taking up a quotation of the Old Testament within so particular a question is really a unique literary device. How does this further articulate the author's relationship to the Old Testament? What else might this tell us about the author's thinking?
  • Heb 1:13. There may be an allusion to this same verse in the psalms in verse 3. What connection is there between this verse and that one? Why would there be a connection made here? Does this full-blown quotation strengthen the possibility of verse 3 being an allusion?
  • Heb 1:13. What is the significance, again, of the right hand? What would it mean to sit there?
  • Heb 1:13. If verse 3 mentions the right hand, it does not mention this question of enemies. How should one interpret the saying about the enemies? What would it mean for enemies to become a footstool?
  • Heb 1:13. If God (apparently the Father) is the one who will put the enemies of the Son under His feet, what is the work of the Son? Does this verse suggest a kind of absolute exaltation without any effort on the Son's part?
  • Heb 1:13. Because of the question-structure of this verse, the author seems to assume that angels would have enemies. What would an angel's enemy be? Might this be connected with Joseph Smith's teachings about spirits seeking power over one another?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse adds a second question to the first, this one phrased negatively. What is the difference between the negative and positive questions? Does this follow-up with a negative question affect the foregoing positive question? Does it function in any way as a kind of answer? If it does, how can an author answer a positive question with a negative question? What are the literary consequences of this?
  • Heb 1:14. f the previous verse focuses on particularity, this verse moves to universality. Does this question answer the first question by making that shift? Does this verse amount to a denial of any kind of particularity amongst angels?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse is the first since verse 4 that does not contain a quotation of the Old Testament. Why would the author leave off the Old Testament here? How does a question without quotation differ from a question with quotation? Why would the author choose to place the quotation within the positive question?
  • Heb 1:14. That this verse leaves off quotation highlights how lengthy a stretch of varied quotations there are in this chapter. Why would the author string so many together at the very beginning of the book (something the author never does again so continuously)? How do these quotations strengthen the argument? How might they weaken it? What is the significance of quotation or allusion?
  • Heb 1:14. What does it mean to speak of "ministering spirits"? Why would this title apply to "all" angels?
  • Heb 1:14. If the angels are all "sent forth," does this verse imply that God does say something to the angels, though none of them is chosen to sit on the throne?
  • Heb 1:14. Who are the "heirs of salvation"? What kind of a theology is implied in this statement? Is it significant that this phrase is introduced within a rhetorical question? How does the question format of the verse alter the nature of that theology?
  • Heb 1:14. Is there any significance in the phrase "who shall"? Why are the heirs displaced to the future? How might this affect the theology behind the phrase "heirs of salvation"?
  • Heb 1:14. What kind of a worldview (view, perhaps, of the plan of salvation) is behind this question? What is the function of angels? How do they relate to the Son in these terms?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4

Heb 2:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 1-2
Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1: Sundry times and in divers manners. In Greek, the beginning of this verse reads "Polumeros kai polutropos palai" (In many parts and in many ways of old). The emphatic polu- prefix on two of these opening words is a somewhat common literary device for texts of this period. Here these words seem to be emphasizing either the extent of the Old Testament prophecies or the fragmentary or varied natures of these writings. If the former, this can be taken as pointing to how the prophecies are incomplete until the coming of Christ; if the latter, this can be taken as pointing toward the way in which Christ unifies these various prophecies, or how Christ is yet another of these diverse prophets. (Cf. the NET notes for this verse).
  • Heb 1:5-14: Overview. Verses 5-14 begin include a series of seven Old Testament quotations. First, Ps 2:7 is quoted in vese 5a establishing divine sonship of Christ. This passage is interpreted as messianic by others as well (e.g. Acts 4:25-26; Acts 13:33; Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15). Second, 2 Sam 7:14 is quoted in verse 5b, also in establishing the sonship of Christ. This passage also seems to be interpreted or at least applied messianically in John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Luke 1:32-33 (interestingly, 2 Sam 7:14 is applied to the sonship of believers in 2 Cor 6:18 and Rev 21:7). Third, Ps 97:7 is (seemingly) quoted in verse 6 (or, this might be a quotation of the LXX version of Deut 32:43 which is longer than the MT and has an interesting parallelism between "sons of God" and "angels of God"). This passage depicts the angels worshipping the son. Fourth, Ps 104:4 is quoted in verse 7, again following the LXX instead of the MT which has God making the natural elements into servants rather than the reverse which we read here and in the LXX. Fifth, Ps 45:6-7 is quoted in verse 8, although here God is speaking to the Son promising him an everlasting kingdom whereas in the psalm the psalmist is addressing the king as God. Sixth, in Ps 102:25-27 is quoted in verses 10-12 describing God's role in creation and endlessness (again, the psalmist is addressing God whereas here the words are applied to Christ). Seventh, Ps 110:1 is quoted in verse 13, a passage commonly applied messianically, here establishing the sonship of Christ once again, with an emphasis on the "right hand," sitting position of the son relative to God.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1. Though this does not reflect the Greek, the English text begins with "God," set off from the remainder of the sentence by a comma. What does this accomplish in feel and tone as one begins to read? Why would the translators do this?
  • Heb 1:1. The language of this first verse is generally exalted in English, with a rhetorical flair. How well does this style reflect the oratorical nature of the Greek? Is this translation justified? What does this rhetorical style accomplish?
  • Heb 1:1. Why does the author mention "the fathers" instead of "our fathers"? Does this reflect the cultural orientation of the author? Does it rather suggest that "the fathers" here are not the general ancestors of the Jews at the time of the writing/speaking of this text? What might one read into the phrase?
  • Heb 1:1. If "the fathers" does not mean "the ancestors of the Jews," but something more specialized, which "prophets" spoke to "the fathers"? Is there a set of particular stories in mind here?
  • Usually time is paired with place in the scriptural idiom. Why is "times" paired with "manners" in this opening of the story? Is there some uniformity of place to be posited here?
  • Heb 1:1. If "God" is the subject of the first sentence, the verb that describes the action God performs does not appear at all until verse 2. What does this relativization do to the material of verse 1? Why would the author postpone the action? Why would the author at once make parenthetical and yet give priority to the contents of this first verse?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author call his times the "last days"?
  • Heb 1:2. Verse 1 mentions "the fathers," while this verse mentions "his Son." Though verse 1 marks "the fathers" as the ones being taught and this verse marks the "Son" as the one teaching, is there meant to be any implicit connection between these terms?
  • Heb 1:2. What does "heir of all things" entail for the "Son"? Is it significant that the Son was "appointed heir" and not born to be heir?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author bother to mention the creation in this verse at all, especially when the theme seems to be so completely unconnected with the other themes of the verse?
  • Heb 1:2. The word translated "worlds" in verse 2 is literally the word "eons." What does it mean to make eons? How is it that the Son was involved in making eons?
  • Heb 1:2. Is it significant at all that the "he" who appoints and who takes up the Son in making the worlds is only called "God" and not at all "the Father"? Does this suggest a different understanding in Hebrews of the relation between Christ and God?
  • Heb 1:3. Why is the Son called "the brightness of his [God's] glory"? What sort of a relationship does this imply between the Son and God?
  • Heb 1:3. If the "his" that is italicized in the first phrase of the verse does not reflect the Greek, the phrase might be read "Who being the brightness of glory." How does this change the meaning of this phrase?
  • Heb 1:3. What does the author of Hebrews mean by glory? Where else does this author use the term, and do any other instances provide a basis for understanding what the term means here?
  • Heb 1:3. The phrase "express image" is a translation of a single Greek word: character, obviously the word behind the English "character." How should this word be understood here?
  • Heb 1:3. Is it important that the Son is said here to be the "character" of God's person, rather than the icon? Does this imply something besides physical appearance or representation?
  • Heb 1:3. The Greek word translated "person" is also rather difficult, and is a word that was involved in the hottest theological debates about Trinitarianism anciently. It could be translated "person," "substance," or even "reality." How is this term best read here?
  • Heb 1:3. How does the Son uphold all things by the word of his power? Is it significant that "word" here reflects a different Greek word from John's famous "In the beginning was the Word"? What is "the word of his power"? Whose power is it?
  • Heb 1:3. Does "by himself" imply that the author believes Jesus to have completed the atonement without the help of the Father? Why would the author bother to add this emphatic "by himself"? Might it emphasize lack of help from other sources, perhaps the angels mentioned in the next verse?
  • Heb 1:3. What is the significance of the right hand? Does Ps 110:1 help here?
  • Heb 1:3. Does this act of being seated by God imply some kind of return? Is it significant that the author of Hebrews seems to have understood Jesus to have been first a man and then a God, rather than a God, then a man, and then a God?
  • Heb 1:4. What does it mean to be "so much better than the angels"? Why is this important to the author?
  • Heb 1:4. It seems clear that "inheritance" is key to understanding the distinction between Jesus and the angels. But how should this be read against the Old Testament tradition of calling the angels the "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:4. How is the name the Son inherits "more excellent" than the name the angels inherit? Does "more excellent" ultimately imply that the angels also inherit names? Was this author familiar with Phil 2:9-10?
  • Heb 1:4. Why is the "name" so important here? What kind of a name could the author have in mind? Might this be connected with the Old Testament traditions about the tetragrammaton (YHWH)?
  • Heb 1:5. Is the direct relation of begetting of great importance here? Is it this begetting literal? If it is, does the author understand this to be the difference between this "Son" and the angels or "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:5. The phrase the author reports God as saying to the Son is a quotation of Ps 2:7. Why would the author focus on that verse specifically? What is so significant about the psalms for the author? Is his reading of the psalm justified in modern terms? What is the relation--even at this early point--between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. Only in this verse is God first called a "Father" to the "Son." Why does the author wait so long to draw this point out?
  • Heb 1:5. The latter part of the verse (following "And again") is a quotation of 2 Sam 7:14. Why would the author take that text as referring to the Son/Jesus? Is this a justified reading? How does this second quotation in a single verse adjust one's understanding of the relationship between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. The language of the second quotation seems to imply a covenant that comes later, rather than something implicit in birth, as does the language of the first quotation on closer inspection. What is the significance of taking up these verses for the Son when they seem to imply that He only became the Son, only came to be begotten?
  • Heb 1:5. Both of the quotations in this verse come from royal settings in the Old Testament. How does this royalty theme play into the theme the author is addressing here?
  • Heb 1:5. What is the relation between "the angels" in this verse and "the prophets" in the first verse?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the rhetorical function of "And again"? In the scriptures translated/dictated by Joseph Smith, this phrase seems to mark breaks in the text. Does it do so here?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of calling the Son the "firstbegotten," which constitutes something of a departure from the theme to this point (simply "begotten")?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation the author draws on here does not appear in the Masoretic text (Deut 32:43), though it does appear in both the (Greek) Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts (the Dead Sea Scrolls). Does this suggest anything about the theological position of the author?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation is lifted from the "Song of Moses." Is it significant that the author draws on that most important piece of Old Testament literature?
  • Heb 1:6. Why does the author attribute the phrase to a situation of bringing "the firstbegotten into the world"? What does such an event have to do with the "Song of Moses"?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of the image presented here as a whole (the firstbegotten being presented before so many angels who sing and shout praises to him)? How might this be connected with other scriptures?
  • Heb 1:6. Why would God make an announcement to the angels if He is introducing the Son to the world?
  • Heb 1:6. Might this be connected with the angelic chorus visiting the shepherds?
  • Heb 1:7. This verse quotes Ps 104:4. Why would the author choose to take up that psalm in particular?
  • Heb 1:7. The point of this verse (when it is read against the next verse) is to suggest a difference between the angels and the Son. How is the word "ministers" significant in this comparison?
  • Heb 1:7. Is it significant that the author quotes God as saying something "of" the angels, but (in the next verse) something "unto" the Son?
  • Heb 1:7. The verse from Psalm 104 sets up two parallelisms: "angels" is parallel to "ministers," and "spirits" is parallel to "a flame of fire." What can be drawn from these parallelisms?
  • Heb 1:7. Wouldn't one assume that God makes spirits into angels, not angels into spirits? And wouldn't one assume that God makes flames of fire into ministers, not ministers into a flame of fire? What does it mean for the author of the psalm to put the other way around?
  • Heb 1:7. How does this verse (and the next as well) relate to verse 6? Might these two verses be read as fleshing out the worship scene described there?
  • Heb 1:7. What does this verse suggest about the author's attitude towards the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:8. This verse and the next quote Ps 45:6-7, where the psalmist is quite clearly the speaker. Why would the author attribute these words to God Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. What is the difference (implied by the "But") between the one on the throne and the angels? What does it mean that these angels or ministers would worship Him?
  • Heb 1:8. Is it significant that the throne of the Son is here described as being "for ever and ever"? Does this contradict the earlier implication that the Son had only become the Son?
  • Heb 1:8. How might the tenor of this verse suggest a connection with D&C 121:45-46? What might the content of that cross reference suggest for the meaning of this verse?
  • Heb 1:8. Why, in this quoted psalm, does the song address the nature of the throne and of the sceptre, but not of "God" (the Son?) Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. Why is this the first time the Son is specifically called "God"? What is the significance of that naming? Should it be understood strictly? Is there any other way to understand it (especially in light of the following verse)?
  • Heb 1:9. If the former verse only addresses the royal accoutrements, this verse addresses the nature of "God" directly. What is significant about this shift or about the order in which these addresses are made?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would the psalmist bother to point out what "God" loves and hates? What is meant here by righteousness? Is it significant that the sceptre described in the last verses was a "sceptre of righteousness"?
  • Heb 1:9. How might this language be connected with Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 20:5-6?
  • Heb 1:9. The author gets some mileage out of the word "therefore." Should it be read so strictly? What does its presence here ultimately signify? How else might this psalm be read? Could there be two different singing parts at work in the original?
  • Heb 1:9. t appears that the author reads "thy God" to imply that "God" has a "God." Is this a justified reading of the original psalm? What does this reading suggest about the author's relation to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:9. What would it mean for a God to have a God? How is the Son a God and the Father a God also? Did the author of Hebrews have as brought a theology as Latter-day Saint do today?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would one God anoint another? How is this anointing connected with the throne and sceptre of the previous verse?
  • Heb 1:9. Why does the psalmist call the oil "the oil of gladness"? What does this phrase mean?
  • Heb 1:9. How does anointing set one "above [one's] fellows"? Who would the Son's "fellows" have been? What relation obtains between angels and gods here? Might this have been an influence on Joseph Smith's thinking?
  • Heb 1:10. The word "And" here is meant to mark a leap from one quotation to another (this and the following two verses quote Ps 102:25-27). Why doesn't the author make this leap clearer? Would the author be content with a conflation of two very different psalms?
  • Heb 1:10. How does this near conflation of two psalms affect one's reading of them? Does one sense a disruption in flow? Is there any way to read them as a continuous thought? Is this what the author intended?
  • Heb 1:10. Is one to assume that the author understands these words also to be spoken by God to the Son (as God)? Why would God call the Son Lord?
  • Heb 1:10. This quotation imputes to the Son the work of creation. Where else might such an idea be found in the Bible? Does the apparent split between Father and Son imply a kind of division of labor here?
  • Heb 1:10. The author picks up the psalmist's parallel of "earth" and "heaven," a double structure the author uses over and over again through the text. This same double structure is very prevalent in the JST. What significance is there to the pairing of heaven and earth? Why would it appear so much in the JST? Why does the author take the pair up so thoroughly in his own text?
  • Heb 1:10. What does it mean to lay "the foundation of the earth"? Should this be understood in physical terms or in spiritual terms? What kind of a cosmological picture is being drawn here?
  • Heb 1:10. Is it significant that the psalmist, and hence the author, takes the Son back to "the beginning"? How might this point be read?
  • Heb 1:10. The psalmist mentions the "hands" of the Son. How should one read this anthropomorphism?
  • Heb 1:10. How might this creation business be read against the apparent becoming of the Son?
  • Heb 1:10. How might the phrasing of this verse generally be connected up with the content of Moses 1?
  • Heb 1:11. This verse (and the next as well) continues a quotation of Ps 102:25-27. How does the author's quotation of these verses reveal his relation to the Old Testament in general?
  • Heb 1:11. If the previous verse revealed the Son to be the creator, this verse compares that creation to Him and to the detriment of the creation. Why would the author make that comparison? Why would the author spend more time describing the creation and the dissolution of that creation and so little time on the relative permanence of the Creator?
  • Heb 1:11. If the pair of heaven and earth are so prevalent in Hebrews (and in the JST), how should the fact that this verse declares that "they shall perish" be read? Does this mark a kind of devaluation of one of Hebrews' most important themes?
  • Heb 1:11. What does it mean to say "but thou remainest"? It is clearly set in parallel to "they shall perish." Does this offer any insight into what this phrase means?
  • Heb 1:11. hat kind of a relation is implied between the Creator and His creation here? Might this be a source for traditional theological understandings of that relation?
  • Heb 1:11. hat does it mean to say that the heaven and the earth will "wax old as doth a garment"? What does this metaphor accomplish? Is it a good comparison? Might there be allusions in this metaphor (to ancient temple clothing perhaps)?
  • Heb 1:12. The first part of this verse sets up a parallelism to the last phrase of the previous verse. How does this phrase expand on the former? How should one think about the differences in imagery?
  • Heb 1:12. Again the heaven and the earth are pictured as clothing. Why would the author choose to employ this imagery? What would it mean to "fold... up" or to "roll... up" (NRSV) the heaven and the earth? Does this imply some kind of intertwining or continuity between the heaven and the earth?
  • Heb 1:12. Why does this phrase suggest action on the part of the Lord, whereas the former seems to suggest something beyond the will of the Lord? Might the former be related to space while this phrase is related to time?
  • Heb 1:12. What does it mean to say that the Son is "the same"? How is this phrase related to the phrase "but thou remainest"? Can this phrase be understood temporally, or does it imply some kind of non-temporality?
  • Heb 1:12. Parallel to the last phrase is "thy years shall not fail"? If the first part of the parallel suggests some kind of non-temporality, why does this suggest temporality? What does it mean to say the Son's "years shall not fail"?
  • Heb 1:12. This verse concludes a five-verse stretch meant to set up the Son as over against the angels (who are described in quotation as well in verse 7). Why would the author have quoted especially these last three verses, when they seem to have little relation to the author's assertions about the angels?
  • Heb 1:12. How do verses 10-12 expand verses 8-9? If the earlier verses present the exaltation of an earthly figure, these last three verses present an unchangeable God from all eternity. How can these be reconciled? Why would the author choose to put these side by side?
  • Heb 1:12. What can all of these verses together tell us about the theological presuppositions of the author? Why can they tell us about the author's relationship to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:13. After five verses on the Son, the author returns to question of the angels. Why would the author come back to the lesser? Is there a need to make a stronger case still?
  • Heb 1:13. Why does the author make this verse a question rather than an assertion? Does this weaken the argument or strengthen it? Should this question be understood to be rhetorical? What effect do rhetorical questions have on thinking? What appeal does a rhetorical question make, and what presuppositions guide it?
  • Heb 1:13. How should one read the particularity of the question asked here? That is, why does the author put the question in terms of "to which of the angels" rather than something like "Has He ever said to an angel"? What does this particularity accomplish? Why is it significant that the reader is called on to identify? Might there be a positive answer? Might that answer be the Son Himself (an angel exalted)?
  • Heb 1:13. he saying that concludes the verse is a quotation of Ps 110:1, and that psalm will become central to the argument of the whole book. Why would the author introduce this most central psalm in a question, and an ambiguous one at that? What effect does this have on the argument that will come?
  • Heb 1:13. Taking up a quotation of the Old Testament within so particular a question is really a unique literary device. How does this further articulate the author's relationship to the Old Testament? What else might this tell us about the author's thinking?
  • Heb 1:13. There may be an allusion to this same verse in the psalms in verse 3. What connection is there between this verse and that one? Why would there be a connection made here? Does this full-blown quotation strengthen the possibility of verse 3 being an allusion?
  • Heb 1:13. What is the significance, again, of the right hand? What would it mean to sit there?
  • Heb 1:13. If verse 3 mentions the right hand, it does not mention this question of enemies. How should one interpret the saying about the enemies? What would it mean for enemies to become a footstool?
  • Heb 1:13. If God (apparently the Father) is the one who will put the enemies of the Son under His feet, what is the work of the Son? Does this verse suggest a kind of absolute exaltation without any effort on the Son's part?
  • Heb 1:13. Because of the question-structure of this verse, the author seems to assume that angels would have enemies. What would an angel's enemy be? Might this be connected with Joseph Smith's teachings about spirits seeking power over one another?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse adds a second question to the first, this one phrased negatively. What is the difference between the negative and positive questions? Does this follow-up with a negative question affect the foregoing positive question? Does it function in any way as a kind of answer? If it does, how can an author answer a positive question with a negative question? What are the literary consequences of this?
  • Heb 1:14. f the previous verse focuses on particularity, this verse moves to universality. Does this question answer the first question by making that shift? Does this verse amount to a denial of any kind of particularity amongst angels?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse is the first since verse 4 that does not contain a quotation of the Old Testament. Why would the author leave off the Old Testament here? How does a question without quotation differ from a question with quotation? Why would the author choose to place the quotation within the positive question?
  • Heb 1:14. That this verse leaves off quotation highlights how lengthy a stretch of varied quotations there are in this chapter. Why would the author string so many together at the very beginning of the book (something the author never does again so continuously)? How do these quotations strengthen the argument? How might they weaken it? What is the significance of quotation or allusion?
  • Heb 1:14. What does it mean to speak of "ministering spirits"? Why would this title apply to "all" angels?
  • Heb 1:14. If the angels are all "sent forth," does this verse imply that God does say something to the angels, though none of them is chosen to sit on the throne?
  • Heb 1:14. Who are the "heirs of salvation"? What kind of a theology is implied in this statement? Is it significant that this phrase is introduced within a rhetorical question? How does the question format of the verse alter the nature of that theology?
  • Heb 1:14. Is there any significance in the phrase "who shall"? Why are the heirs displaced to the future? How might this affect the theology behind the phrase "heirs of salvation"?
  • Heb 1:14. What kind of a worldview (view, perhaps, of the plan of salvation) is behind this question? What is the function of angels? How do they relate to the Son in these terms?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4

Heb 2:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 1-2
Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1: Sundry times and in divers manners. In Greek, the beginning of this verse reads "Polumeros kai polutropos palai" (In many parts and in many ways of old). The emphatic polu- prefix on two of these opening words is a somewhat common literary device for texts of this period. Here these words seem to be emphasizing either the extent of the Old Testament prophecies or the fragmentary or varied natures of these writings. If the former, this can be taken as pointing to how the prophecies are incomplete until the coming of Christ; if the latter, this can be taken as pointing toward the way in which Christ unifies these various prophecies, or how Christ is yet another of these diverse prophets. (Cf. the NET notes for this verse).
  • Heb 1:5-14: Overview. Verses 5-14 begin include a series of seven Old Testament quotations. First, Ps 2:7 is quoted in vese 5a establishing divine sonship of Christ. This passage is interpreted as messianic by others as well (e.g. Acts 4:25-26; Acts 13:33; Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15). Second, 2 Sam 7:14 is quoted in verse 5b, also in establishing the sonship of Christ. This passage also seems to be interpreted or at least applied messianically in John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Luke 1:32-33 (interestingly, 2 Sam 7:14 is applied to the sonship of believers in 2 Cor 6:18 and Rev 21:7). Third, Ps 97:7 is (seemingly) quoted in verse 6 (or, this might be a quotation of the LXX version of Deut 32:43 which is longer than the MT and has an interesting parallelism between "sons of God" and "angels of God"). This passage depicts the angels worshipping the son. Fourth, Ps 104:4 is quoted in verse 7, again following the LXX instead of the MT which has God making the natural elements into servants rather than the reverse which we read here and in the LXX. Fifth, Ps 45:6-7 is quoted in verse 8, although here God is speaking to the Son promising him an everlasting kingdom whereas in the psalm the psalmist is addressing the king as God. Sixth, in Ps 102:25-27 is quoted in verses 10-12 describing God's role in creation and endlessness (again, the psalmist is addressing God whereas here the words are applied to Christ). Seventh, Ps 110:1 is quoted in verse 13, a passage commonly applied messianically, here establishing the sonship of Christ once again, with an emphasis on the "right hand," sitting position of the son relative to God.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1. Though this does not reflect the Greek, the English text begins with "God," set off from the remainder of the sentence by a comma. What does this accomplish in feel and tone as one begins to read? Why would the translators do this?
  • Heb 1:1. The language of this first verse is generally exalted in English, with a rhetorical flair. How well does this style reflect the oratorical nature of the Greek? Is this translation justified? What does this rhetorical style accomplish?
  • Heb 1:1. Why does the author mention "the fathers" instead of "our fathers"? Does this reflect the cultural orientation of the author? Does it rather suggest that "the fathers" here are not the general ancestors of the Jews at the time of the writing/speaking of this text? What might one read into the phrase?
  • Heb 1:1. If "the fathers" does not mean "the ancestors of the Jews," but something more specialized, which "prophets" spoke to "the fathers"? Is there a set of particular stories in mind here?
  • Usually time is paired with place in the scriptural idiom. Why is "times" paired with "manners" in this opening of the story? Is there some uniformity of place to be posited here?
  • Heb 1:1. If "God" is the subject of the first sentence, the verb that describes the action God performs does not appear at all until verse 2. What does this relativization do to the material of verse 1? Why would the author postpone the action? Why would the author at once make parenthetical and yet give priority to the contents of this first verse?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author call his times the "last days"?
  • Heb 1:2. Verse 1 mentions "the fathers," while this verse mentions "his Son." Though verse 1 marks "the fathers" as the ones being taught and this verse marks the "Son" as the one teaching, is there meant to be any implicit connection between these terms?
  • Heb 1:2. What does "heir of all things" entail for the "Son"? Is it significant that the Son was "appointed heir" and not born to be heir?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author bother to mention the creation in this verse at all, especially when the theme seems to be so completely unconnected with the other themes of the verse?
  • Heb 1:2. The word translated "worlds" in verse 2 is literally the word "eons." What does it mean to make eons? How is it that the Son was involved in making eons?
  • Heb 1:2. Is it significant at all that the "he" who appoints and who takes up the Son in making the worlds is only called "God" and not at all "the Father"? Does this suggest a different understanding in Hebrews of the relation between Christ and God?
  • Heb 1:3. Why is the Son called "the brightness of his [God's] glory"? What sort of a relationship does this imply between the Son and God?
  • Heb 1:3. If the "his" that is italicized in the first phrase of the verse does not reflect the Greek, the phrase might be read "Who being the brightness of glory." How does this change the meaning of this phrase?
  • Heb 1:3. What does the author of Hebrews mean by glory? Where else does this author use the term, and do any other instances provide a basis for understanding what the term means here?
  • Heb 1:3. The phrase "express image" is a translation of a single Greek word: character, obviously the word behind the English "character." How should this word be understood here?
  • Heb 1:3. Is it important that the Son is said here to be the "character" of God's person, rather than the icon? Does this imply something besides physical appearance or representation?
  • Heb 1:3. The Greek word translated "person" is also rather difficult, and is a word that was involved in the hottest theological debates about Trinitarianism anciently. It could be translated "person," "substance," or even "reality." How is this term best read here?
  • Heb 1:3. How does the Son uphold all things by the word of his power? Is it significant that "word" here reflects a different Greek word from John's famous "In the beginning was the Word"? What is "the word of his power"? Whose power is it?
  • Heb 1:3. Does "by himself" imply that the author believes Jesus to have completed the atonement without the help of the Father? Why would the author bother to add this emphatic "by himself"? Might it emphasize lack of help from other sources, perhaps the angels mentioned in the next verse?
  • Heb 1:3. What is the significance of the right hand? Does Ps 110:1 help here?
  • Heb 1:3. Does this act of being seated by God imply some kind of return? Is it significant that the author of Hebrews seems to have understood Jesus to have been first a man and then a God, rather than a God, then a man, and then a God?
  • Heb 1:4. What does it mean to be "so much better than the angels"? Why is this important to the author?
  • Heb 1:4. It seems clear that "inheritance" is key to understanding the distinction between Jesus and the angels. But how should this be read against the Old Testament tradition of calling the angels the "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:4. How is the name the Son inherits "more excellent" than the name the angels inherit? Does "more excellent" ultimately imply that the angels also inherit names? Was this author familiar with Phil 2:9-10?
  • Heb 1:4. Why is the "name" so important here? What kind of a name could the author have in mind? Might this be connected with the Old Testament traditions about the tetragrammaton (YHWH)?
  • Heb 1:5. Is the direct relation of begetting of great importance here? Is it this begetting literal? If it is, does the author understand this to be the difference between this "Son" and the angels or "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:5. The phrase the author reports God as saying to the Son is a quotation of Ps 2:7. Why would the author focus on that verse specifically? What is so significant about the psalms for the author? Is his reading of the psalm justified in modern terms? What is the relation--even at this early point--between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. Only in this verse is God first called a "Father" to the "Son." Why does the author wait so long to draw this point out?
  • Heb 1:5. The latter part of the verse (following "And again") is a quotation of 2 Sam 7:14. Why would the author take that text as referring to the Son/Jesus? Is this a justified reading? How does this second quotation in a single verse adjust one's understanding of the relationship between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. The language of the second quotation seems to imply a covenant that comes later, rather than something implicit in birth, as does the language of the first quotation on closer inspection. What is the significance of taking up these verses for the Son when they seem to imply that He only became the Son, only came to be begotten?
  • Heb 1:5. Both of the quotations in this verse come from royal settings in the Old Testament. How does this royalty theme play into the theme the author is addressing here?
  • Heb 1:5. What is the relation between "the angels" in this verse and "the prophets" in the first verse?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the rhetorical function of "And again"? In the scriptures translated/dictated by Joseph Smith, this phrase seems to mark breaks in the text. Does it do so here?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of calling the Son the "firstbegotten," which constitutes something of a departure from the theme to this point (simply "begotten")?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation the author draws on here does not appear in the Masoretic text (Deut 32:43), though it does appear in both the (Greek) Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts (the Dead Sea Scrolls). Does this suggest anything about the theological position of the author?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation is lifted from the "Song of Moses." Is it significant that the author draws on that most important piece of Old Testament literature?
  • Heb 1:6. Why does the author attribute the phrase to a situation of bringing "the firstbegotten into the world"? What does such an event have to do with the "Song of Moses"?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of the image presented here as a whole (the firstbegotten being presented before so many angels who sing and shout praises to him)? How might this be connected with other scriptures?
  • Heb 1:6. Why would God make an announcement to the angels if He is introducing the Son to the world?
  • Heb 1:6. Might this be connected with the angelic chorus visiting the shepherds?
  • Heb 1:7. This verse quotes Ps 104:4. Why would the author choose to take up that psalm in particular?
  • Heb 1:7. The point of this verse (when it is read against the next verse) is to suggest a difference between the angels and the Son. How is the word "ministers" significant in this comparison?
  • Heb 1:7. Is it significant that the author quotes God as saying something "of" the angels, but (in the next verse) something "unto" the Son?
  • Heb 1:7. The verse from Psalm 104 sets up two parallelisms: "angels" is parallel to "ministers," and "spirits" is parallel to "a flame of fire." What can be drawn from these parallelisms?
  • Heb 1:7. Wouldn't one assume that God makes spirits into angels, not angels into spirits? And wouldn't one assume that God makes flames of fire into ministers, not ministers into a flame of fire? What does it mean for the author of the psalm to put the other way around?
  • Heb 1:7. How does this verse (and the next as well) relate to verse 6? Might these two verses be read as fleshing out the worship scene described there?
  • Heb 1:7. What does this verse suggest about the author's attitude towards the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:8. This verse and the next quote Ps 45:6-7, where the psalmist is quite clearly the speaker. Why would the author attribute these words to God Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. What is the difference (implied by the "But") between the one on the throne and the angels? What does it mean that these angels or ministers would worship Him?
  • Heb 1:8. Is it significant that the throne of the Son is here described as being "for ever and ever"? Does this contradict the earlier implication that the Son had only become the Son?
  • Heb 1:8. How might the tenor of this verse suggest a connection with D&C 121:45-46? What might the content of that cross reference suggest for the meaning of this verse?
  • Heb 1:8. Why, in this quoted psalm, does the song address the nature of the throne and of the sceptre, but not of "God" (the Son?) Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. Why is this the first time the Son is specifically called "God"? What is the significance of that naming? Should it be understood strictly? Is there any other way to understand it (especially in light of the following verse)?
  • Heb 1:9. If the former verse only addresses the royal accoutrements, this verse addresses the nature of "God" directly. What is significant about this shift or about the order in which these addresses are made?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would the psalmist bother to point out what "God" loves and hates? What is meant here by righteousness? Is it significant that the sceptre described in the last verses was a "sceptre of righteousness"?
  • Heb 1:9. How might this language be connected with Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 20:5-6?
  • Heb 1:9. The author gets some mileage out of the word "therefore." Should it be read so strictly? What does its presence here ultimately signify? How else might this psalm be read? Could there be two different singing parts at work in the original?
  • Heb 1:9. t appears that the author reads "thy God" to imply that "God" has a "God." Is this a justified reading of the original psalm? What does this reading suggest about the author's relation to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:9. What would it mean for a God to have a God? How is the Son a God and the Father a God also? Did the author of Hebrews have as brought a theology as Latter-day Saint do today?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would one God anoint another? How is this anointing connected with the throne and sceptre of the previous verse?
  • Heb 1:9. Why does the psalmist call the oil "the oil of gladness"? What does this phrase mean?
  • Heb 1:9. How does anointing set one "above [one's] fellows"? Who would the Son's "fellows" have been? What relation obtains between angels and gods here? Might this have been an influence on Joseph Smith's thinking?
  • Heb 1:10. The word "And" here is meant to mark a leap from one quotation to another (this and the following two verses quote Ps 102:25-27). Why doesn't the author make this leap clearer? Would the author be content with a conflation of two very different psalms?
  • Heb 1:10. How does this near conflation of two psalms affect one's reading of them? Does one sense a disruption in flow? Is there any way to read them as a continuous thought? Is this what the author intended?
  • Heb 1:10. Is one to assume that the author understands these words also to be spoken by God to the Son (as God)? Why would God call the Son Lord?
  • Heb 1:10. This quotation imputes to the Son the work of creation. Where else might such an idea be found in the Bible? Does the apparent split between Father and Son imply a kind of division of labor here?
  • Heb 1:10. The author picks up the psalmist's parallel of "earth" and "heaven," a double structure the author uses over and over again through the text. This same double structure is very prevalent in the JST. What significance is there to the pairing of heaven and earth? Why would it appear so much in the JST? Why does the author take the pair up so thoroughly in his own text?
  • Heb 1:10. What does it mean to lay "the foundation of the earth"? Should this be understood in physical terms or in spiritual terms? What kind of a cosmological picture is being drawn here?
  • Heb 1:10. Is it significant that the psalmist, and hence the author, takes the Son back to "the beginning"? How might this point be read?
  • Heb 1:10. The psalmist mentions the "hands" of the Son. How should one read this anthropomorphism?
  • Heb 1:10. How might this creation business be read against the apparent becoming of the Son?
  • Heb 1:10. How might the phrasing of this verse generally be connected up with the content of Moses 1?
  • Heb 1:11. This verse (and the next as well) continues a quotation of Ps 102:25-27. How does the author's quotation of these verses reveal his relation to the Old Testament in general?
  • Heb 1:11. If the previous verse revealed the Son to be the creator, this verse compares that creation to Him and to the detriment of the creation. Why would the author make that comparison? Why would the author spend more time describing the creation and the dissolution of that creation and so little time on the relative permanence of the Creator?
  • Heb 1:11. If the pair of heaven and earth are so prevalent in Hebrews (and in the JST), how should the fact that this verse declares that "they shall perish" be read? Does this mark a kind of devaluation of one of Hebrews' most important themes?
  • Heb 1:11. What does it mean to say "but thou remainest"? It is clearly set in parallel to "they shall perish." Does this offer any insight into what this phrase means?
  • Heb 1:11. hat kind of a relation is implied between the Creator and His creation here? Might this be a source for traditional theological understandings of that relation?
  • Heb 1:11. hat does it mean to say that the heaven and the earth will "wax old as doth a garment"? What does this metaphor accomplish? Is it a good comparison? Might there be allusions in this metaphor (to ancient temple clothing perhaps)?
  • Heb 1:12. The first part of this verse sets up a parallelism to the last phrase of the previous verse. How does this phrase expand on the former? How should one think about the differences in imagery?
  • Heb 1:12. Again the heaven and the earth are pictured as clothing. Why would the author choose to employ this imagery? What would it mean to "fold... up" or to "roll... up" (NRSV) the heaven and the earth? Does this imply some kind of intertwining or continuity between the heaven and the earth?
  • Heb 1:12. Why does this phrase suggest action on the part of the Lord, whereas the former seems to suggest something beyond the will of the Lord? Might the former be related to space while this phrase is related to time?
  • Heb 1:12. What does it mean to say that the Son is "the same"? How is this phrase related to the phrase "but thou remainest"? Can this phrase be understood temporally, or does it imply some kind of non-temporality?
  • Heb 1:12. Parallel to the last phrase is "thy years shall not fail"? If the first part of the parallel suggests some kind of non-temporality, why does this suggest temporality? What does it mean to say the Son's "years shall not fail"?
  • Heb 1:12. This verse concludes a five-verse stretch meant to set up the Son as over against the angels (who are described in quotation as well in verse 7). Why would the author have quoted especially these last three verses, when they seem to have little relation to the author's assertions about the angels?
  • Heb 1:12. How do verses 10-12 expand verses 8-9? If the earlier verses present the exaltation of an earthly figure, these last three verses present an unchangeable God from all eternity. How can these be reconciled? Why would the author choose to put these side by side?
  • Heb 1:12. What can all of these verses together tell us about the theological presuppositions of the author? Why can they tell us about the author's relationship to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:13. After five verses on the Son, the author returns to question of the angels. Why would the author come back to the lesser? Is there a need to make a stronger case still?
  • Heb 1:13. Why does the author make this verse a question rather than an assertion? Does this weaken the argument or strengthen it? Should this question be understood to be rhetorical? What effect do rhetorical questions have on thinking? What appeal does a rhetorical question make, and what presuppositions guide it?
  • Heb 1:13. How should one read the particularity of the question asked here? That is, why does the author put the question in terms of "to which of the angels" rather than something like "Has He ever said to an angel"? What does this particularity accomplish? Why is it significant that the reader is called on to identify? Might there be a positive answer? Might that answer be the Son Himself (an angel exalted)?
  • Heb 1:13. he saying that concludes the verse is a quotation of Ps 110:1, and that psalm will become central to the argument of the whole book. Why would the author introduce this most central psalm in a question, and an ambiguous one at that? What effect does this have on the argument that will come?
  • Heb 1:13. Taking up a quotation of the Old Testament within so particular a question is really a unique literary device. How does this further articulate the author's relationship to the Old Testament? What else might this tell us about the author's thinking?
  • Heb 1:13. There may be an allusion to this same verse in the psalms in verse 3. What connection is there between this verse and that one? Why would there be a connection made here? Does this full-blown quotation strengthen the possibility of verse 3 being an allusion?
  • Heb 1:13. What is the significance, again, of the right hand? What would it mean to sit there?
  • Heb 1:13. If verse 3 mentions the right hand, it does not mention this question of enemies. How should one interpret the saying about the enemies? What would it mean for enemies to become a footstool?
  • Heb 1:13. If God (apparently the Father) is the one who will put the enemies of the Son under His feet, what is the work of the Son? Does this verse suggest a kind of absolute exaltation without any effort on the Son's part?
  • Heb 1:13. Because of the question-structure of this verse, the author seems to assume that angels would have enemies. What would an angel's enemy be? Might this be connected with Joseph Smith's teachings about spirits seeking power over one another?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse adds a second question to the first, this one phrased negatively. What is the difference between the negative and positive questions? Does this follow-up with a negative question affect the foregoing positive question? Does it function in any way as a kind of answer? If it does, how can an author answer a positive question with a negative question? What are the literary consequences of this?
  • Heb 1:14. f the previous verse focuses on particularity, this verse moves to universality. Does this question answer the first question by making that shift? Does this verse amount to a denial of any kind of particularity amongst angels?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse is the first since verse 4 that does not contain a quotation of the Old Testament. Why would the author leave off the Old Testament here? How does a question without quotation differ from a question with quotation? Why would the author choose to place the quotation within the positive question?
  • Heb 1:14. That this verse leaves off quotation highlights how lengthy a stretch of varied quotations there are in this chapter. Why would the author string so many together at the very beginning of the book (something the author never does again so continuously)? How do these quotations strengthen the argument? How might they weaken it? What is the significance of quotation or allusion?
  • Heb 1:14. What does it mean to speak of "ministering spirits"? Why would this title apply to "all" angels?
  • Heb 1:14. If the angels are all "sent forth," does this verse imply that God does say something to the angels, though none of them is chosen to sit on the throne?
  • Heb 1:14. Who are the "heirs of salvation"? What kind of a theology is implied in this statement? Is it significant that this phrase is introduced within a rhetorical question? How does the question format of the verse alter the nature of that theology?
  • Heb 1:14. Is there any significance in the phrase "who shall"? Why are the heirs displaced to the future? How might this affect the theology behind the phrase "heirs of salvation"?
  • Heb 1:14. What kind of a worldview (view, perhaps, of the plan of salvation) is behind this question? What is the function of angels? How do they relate to the Son in these terms?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4

Heb 2:16-18

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 1-2
Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1: Sundry times and in divers manners. In Greek, the beginning of this verse reads "Polumeros kai polutropos palai" (In many parts and in many ways of old). The emphatic polu- prefix on two of these opening words is a somewhat common literary device for texts of this period. Here these words seem to be emphasizing either the extent of the Old Testament prophecies or the fragmentary or varied natures of these writings. If the former, this can be taken as pointing to how the prophecies are incomplete until the coming of Christ; if the latter, this can be taken as pointing toward the way in which Christ unifies these various prophecies, or how Christ is yet another of these diverse prophets. (Cf. the NET notes for this verse).
  • Heb 1:5-14: Overview. Verses 5-14 begin include a series of seven Old Testament quotations. First, Ps 2:7 is quoted in vese 5a establishing divine sonship of Christ. This passage is interpreted as messianic by others as well (e.g. Acts 4:25-26; Acts 13:33; Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15). Second, 2 Sam 7:14 is quoted in verse 5b, also in establishing the sonship of Christ. This passage also seems to be interpreted or at least applied messianically in John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Luke 1:32-33 (interestingly, 2 Sam 7:14 is applied to the sonship of believers in 2 Cor 6:18 and Rev 21:7). Third, Ps 97:7 is (seemingly) quoted in verse 6 (or, this might be a quotation of the LXX version of Deut 32:43 which is longer than the MT and has an interesting parallelism between "sons of God" and "angels of God"). This passage depicts the angels worshipping the son. Fourth, Ps 104:4 is quoted in verse 7, again following the LXX instead of the MT which has God making the natural elements into servants rather than the reverse which we read here and in the LXX. Fifth, Ps 45:6-7 is quoted in verse 8, although here God is speaking to the Son promising him an everlasting kingdom whereas in the psalm the psalmist is addressing the king as God. Sixth, in Ps 102:25-27 is quoted in verses 10-12 describing God's role in creation and endlessness (again, the psalmist is addressing God whereas here the words are applied to Christ). Seventh, Ps 110:1 is quoted in verse 13, a passage commonly applied messianically, here establishing the sonship of Christ once again, with an emphasis on the "right hand," sitting position of the son relative to God.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 1:1. Though this does not reflect the Greek, the English text begins with "God," set off from the remainder of the sentence by a comma. What does this accomplish in feel and tone as one begins to read? Why would the translators do this?
  • Heb 1:1. The language of this first verse is generally exalted in English, with a rhetorical flair. How well does this style reflect the oratorical nature of the Greek? Is this translation justified? What does this rhetorical style accomplish?
  • Heb 1:1. Why does the author mention "the fathers" instead of "our fathers"? Does this reflect the cultural orientation of the author? Does it rather suggest that "the fathers" here are not the general ancestors of the Jews at the time of the writing/speaking of this text? What might one read into the phrase?
  • Heb 1:1. If "the fathers" does not mean "the ancestors of the Jews," but something more specialized, which "prophets" spoke to "the fathers"? Is there a set of particular stories in mind here?
  • Usually time is paired with place in the scriptural idiom. Why is "times" paired with "manners" in this opening of the story? Is there some uniformity of place to be posited here?
  • Heb 1:1. If "God" is the subject of the first sentence, the verb that describes the action God performs does not appear at all until verse 2. What does this relativization do to the material of verse 1? Why would the author postpone the action? Why would the author at once make parenthetical and yet give priority to the contents of this first verse?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author call his times the "last days"?
  • Heb 1:2. Verse 1 mentions "the fathers," while this verse mentions "his Son." Though verse 1 marks "the fathers" as the ones being taught and this verse marks the "Son" as the one teaching, is there meant to be any implicit connection between these terms?
  • Heb 1:2. What does "heir of all things" entail for the "Son"? Is it significant that the Son was "appointed heir" and not born to be heir?
  • Heb 1:2. Why would the author bother to mention the creation in this verse at all, especially when the theme seems to be so completely unconnected with the other themes of the verse?
  • Heb 1:2. The word translated "worlds" in verse 2 is literally the word "eons." What does it mean to make eons? How is it that the Son was involved in making eons?
  • Heb 1:2. Is it significant at all that the "he" who appoints and who takes up the Son in making the worlds is only called "God" and not at all "the Father"? Does this suggest a different understanding in Hebrews of the relation between Christ and God?
  • Heb 1:3. Why is the Son called "the brightness of his [God's] glory"? What sort of a relationship does this imply between the Son and God?
  • Heb 1:3. If the "his" that is italicized in the first phrase of the verse does not reflect the Greek, the phrase might be read "Who being the brightness of glory." How does this change the meaning of this phrase?
  • Heb 1:3. What does the author of Hebrews mean by glory? Where else does this author use the term, and do any other instances provide a basis for understanding what the term means here?
  • Heb 1:3. The phrase "express image" is a translation of a single Greek word: character, obviously the word behind the English "character." How should this word be understood here?
  • Heb 1:3. Is it important that the Son is said here to be the "character" of God's person, rather than the icon? Does this imply something besides physical appearance or representation?
  • Heb 1:3. The Greek word translated "person" is also rather difficult, and is a word that was involved in the hottest theological debates about Trinitarianism anciently. It could be translated "person," "substance," or even "reality." How is this term best read here?
  • Heb 1:3. How does the Son uphold all things by the word of his power? Is it significant that "word" here reflects a different Greek word from John's famous "In the beginning was the Word"? What is "the word of his power"? Whose power is it?
  • Heb 1:3. Does "by himself" imply that the author believes Jesus to have completed the atonement without the help of the Father? Why would the author bother to add this emphatic "by himself"? Might it emphasize lack of help from other sources, perhaps the angels mentioned in the next verse?
  • Heb 1:3. What is the significance of the right hand? Does Ps 110:1 help here?
  • Heb 1:3. Does this act of being seated by God imply some kind of return? Is it significant that the author of Hebrews seems to have understood Jesus to have been first a man and then a God, rather than a God, then a man, and then a God?
  • Heb 1:4. What does it mean to be "so much better than the angels"? Why is this important to the author?
  • Heb 1:4. It seems clear that "inheritance" is key to understanding the distinction between Jesus and the angels. But how should this be read against the Old Testament tradition of calling the angels the "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:4. How is the name the Son inherits "more excellent" than the name the angels inherit? Does "more excellent" ultimately imply that the angels also inherit names? Was this author familiar with Phil 2:9-10?
  • Heb 1:4. Why is the "name" so important here? What kind of a name could the author have in mind? Might this be connected with the Old Testament traditions about the tetragrammaton (YHWH)?
  • Heb 1:5. Is the direct relation of begetting of great importance here? Is it this begetting literal? If it is, does the author understand this to be the difference between this "Son" and the angels or "sons of God"?
  • Heb 1:5. The phrase the author reports God as saying to the Son is a quotation of Ps 2:7. Why would the author focus on that verse specifically? What is so significant about the psalms for the author? Is his reading of the psalm justified in modern terms? What is the relation--even at this early point--between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. Only in this verse is God first called a "Father" to the "Son." Why does the author wait so long to draw this point out?
  • Heb 1:5. The latter part of the verse (following "And again") is a quotation of 2 Sam 7:14. Why would the author take that text as referring to the Son/Jesus? Is this a justified reading? How does this second quotation in a single verse adjust one's understanding of the relationship between Hebrews and the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:5. The language of the second quotation seems to imply a covenant that comes later, rather than something implicit in birth, as does the language of the first quotation on closer inspection. What is the significance of taking up these verses for the Son when they seem to imply that He only became the Son, only came to be begotten?
  • Heb 1:5. Both of the quotations in this verse come from royal settings in the Old Testament. How does this royalty theme play into the theme the author is addressing here?
  • Heb 1:5. What is the relation between "the angels" in this verse and "the prophets" in the first verse?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the rhetorical function of "And again"? In the scriptures translated/dictated by Joseph Smith, this phrase seems to mark breaks in the text. Does it do so here?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of calling the Son the "firstbegotten," which constitutes something of a departure from the theme to this point (simply "begotten")?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation the author draws on here does not appear in the Masoretic text (Deut 32:43), though it does appear in both the (Greek) Septuagint and the Qumran manuscripts (the Dead Sea Scrolls). Does this suggest anything about the theological position of the author?
  • Heb 1:6. The quotation is lifted from the "Song of Moses." Is it significant that the author draws on that most important piece of Old Testament literature?
  • Heb 1:6. Why does the author attribute the phrase to a situation of bringing "the firstbegotten into the world"? What does such an event have to do with the "Song of Moses"?
  • Heb 1:6. What is the significance of the image presented here as a whole (the firstbegotten being presented before so many angels who sing and shout praises to him)? How might this be connected with other scriptures?
  • Heb 1:6. Why would God make an announcement to the angels if He is introducing the Son to the world?
  • Heb 1:6. Might this be connected with the angelic chorus visiting the shepherds?
  • Heb 1:7. This verse quotes Ps 104:4. Why would the author choose to take up that psalm in particular?
  • Heb 1:7. The point of this verse (when it is read against the next verse) is to suggest a difference between the angels and the Son. How is the word "ministers" significant in this comparison?
  • Heb 1:7. Is it significant that the author quotes God as saying something "of" the angels, but (in the next verse) something "unto" the Son?
  • Heb 1:7. The verse from Psalm 104 sets up two parallelisms: "angels" is parallel to "ministers," and "spirits" is parallel to "a flame of fire." What can be drawn from these parallelisms?
  • Heb 1:7. Wouldn't one assume that God makes spirits into angels, not angels into spirits? And wouldn't one assume that God makes flames of fire into ministers, not ministers into a flame of fire? What does it mean for the author of the psalm to put the other way around?
  • Heb 1:7. How does this verse (and the next as well) relate to verse 6? Might these two verses be read as fleshing out the worship scene described there?
  • Heb 1:7. What does this verse suggest about the author's attitude towards the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:8. This verse and the next quote Ps 45:6-7, where the psalmist is quite clearly the speaker. Why would the author attribute these words to God Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. What is the difference (implied by the "But") between the one on the throne and the angels? What does it mean that these angels or ministers would worship Him?
  • Heb 1:8. Is it significant that the throne of the Son is here described as being "for ever and ever"? Does this contradict the earlier implication that the Son had only become the Son?
  • Heb 1:8. How might the tenor of this verse suggest a connection with D&C 121:45-46? What might the content of that cross reference suggest for the meaning of this verse?
  • Heb 1:8. Why, in this quoted psalm, does the song address the nature of the throne and of the sceptre, but not of "God" (the Son?) Himself?
  • Heb 1:8. Why is this the first time the Son is specifically called "God"? What is the significance of that naming? Should it be understood strictly? Is there any other way to understand it (especially in light of the following verse)?
  • Heb 1:9. If the former verse only addresses the royal accoutrements, this verse addresses the nature of "God" directly. What is significant about this shift or about the order in which these addresses are made?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would the psalmist bother to point out what "God" loves and hates? What is meant here by righteousness? Is it significant that the sceptre described in the last verses was a "sceptre of righteousness"?
  • Heb 1:9. How might this language be connected with Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 20:5-6?
  • Heb 1:9. The author gets some mileage out of the word "therefore." Should it be read so strictly? What does its presence here ultimately signify? How else might this psalm be read? Could there be two different singing parts at work in the original?
  • Heb 1:9. t appears that the author reads "thy God" to imply that "God" has a "God." Is this a justified reading of the original psalm? What does this reading suggest about the author's relation to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:9. What would it mean for a God to have a God? How is the Son a God and the Father a God also? Did the author of Hebrews have as brought a theology as Latter-day Saint do today?
  • Heb 1:9. Why would one God anoint another? How is this anointing connected with the throne and sceptre of the previous verse?
  • Heb 1:9. Why does the psalmist call the oil "the oil of gladness"? What does this phrase mean?
  • Heb 1:9. How does anointing set one "above [one's] fellows"? Who would the Son's "fellows" have been? What relation obtains between angels and gods here? Might this have been an influence on Joseph Smith's thinking?
  • Heb 1:10. The word "And" here is meant to mark a leap from one quotation to another (this and the following two verses quote Ps 102:25-27). Why doesn't the author make this leap clearer? Would the author be content with a conflation of two very different psalms?
  • Heb 1:10. How does this near conflation of two psalms affect one's reading of them? Does one sense a disruption in flow? Is there any way to read them as a continuous thought? Is this what the author intended?
  • Heb 1:10. Is one to assume that the author understands these words also to be spoken by God to the Son (as God)? Why would God call the Son Lord?
  • Heb 1:10. This quotation imputes to the Son the work of creation. Where else might such an idea be found in the Bible? Does the apparent split between Father and Son imply a kind of division of labor here?
  • Heb 1:10. The author picks up the psalmist's parallel of "earth" and "heaven," a double structure the author uses over and over again through the text. This same double structure is very prevalent in the JST. What significance is there to the pairing of heaven and earth? Why would it appear so much in the JST? Why does the author take the pair up so thoroughly in his own text?
  • Heb 1:10. What does it mean to lay "the foundation of the earth"? Should this be understood in physical terms or in spiritual terms? What kind of a cosmological picture is being drawn here?
  • Heb 1:10. Is it significant that the psalmist, and hence the author, takes the Son back to "the beginning"? How might this point be read?
  • Heb 1:10. The psalmist mentions the "hands" of the Son. How should one read this anthropomorphism?
  • Heb 1:10. How might this creation business be read against the apparent becoming of the Son?
  • Heb 1:10. How might the phrasing of this verse generally be connected up with the content of Moses 1?
  • Heb 1:11. This verse (and the next as well) continues a quotation of Ps 102:25-27. How does the author's quotation of these verses reveal his relation to the Old Testament in general?
  • Heb 1:11. If the previous verse revealed the Son to be the creator, this verse compares that creation to Him and to the detriment of the creation. Why would the author make that comparison? Why would the author spend more time describing the creation and the dissolution of that creation and so little time on the relative permanence of the Creator?
  • Heb 1:11. If the pair of heaven and earth are so prevalent in Hebrews (and in the JST), how should the fact that this verse declares that "they shall perish" be read? Does this mark a kind of devaluation of one of Hebrews' most important themes?
  • Heb 1:11. What does it mean to say "but thou remainest"? It is clearly set in parallel to "they shall perish." Does this offer any insight into what this phrase means?
  • Heb 1:11. hat kind of a relation is implied between the Creator and His creation here? Might this be a source for traditional theological understandings of that relation?
  • Heb 1:11. hat does it mean to say that the heaven and the earth will "wax old as doth a garment"? What does this metaphor accomplish? Is it a good comparison? Might there be allusions in this metaphor (to ancient temple clothing perhaps)?
  • Heb 1:12. The first part of this verse sets up a parallelism to the last phrase of the previous verse. How does this phrase expand on the former? How should one think about the differences in imagery?
  • Heb 1:12. Again the heaven and the earth are pictured as clothing. Why would the author choose to employ this imagery? What would it mean to "fold... up" or to "roll... up" (NRSV) the heaven and the earth? Does this imply some kind of intertwining or continuity between the heaven and the earth?
  • Heb 1:12. Why does this phrase suggest action on the part of the Lord, whereas the former seems to suggest something beyond the will of the Lord? Might the former be related to space while this phrase is related to time?
  • Heb 1:12. What does it mean to say that the Son is "the same"? How is this phrase related to the phrase "but thou remainest"? Can this phrase be understood temporally, or does it imply some kind of non-temporality?
  • Heb 1:12. Parallel to the last phrase is "thy years shall not fail"? If the first part of the parallel suggests some kind of non-temporality, why does this suggest temporality? What does it mean to say the Son's "years shall not fail"?
  • Heb 1:12. This verse concludes a five-verse stretch meant to set up the Son as over against the angels (who are described in quotation as well in verse 7). Why would the author have quoted especially these last three verses, when they seem to have little relation to the author's assertions about the angels?
  • Heb 1:12. How do verses 10-12 expand verses 8-9? If the earlier verses present the exaltation of an earthly figure, these last three verses present an unchangeable God from all eternity. How can these be reconciled? Why would the author choose to put these side by side?
  • Heb 1:12. What can all of these verses together tell us about the theological presuppositions of the author? Why can they tell us about the author's relationship to the Old Testament?
  • Heb 1:13. After five verses on the Son, the author returns to question of the angels. Why would the author come back to the lesser? Is there a need to make a stronger case still?
  • Heb 1:13. Why does the author make this verse a question rather than an assertion? Does this weaken the argument or strengthen it? Should this question be understood to be rhetorical? What effect do rhetorical questions have on thinking? What appeal does a rhetorical question make, and what presuppositions guide it?
  • Heb 1:13. How should one read the particularity of the question asked here? That is, why does the author put the question in terms of "to which of the angels" rather than something like "Has He ever said to an angel"? What does this particularity accomplish? Why is it significant that the reader is called on to identify? Might there be a positive answer? Might that answer be the Son Himself (an angel exalted)?
  • Heb 1:13. he saying that concludes the verse is a quotation of Ps 110:1, and that psalm will become central to the argument of the whole book. Why would the author introduce this most central psalm in a question, and an ambiguous one at that? What effect does this have on the argument that will come?
  • Heb 1:13. Taking up a quotation of the Old Testament within so particular a question is really a unique literary device. How does this further articulate the author's relationship to the Old Testament? What else might this tell us about the author's thinking?
  • Heb 1:13. There may be an allusion to this same verse in the psalms in verse 3. What connection is there between this verse and that one? Why would there be a connection made here? Does this full-blown quotation strengthen the possibility of verse 3 being an allusion?
  • Heb 1:13. What is the significance, again, of the right hand? What would it mean to sit there?
  • Heb 1:13. If verse 3 mentions the right hand, it does not mention this question of enemies. How should one interpret the saying about the enemies? What would it mean for enemies to become a footstool?
  • Heb 1:13. If God (apparently the Father) is the one who will put the enemies of the Son under His feet, what is the work of the Son? Does this verse suggest a kind of absolute exaltation without any effort on the Son's part?
  • Heb 1:13. Because of the question-structure of this verse, the author seems to assume that angels would have enemies. What would an angel's enemy be? Might this be connected with Joseph Smith's teachings about spirits seeking power over one another?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse adds a second question to the first, this one phrased negatively. What is the difference between the negative and positive questions? Does this follow-up with a negative question affect the foregoing positive question? Does it function in any way as a kind of answer? If it does, how can an author answer a positive question with a negative question? What are the literary consequences of this?
  • Heb 1:14. f the previous verse focuses on particularity, this verse moves to universality. Does this question answer the first question by making that shift? Does this verse amount to a denial of any kind of particularity amongst angels?
  • Heb 1:14. This verse is the first since verse 4 that does not contain a quotation of the Old Testament. Why would the author leave off the Old Testament here? How does a question without quotation differ from a question with quotation? Why would the author choose to place the quotation within the positive question?
  • Heb 1:14. That this verse leaves off quotation highlights how lengthy a stretch of varied quotations there are in this chapter. Why would the author string so many together at the very beginning of the book (something the author never does again so continuously)? How do these quotations strengthen the argument? How might they weaken it? What is the significance of quotation or allusion?
  • Heb 1:14. What does it mean to speak of "ministering spirits"? Why would this title apply to "all" angels?
  • Heb 1:14. If the angels are all "sent forth," does this verse imply that God does say something to the angels, though none of them is chosen to sit on the throne?
  • Heb 1:14. Who are the "heirs of salvation"? What kind of a theology is implied in this statement? Is it significant that this phrase is introduced within a rhetorical question? How does the question format of the verse alter the nature of that theology?
  • Heb 1:14. Is there any significance in the phrase "who shall"? Why are the heirs displaced to the future? How might this affect the theology behind the phrase "heirs of salvation"?
  • Heb 1:14. What kind of a worldview (view, perhaps, of the plan of salvation) is behind this question? What is the function of angels? How do they relate to the Son in these terms?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Hebrews                      Next page: Chapter 3-4

Heb 3:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 3-4
Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. In this verse, the Logos is described as piercing (diikneomai) and creating a "dividing assunder" (the Greek noun merismos). Merismos appears only one other time in the New Testament, in Heb 2:4, where it is translated as the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The words translated here as soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma) have a long and complex history in Greek thought, and we should be careful about taking these to mean the same thing that we mean by the English terms soul and spirit.
  • Heb 4:14-16. Verse 14 actually forms a more natural break than chapter 5. In particular, with this verse we move into the priesthood-temple section of Hebrews. Thus, in verse 14 we see the reference to Jesus as the high priest. The image is central to the author's argument for the superiority of Christianity to the older law of Moses. In identifying Jesus as a high priest the author places him in the context both of priesthood and of the temple.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." This sentence touches on a Christological point that is also made in the Book of Mormon, namely that Christ's suffering was important because it gave him the capacity to empathize with our suffering. The author extends the point, however, to include temptation itself. In the Doctrine & Covenants it says that Christ did not recieve of a fullness at first but had to learn precept upon precept. The Christology in Hebrews doesn't seem to have the same progressive aspect, but like the Doctrine & Covenants it is at pains to emphasize Christ's humanity and make it theologically significant.
In verse 16 the author invites us to go to the "throne of grace." This is a reference to the believer's assent to God. It is also a reference to the temple, where the high priest symbolically came into God's presence within the Holy of Holies of the temple on the day of Atonement. The image, however, is changed in at least two subtle ways. First, the invitation to enter God's presence is extended to all believers, not simply to the chosen high priest. Second, the imagery is hopeful. As we shall see later on, the contrast between the awe-filled spirituality of the law of Moses and the hopeful spirituality of the Christian message is a central theme for the author.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. LDS scriptures state that the body and spirit united make up the soul of a person, so how can the word of God separate the soul from the spirit? How are the words soul and spirit being used here?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7

Heb 3:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 3-4
Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. In this verse, the Logos is described as piercing (diikneomai) and creating a "dividing assunder" (the Greek noun merismos). Merismos appears only one other time in the New Testament, in Heb 2:4, where it is translated as the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The words translated here as soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma) have a long and complex history in Greek thought, and we should be careful about taking these to mean the same thing that we mean by the English terms soul and spirit.
  • Heb 4:14-16. Verse 14 actually forms a more natural break than chapter 5. In particular, with this verse we move into the priesthood-temple section of Hebrews. Thus, in verse 14 we see the reference to Jesus as the high priest. The image is central to the author's argument for the superiority of Christianity to the older law of Moses. In identifying Jesus as a high priest the author places him in the context both of priesthood and of the temple.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." This sentence touches on a Christological point that is also made in the Book of Mormon, namely that Christ's suffering was important because it gave him the capacity to empathize with our suffering. The author extends the point, however, to include temptation itself. In the Doctrine & Covenants it says that Christ did not recieve of a fullness at first but had to learn precept upon precept. The Christology in Hebrews doesn't seem to have the same progressive aspect, but like the Doctrine & Covenants it is at pains to emphasize Christ's humanity and make it theologically significant.
In verse 16 the author invites us to go to the "throne of grace." This is a reference to the believer's assent to God. It is also a reference to the temple, where the high priest symbolically came into God's presence within the Holy of Holies of the temple on the day of Atonement. The image, however, is changed in at least two subtle ways. First, the invitation to enter God's presence is extended to all believers, not simply to the chosen high priest. Second, the imagery is hopeful. As we shall see later on, the contrast between the awe-filled spirituality of the law of Moses and the hopeful spirituality of the Christian message is a central theme for the author.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. LDS scriptures state that the body and spirit united make up the soul of a person, so how can the word of God separate the soul from the spirit? How are the words soul and spirit being used here?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7

Heb 3:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 3-4
Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. In this verse, the Logos is described as piercing (diikneomai) and creating a "dividing assunder" (the Greek noun merismos). Merismos appears only one other time in the New Testament, in Heb 2:4, where it is translated as the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The words translated here as soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma) have a long and complex history in Greek thought, and we should be careful about taking these to mean the same thing that we mean by the English terms soul and spirit.
  • Heb 4:14-16. Verse 14 actually forms a more natural break than chapter 5. In particular, with this verse we move into the priesthood-temple section of Hebrews. Thus, in verse 14 we see the reference to Jesus as the high priest. The image is central to the author's argument for the superiority of Christianity to the older law of Moses. In identifying Jesus as a high priest the author places him in the context both of priesthood and of the temple.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." This sentence touches on a Christological point that is also made in the Book of Mormon, namely that Christ's suffering was important because it gave him the capacity to empathize with our suffering. The author extends the point, however, to include temptation itself. In the Doctrine & Covenants it says that Christ did not recieve of a fullness at first but had to learn precept upon precept. The Christology in Hebrews doesn't seem to have the same progressive aspect, but like the Doctrine & Covenants it is at pains to emphasize Christ's humanity and make it theologically significant.
In verse 16 the author invites us to go to the "throne of grace." This is a reference to the believer's assent to God. It is also a reference to the temple, where the high priest symbolically came into God's presence within the Holy of Holies of the temple on the day of Atonement. The image, however, is changed in at least two subtle ways. First, the invitation to enter God's presence is extended to all believers, not simply to the chosen high priest. Second, the imagery is hopeful. As we shall see later on, the contrast between the awe-filled spirituality of the law of Moses and the hopeful spirituality of the Christian message is a central theme for the author.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. LDS scriptures state that the body and spirit united make up the soul of a person, so how can the word of God separate the soul from the spirit? How are the words soul and spirit being used here?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7

Heb 3:16-19

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 3-4
Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. In this verse, the Logos is described as piercing (diikneomai) and creating a "dividing assunder" (the Greek noun merismos). Merismos appears only one other time in the New Testament, in Heb 2:4, where it is translated as the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The words translated here as soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma) have a long and complex history in Greek thought, and we should be careful about taking these to mean the same thing that we mean by the English terms soul and spirit.
  • Heb 4:14-16. Verse 14 actually forms a more natural break than chapter 5. In particular, with this verse we move into the priesthood-temple section of Hebrews. Thus, in verse 14 we see the reference to Jesus as the high priest. The image is central to the author's argument for the superiority of Christianity to the older law of Moses. In identifying Jesus as a high priest the author places him in the context both of priesthood and of the temple.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." This sentence touches on a Christological point that is also made in the Book of Mormon, namely that Christ's suffering was important because it gave him the capacity to empathize with our suffering. The author extends the point, however, to include temptation itself. In the Doctrine & Covenants it says that Christ did not recieve of a fullness at first but had to learn precept upon precept. The Christology in Hebrews doesn't seem to have the same progressive aspect, but like the Doctrine & Covenants it is at pains to emphasize Christ's humanity and make it theologically significant.
In verse 16 the author invites us to go to the "throne of grace." This is a reference to the believer's assent to God. It is also a reference to the temple, where the high priest symbolically came into God's presence within the Holy of Holies of the temple on the day of Atonement. The image, however, is changed in at least two subtle ways. First, the invitation to enter God's presence is extended to all believers, not simply to the chosen high priest. Second, the imagery is hopeful. As we shall see later on, the contrast between the awe-filled spirituality of the law of Moses and the hopeful spirituality of the Christian message is a central theme for the author.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. LDS scriptures state that the body and spirit united make up the soul of a person, so how can the word of God separate the soul from the spirit? How are the words soul and spirit being used here?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7

Heb 4:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 3-4
Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. In this verse, the Logos is described as piercing (diikneomai) and creating a "dividing assunder" (the Greek noun merismos). Merismos appears only one other time in the New Testament, in Heb 2:4, where it is translated as the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The words translated here as soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma) have a long and complex history in Greek thought, and we should be careful about taking these to mean the same thing that we mean by the English terms soul and spirit.
  • Heb 4:14-16. Verse 14 actually forms a more natural break than chapter 5. In particular, with this verse we move into the priesthood-temple section of Hebrews. Thus, in verse 14 we see the reference to Jesus as the high priest. The image is central to the author's argument for the superiority of Christianity to the older law of Moses. In identifying Jesus as a high priest the author places him in the context both of priesthood and of the temple.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." This sentence touches on a Christological point that is also made in the Book of Mormon, namely that Christ's suffering was important because it gave him the capacity to empathize with our suffering. The author extends the point, however, to include temptation itself. In the Doctrine & Covenants it says that Christ did not recieve of a fullness at first but had to learn precept upon precept. The Christology in Hebrews doesn't seem to have the same progressive aspect, but like the Doctrine & Covenants it is at pains to emphasize Christ's humanity and make it theologically significant.
In verse 16 the author invites us to go to the "throne of grace." This is a reference to the believer's assent to God. It is also a reference to the temple, where the high priest symbolically came into God's presence within the Holy of Holies of the temple on the day of Atonement. The image, however, is changed in at least two subtle ways. First, the invitation to enter God's presence is extended to all believers, not simply to the chosen high priest. Second, the imagery is hopeful. As we shall see later on, the contrast between the awe-filled spirituality of the law of Moses and the hopeful spirituality of the Christian message is a central theme for the author.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. LDS scriptures state that the body and spirit united make up the soul of a person, so how can the word of God separate the soul from the spirit? How are the words soul and spirit being used here?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7

Heb 4:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 3-4
Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. In this verse, the Logos is described as piercing (diikneomai) and creating a "dividing assunder" (the Greek noun merismos). Merismos appears only one other time in the New Testament, in Heb 2:4, where it is translated as the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The words translated here as soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma) have a long and complex history in Greek thought, and we should be careful about taking these to mean the same thing that we mean by the English terms soul and spirit.
  • Heb 4:14-16. Verse 14 actually forms a more natural break than chapter 5. In particular, with this verse we move into the priesthood-temple section of Hebrews. Thus, in verse 14 we see the reference to Jesus as the high priest. The image is central to the author's argument for the superiority of Christianity to the older law of Moses. In identifying Jesus as a high priest the author places him in the context both of priesthood and of the temple.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." This sentence touches on a Christological point that is also made in the Book of Mormon, namely that Christ's suffering was important because it gave him the capacity to empathize with our suffering. The author extends the point, however, to include temptation itself. In the Doctrine & Covenants it says that Christ did not recieve of a fullness at first but had to learn precept upon precept. The Christology in Hebrews doesn't seem to have the same progressive aspect, but like the Doctrine & Covenants it is at pains to emphasize Christ's humanity and make it theologically significant.
In verse 16 the author invites us to go to the "throne of grace." This is a reference to the believer's assent to God. It is also a reference to the temple, where the high priest symbolically came into God's presence within the Holy of Holies of the temple on the day of Atonement. The image, however, is changed in at least two subtle ways. First, the invitation to enter God's presence is extended to all believers, not simply to the chosen high priest. Second, the imagery is hopeful. As we shall see later on, the contrast between the awe-filled spirituality of the law of Moses and the hopeful spirituality of the Christian message is a central theme for the author.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. LDS scriptures state that the body and spirit united make up the soul of a person, so how can the word of God separate the soul from the spirit? How are the words soul and spirit being used here?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7

Heb 4:11-16

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 3-4
Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. In this verse, the Logos is described as piercing (diikneomai) and creating a "dividing assunder" (the Greek noun merismos). Merismos appears only one other time in the New Testament, in Heb 2:4, where it is translated as the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The words translated here as soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma) have a long and complex history in Greek thought, and we should be careful about taking these to mean the same thing that we mean by the English terms soul and spirit.
  • Heb 4:14-16. Verse 14 actually forms a more natural break than chapter 5. In particular, with this verse we move into the priesthood-temple section of Hebrews. Thus, in verse 14 we see the reference to Jesus as the high priest. The image is central to the author's argument for the superiority of Christianity to the older law of Moses. In identifying Jesus as a high priest the author places him in the context both of priesthood and of the temple.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." This sentence touches on a Christological point that is also made in the Book of Mormon, namely that Christ's suffering was important because it gave him the capacity to empathize with our suffering. The author extends the point, however, to include temptation itself. In the Doctrine & Covenants it says that Christ did not recieve of a fullness at first but had to learn precept upon precept. The Christology in Hebrews doesn't seem to have the same progressive aspect, but like the Doctrine & Covenants it is at pains to emphasize Christ's humanity and make it theologically significant.
In verse 16 the author invites us to go to the "throne of grace." This is a reference to the believer's assent to God. It is also a reference to the temple, where the high priest symbolically came into God's presence within the Holy of Holies of the temple on the day of Atonement. The image, however, is changed in at least two subtle ways. First, the invitation to enter God's presence is extended to all believers, not simply to the chosen high priest. Second, the imagery is hopeful. As we shall see later on, the contrast between the awe-filled spirituality of the law of Moses and the hopeful spirituality of the Christian message is a central theme for the author.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 4:12. LDS scriptures state that the body and spirit united make up the soul of a person, so how can the word of God separate the soul from the spirit? How are the words soul and spirit being used here?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 1-2                      Next page: Chapter 5-7

Heb 5:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 5a / Verses 5:1-10
Previous page: Chapter 5-7                      Next page: Chapter 5b-6


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

A 19th century engraving of a Levitical high priest
  • Heb 5:1-5: Office of high priest. These verses offer a commentary on the office of a high priest. The author is setting up a contrast between the earthly high priest of the temple and Christ as a cosmic high priest. He starts by talking about the high priest strictly in terms of his liturgical function. He is ordained to perform particular ordinances: gifts and sacrifices for sins. The sacrifice for sins is particularly important. It references the high priest’s role in the expiation of the sins of the nation. In this role, the high priest is a mediator between man and God, a role that the author also places Christ in.
  • Heb 5:2. The author now moves away from the formal understanding of the high priest’s role to a more humane understanding. It is the priest’s weakness – “compassed with infirmity” – that gives him compassion on the sinfulness of the people. Notice that this creates another parallel with Christ, who is referred to in Heb 4:15 as “touched with the feelings of our infirmities” and “tempted like we are”.
  • Heb 5:3. This verse sets up a contrast between Christ and the high priest. Whereas the mortal high priest makes an offering for his sins and the sins of the people, Christ is without sin. In a sense, we see Christ as a purification of the high priest, carrying his understanding and compassion for weakness and sinfulness but not his sinfulness itself.
"And by reason hereof . . .": That is, by reason of the high priest's infirmity (v. 2).
". . . he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.": The high priest should make an offering for his own sins (cf. Lev 16:6 and Lev 16:11) as well as for the sins of the people (cf. Lev 16:15).
  • Heb 5:4-5. This is a favorite Mormon proof text for the necessity of priesthood ordination. In context, what is interesting is the extent to which the author sees being called from something beyond oneself as important. The virtue of the high priest lies not only in his compassion and sacrifice, but also in his passivity: he does not reach for the office; it is bestowed upon him. In the very next verse this idea is expanded upon with reference to Christ who “glorified not himself to be made an high priest” (v. 5). The Revised Standard Version translates this language from verse 5 as “he did not confer on himself the glory of becoming high priest.” The meaning is subtly different, as it suggests not an absence of glory in being high priest – it is indeed a glory – but rather that it was not taken up for its own sake.
  • Heb 5:4-5: Passivity. The virtue of passivity—of receiving the glory of the high priesthood rather than taking it—that is emphasized in these verses contrasts with the exhortation in Heb 4:16, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” The tension cannot be avoided by arguing that the grace spoken of is wholly different than the glory of the high priesthood. The reason is that coming to the throne of grace is about entering the presence of God to receive mercy. Yet this is precisely the office of the high priesthood alluded to in verse 1. The sin offering was brought by the high priest into the presence of God—the Holy of Holies—on the Day of Atonement. In a sense, the exhortation of 4:16 is an exhortation to perform a priestly function.
One possible answer is that salvation through Christ is ultimately being conceptualized as a kind of temple-related priesthood. Or rather, the temple and priesthood are being offered as a model—and enactment—of salvation through Christ. At this point the exegesis admittedly becomes quite speculative (perhaps a strong misreading in Harold Bloom's terms), but the exortation in 4:16 may be an invitation for the believers themselves to become priests, entering in the the Holy of Holies of the temple, a place from which they were categorically excluded under the law of Moses. In other words, the assertiveness called for in 4:16 is a new understanding of temple worship, from the passivity of the old service, where a single priest was chosen to enter symbolically into God's presence, with the rest of the nation passively looking on, to a new service were all believers are invited to put aside the awe and horror associated with entry into God's presence, and couragously go beyond the veil into the Holy of Holies. At this point, there is a uniquely LDS twist on the interpretation of Hebrews. Traditionally, Christians have interpreated the references to the "Melchisedec" priesthood of Christ in spiritual, metaphorical, and cosmic terms. The Restoration, however, suggests a much more literal reading, namely that the priesthood is actually confered on individuals who then use it to recieve their temple endowments and enter -- symbolically, like the Levitical high priest -- the presence of God. In other words, we are invited to boldly go where in the past only the one chosen high priest of Israel could go: ritually into the presence of God.
Another possibility is that boldly (parrhesia) in "come boldly unto the throne of God" is not mean to suggest an assertiveness in approaching God that stands in contrast to the passivity recommended in these verses. Instead boldly in 4:16 may be better understood to mean openly, frankly, i.e., without concealment. In that view, instead of interpreting 4:16 as a suggestion, for example, that we should boldly march to the temple, 4:16 counsels us to open ourselves to God as we approach his throne. This intepretation makes 4:16 a natural continuation of the ideas about God discerning thoughts and intents in 4:12 and having "all things . . . naked and opened" unto him in 4:13.
On this view, there is not so much a tension between passivity and assertiveness, rather the passivity in being called of God is one facet of a broader submission to and unity with God that we should strive for by also "hold[ing] fast our profession" of God (4:14), relating to God's infirmities (4:15), opening ourselves to God (4:16), offering prayers to God (5:7), and learning and suffering like God (5:8).
  • Heb 5:6, 10: Melchizedek. This was quite likely a title rather than a proper name. It means "King of Righteousness."
 The LORD says to my lord: 
 Sit at my right hand,
 till I make your enemies your footstool.
 The LORD sent forth from Zion your mighty scepter
 Rule in the midst of your foes!
 Your people will offer themselves freely
 on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains.
 From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you.
 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind,
 You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
 The Lord is at your right hand; 
 he will chasten kings on the day of his wrath.
 He will execute judgment among the nations,
 filling them with corpses;
 He will shatter chiefs over the wide earth.
 He will drink from the brook by the way;
 therefore he will lift up his head. (RSV)
This is a royal psalm, most likely composed for a coronation. In applying it to Christ, the author does a number of things. First, he identifies Christ's priesthood as different than the priesthood of the mortal high priest. It is Melchizedek rather than Aaronic. Second, Christ is identified with the priest-king, who combines both religious and political authority. In contrast, the high priest of vv. 1-4 is not a king. Third, the meaning of Jesus's title as Christ, i.e. "the annointed one," is explained by the reference to this psalm, for at his coronation a king (like a high priest at his ordination) was annointed with oil.
The introduction of a Melchisedec priesthood also hits on a theme that will show up later in the discussion of the temple, namely the notion that the temple on earth is a model of the temple in the heavens. In a sense, Christ becomes the heavenly model of the earthly high priest. Some have suggested that the presistence of this imagery betrays a latent Platonism in Hebrews, with the heavenly being real, and the earthly being but a shadow. It is not clear, however, that the author is ascribing some sort of lesser reality to either the earthly high priest or the earthly temple. Interestingly, the Restoration scriptures do not read the dualism between Aaronic priesthood and "Melchisedec" priesthood in ontological terms but rather in legal terms. It is not that one priesthood is real and the other is a copy, but rather that one priesthood carries greater authority, subsuming the powers of the lesser priesthood in its own greater powers. The powers of the lower priesthood, however, are nevertheless very real.
  • Heb 5:7: In that he feared. This phrase is translated "because of his piety" in the NASV and "for his godly fear" in the RSV (cf. footnote d).
  • Heb 5:7-8. Here we have what looks like a reference to Chirst's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. Notice that this again emphasizes Christ's personal suffering, what in philosophical terms might be called his passability. Notice, that we get a reference not to sweat that came like drops of blood, but to tears. The image of the weeping God also occurs in Moses, when God shows Enoch the wickedness of the world and weeps in sorrow (Moses 7:28). This notion of Christ's empathy through suffering seems to be a central part of how the author understands the Atonement, coupling it with his interpretation of Christ as a sin offering and mediating high priest. We thus have a soteriology that contains both empathic and substitutionary ideas.
  • Heb 5:9. The reference here to "eternal salvation" is important. In a sense, the Levitical high priest was also the author of the salvation of the nation each year when he took the sin offering into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. This salvation, however, was limited. It lasted only the year and had to be repeated annually to maintain the reconcilliation between Israel and God. As high priest Christ also makes a sin offering—of his own blood and sacrifice—but the salvation obtained is eternal rather than annual.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:2: Have compassion on. The Greek term translated “have compassion on” is “metriopathein.” It does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament. It does pop up, however, as a technical term in Stoic philosophy where it is defined as the proper mean between passion and lack of feeling.
  • Heb 5:6, 10. Why is is the reference to a priest "after the order of Melchizedek" repeated in v. 6 and v. 10?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Does God Suffer? by Thomas G. Weinandy Copyright (c) 2001 First Things 117 (November 2001): 35-41. This article argues, from a general Christian perspective, why God should be viewed as impassible. Gives a good overview of the main issues and trends regarding this issue over the years.

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5-7                      Next page: Chapter 5b-6

Heb 5:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 5a / Verses 5:1-10
Previous page: Chapter 5-7                      Next page: Chapter 5b-6


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

A 19th century engraving of a Levitical high priest
  • Heb 5:1-5: Office of high priest. These verses offer a commentary on the office of a high priest. The author is setting up a contrast between the earthly high priest of the temple and Christ as a cosmic high priest. He starts by talking about the high priest strictly in terms of his liturgical function. He is ordained to perform particular ordinances: gifts and sacrifices for sins. The sacrifice for sins is particularly important. It references the high priest’s role in the expiation of the sins of the nation. In this role, the high priest is a mediator between man and God, a role that the author also places Christ in.
  • Heb 5:2. The author now moves away from the formal understanding of the high priest’s role to a more humane understanding. It is the priest’s weakness – “compassed with infirmity” – that gives him compassion on the sinfulness of the people. Notice that this creates another parallel with Christ, who is referred to in Heb 4:15 as “touched with the feelings of our infirmities” and “tempted like we are”.
  • Heb 5:3. This verse sets up a contrast between Christ and the high priest. Whereas the mortal high priest makes an offering for his sins and the sins of the people, Christ is without sin. In a sense, we see Christ as a purification of the high priest, carrying his understanding and compassion for weakness and sinfulness but not his sinfulness itself.
"And by reason hereof . . .": That is, by reason of the high priest's infirmity (v. 2).
". . . he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.": The high priest should make an offering for his own sins (cf. Lev 16:6 and Lev 16:11) as well as for the sins of the people (cf. Lev 16:15).
  • Heb 5:4-5. This is a favorite Mormon proof text for the necessity of priesthood ordination. In context, what is interesting is the extent to which the author sees being called from something beyond oneself as important. The virtue of the high priest lies not only in his compassion and sacrifice, but also in his passivity: he does not reach for the office; it is bestowed upon him. In the very next verse this idea is expanded upon with reference to Christ who “glorified not himself to be made an high priest” (v. 5). The Revised Standard Version translates this language from verse 5 as “he did not confer on himself the glory of becoming high priest.” The meaning is subtly different, as it suggests not an absence of glory in being high priest – it is indeed a glory – but rather that it was not taken up for its own sake.
  • Heb 5:4-5: Passivity. The virtue of passivity—of receiving the glory of the high priesthood rather than taking it—that is emphasized in these verses contrasts with the exhortation in Heb 4:16, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” The tension cannot be avoided by arguing that the grace spoken of is wholly different than the glory of the high priesthood. The reason is that coming to the throne of grace is about entering the presence of God to receive mercy. Yet this is precisely the office of the high priesthood alluded to in verse 1. The sin offering was brought by the high priest into the presence of God—the Holy of Holies—on the Day of Atonement. In a sense, the exhortation of 4:16 is an exhortation to perform a priestly function.
One possible answer is that salvation through Christ is ultimately being conceptualized as a kind of temple-related priesthood. Or rather, the temple and priesthood are being offered as a model—and enactment—of salvation through Christ. At this point the exegesis admittedly becomes quite speculative (perhaps a strong misreading in Harold Bloom's terms), but the exortation in 4:16 may be an invitation for the believers themselves to become priests, entering in the the Holy of Holies of the temple, a place from which they were categorically excluded under the law of Moses. In other words, the assertiveness called for in 4:16 is a new understanding of temple worship, from the passivity of the old service, where a single priest was chosen to enter symbolically into God's presence, with the rest of the nation passively looking on, to a new service were all believers are invited to put aside the awe and horror associated with entry into God's presence, and couragously go beyond the veil into the Holy of Holies. At this point, there is a uniquely LDS twist on the interpretation of Hebrews. Traditionally, Christians have interpreated the references to the "Melchisedec" priesthood of Christ in spiritual, metaphorical, and cosmic terms. The Restoration, however, suggests a much more literal reading, namely that the priesthood is actually confered on individuals who then use it to recieve their temple endowments and enter -- symbolically, like the Levitical high priest -- the presence of God. In other words, we are invited to boldly go where in the past only the one chosen high priest of Israel could go: ritually into the presence of God.
Another possibility is that boldly (parrhesia) in "come boldly unto the throne of God" is not mean to suggest an assertiveness in approaching God that stands in contrast to the passivity recommended in these verses. Instead boldly in 4:16 may be better understood to mean openly, frankly, i.e., without concealment. In that view, instead of interpreting 4:16 as a suggestion, for example, that we should boldly march to the temple, 4:16 counsels us to open ourselves to God as we approach his throne. This intepretation makes 4:16 a natural continuation of the ideas about God discerning thoughts and intents in 4:12 and having "all things . . . naked and opened" unto him in 4:13.
On this view, there is not so much a tension between passivity and assertiveness, rather the passivity in being called of God is one facet of a broader submission to and unity with God that we should strive for by also "hold[ing] fast our profession" of God (4:14), relating to God's infirmities (4:15), opening ourselves to God (4:16), offering prayers to God (5:7), and learning and suffering like God (5:8).
  • Heb 5:6, 10: Melchizedek. This was quite likely a title rather than a proper name. It means "King of Righteousness."
 The LORD says to my lord: 
 Sit at my right hand,
 till I make your enemies your footstool.
 The LORD sent forth from Zion your mighty scepter
 Rule in the midst of your foes!
 Your people will offer themselves freely
 on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains.
 From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you.
 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind,
 You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
 The Lord is at your right hand; 
 he will chasten kings on the day of his wrath.
 He will execute judgment among the nations,
 filling them with corpses;
 He will shatter chiefs over the wide earth.
 He will drink from the brook by the way;
 therefore he will lift up his head. (RSV)
This is a royal psalm, most likely composed for a coronation. In applying it to Christ, the author does a number of things. First, he identifies Christ's priesthood as different than the priesthood of the mortal high priest. It is Melchizedek rather than Aaronic. Second, Christ is identified with the priest-king, who combines both religious and political authority. In contrast, the high priest of vv. 1-4 is not a king. Third, the meaning of Jesus's title as Christ, i.e. "the annointed one," is explained by the reference to this psalm, for at his coronation a king (like a high priest at his ordination) was annointed with oil.
The introduction of a Melchisedec priesthood also hits on a theme that will show up later in the discussion of the temple, namely the notion that the temple on earth is a model of the temple in the heavens. In a sense, Christ becomes the heavenly model of the earthly high priest. Some have suggested that the presistence of this imagery betrays a latent Platonism in Hebrews, with the heavenly being real, and the earthly being but a shadow. It is not clear, however, that the author is ascribing some sort of lesser reality to either the earthly high priest or the earthly temple. Interestingly, the Restoration scriptures do not read the dualism between Aaronic priesthood and "Melchisedec" priesthood in ontological terms but rather in legal terms. It is not that one priesthood is real and the other is a copy, but rather that one priesthood carries greater authority, subsuming the powers of the lesser priesthood in its own greater powers. The powers of the lower priesthood, however, are nevertheless very real.
  • Heb 5:7: In that he feared. This phrase is translated "because of his piety" in the NASV and "for his godly fear" in the RSV (cf. footnote d).
  • Heb 5:7-8. Here we have what looks like a reference to Chirst's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. Notice that this again emphasizes Christ's personal suffering, what in philosophical terms might be called his passability. Notice, that we get a reference not to sweat that came like drops of blood, but to tears. The image of the weeping God also occurs in Moses, when God shows Enoch the wickedness of the world and weeps in sorrow (Moses 7:28). This notion of Christ's empathy through suffering seems to be a central part of how the author understands the Atonement, coupling it with his interpretation of Christ as a sin offering and mediating high priest. We thus have a soteriology that contains both empathic and substitutionary ideas.
  • Heb 5:9. The reference here to "eternal salvation" is important. In a sense, the Levitical high priest was also the author of the salvation of the nation each year when he took the sin offering into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. This salvation, however, was limited. It lasted only the year and had to be repeated annually to maintain the reconcilliation between Israel and God. As high priest Christ also makes a sin offering—of his own blood and sacrifice—but the salvation obtained is eternal rather than annual.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:2: Have compassion on. The Greek term translated “have compassion on” is “metriopathein.” It does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament. It does pop up, however, as a technical term in Stoic philosophy where it is defined as the proper mean between passion and lack of feeling.
  • Heb 5:6, 10. Why is is the reference to a priest "after the order of Melchizedek" repeated in v. 6 and v. 10?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Does God Suffer? by Thomas G. Weinandy Copyright (c) 2001 First Things 117 (November 2001): 35-41. This article argues, from a general Christian perspective, why God should be viewed as impassible. Gives a good overview of the main issues and trends regarding this issue over the years.

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5-7                      Next page: Chapter 5b-6

Heb 5:11-14

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 5b-6 / Verses 5:11-6:20
Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:11-14: Milk and meat. This passage, along with the beginning of chapter 6 (See Heb 6:1 et seq) is tricky to interpret. The author seems to be saying that his audience requires remedial Gospel instruction, that they are not ready for "meat" because they still have need of "milk." Yet as we shall see in chapter 6, the author does not content himself with mere "milk."
  • Heb 5:11-14: Differing levels. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, the fact that the author talks about differing levels of gospel knowledge in the context of the temple is striking. Aside from the secret of how one vocalized the tetragramaton, which was only spoken in the Holy of Holies, it is not clear that the tabernacle or the other temples of Israel were associated with esoteric knowledge, with "meat." The temples of the Restoration, however, most emphatically are, with their teachings hedged about with oaths of secrecy. It is also interesting that the author associates the "meat" unfit for those still requiring "milk" with priesthood, in particular learning about the symbolism of the higher priesthood of Melchezidek.
  • Heb 5:13: Unskilful in the word. This passage gives us the characteristics of those who are ready for "meat," namely they are "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." We also have the description of those that use milk as "unskilful in the word of righteousness." The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning." Hence, "unskilful in the word of righteousness" could also mean something like "unskilful in the reasoning of righteosness." Hence, with both meat and milk we have reference to what might be called critical faculties. This interpretation is undermined slightly by v. 12's reference to the audience as those who "ought to be teachers." Hence, the logos of v. 13 might be teaching.
  • Heb 5:14: Discernment. An interesting question arises of why those who get meat require discernment between both good and evil. Is this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 5:13: Word. The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning."
  • 'Heb 5:14: Strong meat: In modern English, the Greek phrase stereos trophe, translated here as "strong meat," is usually translated as "solid food." The word trophe can refer to any type of food that gives nourishment, not just animal flesh.
  • Heb 6:1-2: Principles of the doctrine of Christ. Some have speculated that the list of "principles of the doctrine of Christ" contained here was an early catechism or statement of belief, analogous perhaps to the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" refered to in the Articles of Faith. The list seems to be:
Repentance
Faith
Baptism
The Laying on of Hands
Resurrection
Eternal Judgment
The grammar of verse 2 also allows for an interpretation where the last four items modify the first two (see Bruce reference below). On this view, the last four items form a foundation of doctrine and ordinances upon which the principles of repentance and faith are built.
  • Heb 6:1: JST. The JST inserts the word "not" in front of "leaving." This insertion suggests a connotation of "leaving" that implies abandoning or jettisoning. However, one could also read "leaving" in the unaltered KJV as simply turning to something else, without jettisoning the first. Notice that the author suggests that the "foundation" he references is not sufficient for "perfection," which requires the greater teachings that he is about to impart.
  • Heb 6:1: Not laying again the foundation. This phrase parallels "leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ". The writer has already indicated a desire to talk about meatier doctrines (cf. Heb 5:12-14), he may be reiterating the desire to talk about such doctrines rather than addressing the topics of repentance and faith again.
  • Heb 6:1: Dead works. This phrase (which recurs in Heb 9:14) could refer to sinful works, or it could refer to righteous works (either ordinances like baptism or the laying on of hands or, more generally, any righteous act). If referring to righteous acts, the deadness of such acts could mean either that they do not lead to eternal life without the intervention of Christ, the great high priest, or that works performed with "artificial or servile legalism" are "worthless and pernicious" as Paul and Christ describe them (see discussion in the Bruce reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. This likely refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost or the ordination of the priesthood. Some suggest it could refer to the sacrifice of animals (see John Gill reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Why is baptisms plural? According to Bruce (see reference below), "Commentators generally concur . . . [that] the writer has in view not merely Christian baptism, but all the symbolic uses of water with which Jewish converts might be familiar."
  • Heb 6:3-6: Apostasy. In these verses, the author justifies leaving behind the discussion of the first principles—"This we will do" (v. 3)—by launching into an aside on the doctrine of apostacy. This discussion seems to be meant to justify why the audience of the letter cannot fall away from the truth. The move, however, is a rhetorical trick. The audience has in fact fallen away from the gospel, or at any rate is threatening to do so. Hence, the author uses his demonstration of the impossiblity of apostacy for his audience as an excuse to preach against apostacy precisely because it seems to be a real problem for his hearers.
  • Heb 6:4: Impossible. The Greek word adunatos is usually translated impossible as it is here in the KJV (and every other translation listed at Crosswalk). However, it can also mean "without strength, impotent, powerless, weakly, disabled", a slightly softer connotation. This verse may be referring to the unpardonable sin (see links below for cross references) or, esp. if the softer connotation is applied, it could be referring to how much more difficult it is for those who have once been righteous to repent, than it is for those who have never been righteous to repent (see 2 Pet 2:21, Alma 24:30, Hel 7:24, 3 Ne 6:18, and D&C 82:3.)
  • Heb 6:4: Tasted. The image of tasting the good word of God is striking. Joseph Smith employed the same image in the King Follett Discourse, where he refered to the truth as tasting good. There may be an oblique reference to the sacrament here, as the "word of God" could be a reference to Christ as the Word (see John 1:1) with our tasting being a reference to the Lord's Supper where he told his disciples that the bread has become his flesh and the wine his blood.
  • Heb 6:6: Softening the impossibility in v. 4? There are at least two different readings of verse 6 which can soften the impossibility of repentance being declared in verse 4. First, "crucify" and "put him to an open shame" may not be explaining what "fall away" means, but proposing a hypothetical case so that the meaning is "they cannot be renewed after falling away if they persist in crucifying" (there is a change of tense from the aorist to the present that suports this view). Another view is that "renew" is expressing a continuous action, so that the meaning is that it is impossible to keep repeating the process of falling and renewing—the repentance isn't genuine inasmuch as the repenter keeps falling away. (See Bruce reference below.)
  • Heb 6:7-8. These verses may be a reference to the parable of the sower, in which the word is likened to a seed thrown on various kinds of ground. If this is correct, then the "thorns and briers" are a reference to the cares of the world (cf. Mark 4:18-19). These verses help clarify the point being made in verses 4-6: those that hear the word of God but then foresake it are condemned. (See also those in Lehi's dream that partook of the fruit and then fell away, 1 Ne 8:25-28.)
Another possible reference is to the briers that the earth was cursed to bring forth in the face of Adam's labor after the fall. The reference to burning could be either to the post-mortal punishment of the particular apostate or to the final apoclyptic end of the earth, or perhaps both.
  • Heb 6:9-10. The author ends his aside started in verse 4 by—somewhat ironically perhaps—saying that none of his teachings about apostacy are meant to be applied to his audience. Given that his audience is in danger of turning from the gospel back to the law of Moses, this insistence is something of a rhetorical play.
Notice verse 10's emphasis on works. God does not forget the audience of the letter because of their labor of love and their ministering to the saints. If we accept a Pauline authorship for the letter, then this passage seems much less grace-centric than some of Paul's other writings, especially in Romans. If we reject Pauline authorship -- as virtually all modern scholars do -- then the tension with Romans is less provacative.
Interestingly, the current "Bible Dictionary" appended to LDS edition of the scriptures takes an intermediate position, acknowledging that Hebrews was probably not composed by Paul, but that its ideas are essentially Pauline. Almost without exception, official LDS discourse from Joseph Smith to the present has assumed Pauline authorship. However, this assumption seems to be based entirely on the traditional assignment of authorship, which has no direct basis in the text and arises out of an early Christian tradition many centuries removed from Paul himself.
  • Heb 6:11-12. These two verses are probably best thought of as a continuation of the thoughts expressed in the preceeding verses. What we are seeing is the delicate rhetorical game that the author is playing of exhorting his audience while only condemning them obliquely. The transition to the next section comes with the reference at the end of v. 12 to "inherit the promises."
The phrase is interesting as it invokes two separate sorts of relationships: inheritances and contracts. An inheritance is essentially a status-based relationship. One becomes entitled to benefits because one stands in a particular -- generally familial -- relationship with the benefactor. The classic example is the relationship between a father and an eldest son. A promise, in contrast, invokes the notion of contract. Generally speaking, a contract defines the purely voluntary obligations between two otherwise unrelated parties. No adoption or other change in familial status is necessary in order to become an obligee or an obligor under a contract. Rather, the touchstone becomes mutual assent to the transaction. The notion of promising also invokes oaths, a category closely related to contract. The idea of an oath is that one promises something and then invokes divine punishment upon oneself in the event of lapse.
By discussing salvation in terms of "inheritance of the promises" the author finesses a difficult aspect of Christian conversion. On one hand, conversion is thought of in voluntarist terms, a choice that reflects the deepest, most personal condition of one's soul. On the other hand, the relationship formed by conversion is much richer than those defined by contract. We do not simply make a kind of anti-Faustian bargain with God, but rather become adopted into his household and ultimately co-heirs with Christ.
  • Heb 6:13-15. In these verses Abraham is offered as the prototypical example of one who becomes an "inheritor of the promises." Notice that God makes an oath to Abraham, which we then inherit as a kind of chose in action. There are a couple of important things to think about in the choice of Abraham as the model. First, Abraham is the ur-founder of the Israelite nation, by identifying Christian salvation with the Abrahamic covenant we get continuity between Christ and the old testament prophets. Second, it is striking that Abraham's promise of infinite posterity is associated by Joseph Smith and the revelations of the Restoration with the promises of the temple. In Kirtland the "keys of the Gospel of Abraham" were restored to Joseph, and it is through the sealing ordinances that we receive the same promises of cosmic fecundity and posterity. Likewise, in Abraham we get the most elemental story of eternal increase as blessing, a notion that Joseph Smith expanded through the doctrine of exaltation into enternal progression and eternal families, worlds without number. It is perhaps not accidental that the author uses Abraham as a bridge back to his discussion of Christ, priesthood, and temple. Finally, Abraham shows up again in Heb 11's discussion of faith.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16 the writer places special emphasis on the word oath by transposing it from its expected position. In its expected position in Greek, the oath would fall in line with how it is translated in the KJV. Instead, the oath is transposed to the end of the sentence. To get the same affect in English we could translate this verse as: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, the oath." See Ex 22:11.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant to signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in Gen 15:10, and 15:17, where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by passing between the cut-up animal pieces. cf. Jer 34:11) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual.
  • Heb 6:17-20. Here the author suggests that the reliability of God's word comes from two sources. First, the oath that he as sworn, and second from his own inherent honesty. In v. 18-19 we have two images for the hope promised by God -- a refuge and an anchor. Even more striking, however, is the image of the veil. The temple, of course, had a veil that shielded the Holy of Holies, so with this reference the author once more links Christian salvation -- "the hope set before us" -- with the ritual of the temple.
In verse 20 we learn that Christ as a "high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" has gone before us into the Holy of Holies. Only the high priest of the temple was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, so suggesting that Christ's "Melchisedec" priesthood qualifies him for entry underscores its superiority to the old, Levital priesthood. The other interesting thing is that Christian believers are to follow Christ "within the veil." This, of course, is a priestly action, implying a kind of democratization of access to the sacred not available under the Levital order.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:14: Discernment and meat. Why do those who get "meat" require discernment between both good and evil? s this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 6:1-2.The author recapitulates the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Why is the order of repentance and faith reversed from what we see in the Articles of Faith?
  • Heb 6:10: Dead works. What is the distinction between the "dead works" referenced in v. 1 and the "work and labour of love" referenced in v. 10? Why the differing attitudes toward works?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 6:2: Alexander Bruce. For more on Alexander Bruce's take on how the principles of repentance and faith are modified by the four subsequent ordinances and doctrines, see The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study), 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 202-204. For more on Burce's discussion of why "baptisms" is plural, see pp. 205-6. For more on the phrase "dead works" see p. 204 and p. 352.
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. John Gill suggests this might refer to animal sacrifice.
  • Heb 6:6: Bruce on softening the impossibility of repenting. See The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study) by Alexander Bruce, 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 211.

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7

Heb 6:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 5b-6 / Verses 5:11-6:20
Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:11-14: Milk and meat. This passage, along with the beginning of chapter 6 (See Heb 6:1 et seq) is tricky to interpret. The author seems to be saying that his audience requires remedial Gospel instruction, that they are not ready for "meat" because they still have need of "milk." Yet as we shall see in chapter 6, the author does not content himself with mere "milk."
  • Heb 5:11-14: Differing levels. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, the fact that the author talks about differing levels of gospel knowledge in the context of the temple is striking. Aside from the secret of how one vocalized the tetragramaton, which was only spoken in the Holy of Holies, it is not clear that the tabernacle or the other temples of Israel were associated with esoteric knowledge, with "meat." The temples of the Restoration, however, most emphatically are, with their teachings hedged about with oaths of secrecy. It is also interesting that the author associates the "meat" unfit for those still requiring "milk" with priesthood, in particular learning about the symbolism of the higher priesthood of Melchezidek.
  • Heb 5:13: Unskilful in the word. This passage gives us the characteristics of those who are ready for "meat," namely they are "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." We also have the description of those that use milk as "unskilful in the word of righteousness." The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning." Hence, "unskilful in the word of righteousness" could also mean something like "unskilful in the reasoning of righteosness." Hence, with both meat and milk we have reference to what might be called critical faculties. This interpretation is undermined slightly by v. 12's reference to the audience as those who "ought to be teachers." Hence, the logos of v. 13 might be teaching.
  • Heb 5:14: Discernment. An interesting question arises of why those who get meat require discernment between both good and evil. Is this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 5:13: Word. The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning."
  • 'Heb 5:14: Strong meat: In modern English, the Greek phrase stereos trophe, translated here as "strong meat," is usually translated as "solid food." The word trophe can refer to any type of food that gives nourishment, not just animal flesh.
  • Heb 6:1-2: Principles of the doctrine of Christ. Some have speculated that the list of "principles of the doctrine of Christ" contained here was an early catechism or statement of belief, analogous perhaps to the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" refered to in the Articles of Faith. The list seems to be:
Repentance
Faith
Baptism
The Laying on of Hands
Resurrection
Eternal Judgment
The grammar of verse 2 also allows for an interpretation where the last four items modify the first two (see Bruce reference below). On this view, the last four items form a foundation of doctrine and ordinances upon which the principles of repentance and faith are built.
  • Heb 6:1: JST. The JST inserts the word "not" in front of "leaving." This insertion suggests a connotation of "leaving" that implies abandoning or jettisoning. However, one could also read "leaving" in the unaltered KJV as simply turning to something else, without jettisoning the first. Notice that the author suggests that the "foundation" he references is not sufficient for "perfection," which requires the greater teachings that he is about to impart.
  • Heb 6:1: Not laying again the foundation. This phrase parallels "leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ". The writer has already indicated a desire to talk about meatier doctrines (cf. Heb 5:12-14), he may be reiterating the desire to talk about such doctrines rather than addressing the topics of repentance and faith again.
  • Heb 6:1: Dead works. This phrase (which recurs in Heb 9:14) could refer to sinful works, or it could refer to righteous works (either ordinances like baptism or the laying on of hands or, more generally, any righteous act). If referring to righteous acts, the deadness of such acts could mean either that they do not lead to eternal life without the intervention of Christ, the great high priest, or that works performed with "artificial or servile legalism" are "worthless and pernicious" as Paul and Christ describe them (see discussion in the Bruce reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. This likely refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost or the ordination of the priesthood. Some suggest it could refer to the sacrifice of animals (see John Gill reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Why is baptisms plural? According to Bruce (see reference below), "Commentators generally concur . . . [that] the writer has in view not merely Christian baptism, but all the symbolic uses of water with which Jewish converts might be familiar."
  • Heb 6:3-6: Apostasy. In these verses, the author justifies leaving behind the discussion of the first principles—"This we will do" (v. 3)—by launching into an aside on the doctrine of apostacy. This discussion seems to be meant to justify why the audience of the letter cannot fall away from the truth. The move, however, is a rhetorical trick. The audience has in fact fallen away from the gospel, or at any rate is threatening to do so. Hence, the author uses his demonstration of the impossiblity of apostacy for his audience as an excuse to preach against apostacy precisely because it seems to be a real problem for his hearers.
  • Heb 6:4: Impossible. The Greek word adunatos is usually translated impossible as it is here in the KJV (and every other translation listed at Crosswalk). However, it can also mean "without strength, impotent, powerless, weakly, disabled", a slightly softer connotation. This verse may be referring to the unpardonable sin (see links below for cross references) or, esp. if the softer connotation is applied, it could be referring to how much more difficult it is for those who have once been righteous to repent, than it is for those who have never been righteous to repent (see 2 Pet 2:21, Alma 24:30, Hel 7:24, 3 Ne 6:18, and D&C 82:3.)
  • Heb 6:4: Tasted. The image of tasting the good word of God is striking. Joseph Smith employed the same image in the King Follett Discourse, where he refered to the truth as tasting good. There may be an oblique reference to the sacrament here, as the "word of God" could be a reference to Christ as the Word (see John 1:1) with our tasting being a reference to the Lord's Supper where he told his disciples that the bread has become his flesh and the wine his blood.
  • Heb 6:6: Softening the impossibility in v. 4? There are at least two different readings of verse 6 which can soften the impossibility of repentance being declared in verse 4. First, "crucify" and "put him to an open shame" may not be explaining what "fall away" means, but proposing a hypothetical case so that the meaning is "they cannot be renewed after falling away if they persist in crucifying" (there is a change of tense from the aorist to the present that suports this view). Another view is that "renew" is expressing a continuous action, so that the meaning is that it is impossible to keep repeating the process of falling and renewing—the repentance isn't genuine inasmuch as the repenter keeps falling away. (See Bruce reference below.)
  • Heb 6:7-8. These verses may be a reference to the parable of the sower, in which the word is likened to a seed thrown on various kinds of ground. If this is correct, then the "thorns and briers" are a reference to the cares of the world (cf. Mark 4:18-19). These verses help clarify the point being made in verses 4-6: those that hear the word of God but then foresake it are condemned. (See also those in Lehi's dream that partook of the fruit and then fell away, 1 Ne 8:25-28.)
Another possible reference is to the briers that the earth was cursed to bring forth in the face of Adam's labor after the fall. The reference to burning could be either to the post-mortal punishment of the particular apostate or to the final apoclyptic end of the earth, or perhaps both.
  • Heb 6:9-10. The author ends his aside started in verse 4 by—somewhat ironically perhaps—saying that none of his teachings about apostacy are meant to be applied to his audience. Given that his audience is in danger of turning from the gospel back to the law of Moses, this insistence is something of a rhetorical play.
Notice verse 10's emphasis on works. God does not forget the audience of the letter because of their labor of love and their ministering to the saints. If we accept a Pauline authorship for the letter, then this passage seems much less grace-centric than some of Paul's other writings, especially in Romans. If we reject Pauline authorship -- as virtually all modern scholars do -- then the tension with Romans is less provacative.
Interestingly, the current "Bible Dictionary" appended to LDS edition of the scriptures takes an intermediate position, acknowledging that Hebrews was probably not composed by Paul, but that its ideas are essentially Pauline. Almost without exception, official LDS discourse from Joseph Smith to the present has assumed Pauline authorship. However, this assumption seems to be based entirely on the traditional assignment of authorship, which has no direct basis in the text and arises out of an early Christian tradition many centuries removed from Paul himself.
  • Heb 6:11-12. These two verses are probably best thought of as a continuation of the thoughts expressed in the preceeding verses. What we are seeing is the delicate rhetorical game that the author is playing of exhorting his audience while only condemning them obliquely. The transition to the next section comes with the reference at the end of v. 12 to "inherit the promises."
The phrase is interesting as it invokes two separate sorts of relationships: inheritances and contracts. An inheritance is essentially a status-based relationship. One becomes entitled to benefits because one stands in a particular -- generally familial -- relationship with the benefactor. The classic example is the relationship between a father and an eldest son. A promise, in contrast, invokes the notion of contract. Generally speaking, a contract defines the purely voluntary obligations between two otherwise unrelated parties. No adoption or other change in familial status is necessary in order to become an obligee or an obligor under a contract. Rather, the touchstone becomes mutual assent to the transaction. The notion of promising also invokes oaths, a category closely related to contract. The idea of an oath is that one promises something and then invokes divine punishment upon oneself in the event of lapse.
By discussing salvation in terms of "inheritance of the promises" the author finesses a difficult aspect of Christian conversion. On one hand, conversion is thought of in voluntarist terms, a choice that reflects the deepest, most personal condition of one's soul. On the other hand, the relationship formed by conversion is much richer than those defined by contract. We do not simply make a kind of anti-Faustian bargain with God, but rather become adopted into his household and ultimately co-heirs with Christ.
  • Heb 6:13-15. In these verses Abraham is offered as the prototypical example of one who becomes an "inheritor of the promises." Notice that God makes an oath to Abraham, which we then inherit as a kind of chose in action. There are a couple of important things to think about in the choice of Abraham as the model. First, Abraham is the ur-founder of the Israelite nation, by identifying Christian salvation with the Abrahamic covenant we get continuity between Christ and the old testament prophets. Second, it is striking that Abraham's promise of infinite posterity is associated by Joseph Smith and the revelations of the Restoration with the promises of the temple. In Kirtland the "keys of the Gospel of Abraham" were restored to Joseph, and it is through the sealing ordinances that we receive the same promises of cosmic fecundity and posterity. Likewise, in Abraham we get the most elemental story of eternal increase as blessing, a notion that Joseph Smith expanded through the doctrine of exaltation into enternal progression and eternal families, worlds without number. It is perhaps not accidental that the author uses Abraham as a bridge back to his discussion of Christ, priesthood, and temple. Finally, Abraham shows up again in Heb 11's discussion of faith.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16 the writer places special emphasis on the word oath by transposing it from its expected position. In its expected position in Greek, the oath would fall in line with how it is translated in the KJV. Instead, the oath is transposed to the end of the sentence. To get the same affect in English we could translate this verse as: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, the oath." See Ex 22:11.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant to signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in Gen 15:10, and 15:17, where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by passing between the cut-up animal pieces. cf. Jer 34:11) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual.
  • Heb 6:17-20. Here the author suggests that the reliability of God's word comes from two sources. First, the oath that he as sworn, and second from his own inherent honesty. In v. 18-19 we have two images for the hope promised by God -- a refuge and an anchor. Even more striking, however, is the image of the veil. The temple, of course, had a veil that shielded the Holy of Holies, so with this reference the author once more links Christian salvation -- "the hope set before us" -- with the ritual of the temple.
In verse 20 we learn that Christ as a "high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" has gone before us into the Holy of Holies. Only the high priest of the temple was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, so suggesting that Christ's "Melchisedec" priesthood qualifies him for entry underscores its superiority to the old, Levital priesthood. The other interesting thing is that Christian believers are to follow Christ "within the veil." This, of course, is a priestly action, implying a kind of democratization of access to the sacred not available under the Levital order.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:14: Discernment and meat. Why do those who get "meat" require discernment between both good and evil? s this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 6:1-2.The author recapitulates the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Why is the order of repentance and faith reversed from what we see in the Articles of Faith?
  • Heb 6:10: Dead works. What is the distinction between the "dead works" referenced in v. 1 and the "work and labour of love" referenced in v. 10? Why the differing attitudes toward works?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 6:2: Alexander Bruce. For more on Alexander Bruce's take on how the principles of repentance and faith are modified by the four subsequent ordinances and doctrines, see The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study), 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 202-204. For more on Burce's discussion of why "baptisms" is plural, see pp. 205-6. For more on the phrase "dead works" see p. 204 and p. 352.
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. John Gill suggests this might refer to animal sacrifice.
  • Heb 6:6: Bruce on softening the impossibility of repenting. See The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study) by Alexander Bruce, 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 211.

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7

Heb 6:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 5b-6 / Verses 5:11-6:20
Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:11-14: Milk and meat. This passage, along with the beginning of chapter 6 (See Heb 6:1 et seq) is tricky to interpret. The author seems to be saying that his audience requires remedial Gospel instruction, that they are not ready for "meat" because they still have need of "milk." Yet as we shall see in chapter 6, the author does not content himself with mere "milk."
  • Heb 5:11-14: Differing levels. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, the fact that the author talks about differing levels of gospel knowledge in the context of the temple is striking. Aside from the secret of how one vocalized the tetragramaton, which was only spoken in the Holy of Holies, it is not clear that the tabernacle or the other temples of Israel were associated with esoteric knowledge, with "meat." The temples of the Restoration, however, most emphatically are, with their teachings hedged about with oaths of secrecy. It is also interesting that the author associates the "meat" unfit for those still requiring "milk" with priesthood, in particular learning about the symbolism of the higher priesthood of Melchezidek.
  • Heb 5:13: Unskilful in the word. This passage gives us the characteristics of those who are ready for "meat," namely they are "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." We also have the description of those that use milk as "unskilful in the word of righteousness." The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning." Hence, "unskilful in the word of righteousness" could also mean something like "unskilful in the reasoning of righteosness." Hence, with both meat and milk we have reference to what might be called critical faculties. This interpretation is undermined slightly by v. 12's reference to the audience as those who "ought to be teachers." Hence, the logos of v. 13 might be teaching.
  • Heb 5:14: Discernment. An interesting question arises of why those who get meat require discernment between both good and evil. Is this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 5:13: Word. The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning."
  • 'Heb 5:14: Strong meat: In modern English, the Greek phrase stereos trophe, translated here as "strong meat," is usually translated as "solid food." The word trophe can refer to any type of food that gives nourishment, not just animal flesh.
  • Heb 6:1-2: Principles of the doctrine of Christ. Some have speculated that the list of "principles of the doctrine of Christ" contained here was an early catechism or statement of belief, analogous perhaps to the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" refered to in the Articles of Faith. The list seems to be:
Repentance
Faith
Baptism
The Laying on of Hands
Resurrection
Eternal Judgment
The grammar of verse 2 also allows for an interpretation where the last four items modify the first two (see Bruce reference below). On this view, the last four items form a foundation of doctrine and ordinances upon which the principles of repentance and faith are built.
  • Heb 6:1: JST. The JST inserts the word "not" in front of "leaving." This insertion suggests a connotation of "leaving" that implies abandoning or jettisoning. However, one could also read "leaving" in the unaltered KJV as simply turning to something else, without jettisoning the first. Notice that the author suggests that the "foundation" he references is not sufficient for "perfection," which requires the greater teachings that he is about to impart.
  • Heb 6:1: Not laying again the foundation. This phrase parallels "leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ". The writer has already indicated a desire to talk about meatier doctrines (cf. Heb 5:12-14), he may be reiterating the desire to talk about such doctrines rather than addressing the topics of repentance and faith again.
  • Heb 6:1: Dead works. This phrase (which recurs in Heb 9:14) could refer to sinful works, or it could refer to righteous works (either ordinances like baptism or the laying on of hands or, more generally, any righteous act). If referring to righteous acts, the deadness of such acts could mean either that they do not lead to eternal life without the intervention of Christ, the great high priest, or that works performed with "artificial or servile legalism" are "worthless and pernicious" as Paul and Christ describe them (see discussion in the Bruce reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. This likely refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost or the ordination of the priesthood. Some suggest it could refer to the sacrifice of animals (see John Gill reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Why is baptisms plural? According to Bruce (see reference below), "Commentators generally concur . . . [that] the writer has in view not merely Christian baptism, but all the symbolic uses of water with which Jewish converts might be familiar."
  • Heb 6:3-6: Apostasy. In these verses, the author justifies leaving behind the discussion of the first principles—"This we will do" (v. 3)—by launching into an aside on the doctrine of apostacy. This discussion seems to be meant to justify why the audience of the letter cannot fall away from the truth. The move, however, is a rhetorical trick. The audience has in fact fallen away from the gospel, or at any rate is threatening to do so. Hence, the author uses his demonstration of the impossiblity of apostacy for his audience as an excuse to preach against apostacy precisely because it seems to be a real problem for his hearers.
  • Heb 6:4: Impossible. The Greek word adunatos is usually translated impossible as it is here in the KJV (and every other translation listed at Crosswalk). However, it can also mean "without strength, impotent, powerless, weakly, disabled", a slightly softer connotation. This verse may be referring to the unpardonable sin (see links below for cross references) or, esp. if the softer connotation is applied, it could be referring to how much more difficult it is for those who have once been righteous to repent, than it is for those who have never been righteous to repent (see 2 Pet 2:21, Alma 24:30, Hel 7:24, 3 Ne 6:18, and D&C 82:3.)
  • Heb 6:4: Tasted. The image of tasting the good word of God is striking. Joseph Smith employed the same image in the King Follett Discourse, where he refered to the truth as tasting good. There may be an oblique reference to the sacrament here, as the "word of God" could be a reference to Christ as the Word (see John 1:1) with our tasting being a reference to the Lord's Supper where he told his disciples that the bread has become his flesh and the wine his blood.
  • Heb 6:6: Softening the impossibility in v. 4? There are at least two different readings of verse 6 which can soften the impossibility of repentance being declared in verse 4. First, "crucify" and "put him to an open shame" may not be explaining what "fall away" means, but proposing a hypothetical case so that the meaning is "they cannot be renewed after falling away if they persist in crucifying" (there is a change of tense from the aorist to the present that suports this view). Another view is that "renew" is expressing a continuous action, so that the meaning is that it is impossible to keep repeating the process of falling and renewing—the repentance isn't genuine inasmuch as the repenter keeps falling away. (See Bruce reference below.)
  • Heb 6:7-8. These verses may be a reference to the parable of the sower, in which the word is likened to a seed thrown on various kinds of ground. If this is correct, then the "thorns and briers" are a reference to the cares of the world (cf. Mark 4:18-19). These verses help clarify the point being made in verses 4-6: those that hear the word of God but then foresake it are condemned. (See also those in Lehi's dream that partook of the fruit and then fell away, 1 Ne 8:25-28.)
Another possible reference is to the briers that the earth was cursed to bring forth in the face of Adam's labor after the fall. The reference to burning could be either to the post-mortal punishment of the particular apostate or to the final apoclyptic end of the earth, or perhaps both.
  • Heb 6:9-10. The author ends his aside started in verse 4 by—somewhat ironically perhaps—saying that none of his teachings about apostacy are meant to be applied to his audience. Given that his audience is in danger of turning from the gospel back to the law of Moses, this insistence is something of a rhetorical play.
Notice verse 10's emphasis on works. God does not forget the audience of the letter because of their labor of love and their ministering to the saints. If we accept a Pauline authorship for the letter, then this passage seems much less grace-centric than some of Paul's other writings, especially in Romans. If we reject Pauline authorship -- as virtually all modern scholars do -- then the tension with Romans is less provacative.
Interestingly, the current "Bible Dictionary" appended to LDS edition of the scriptures takes an intermediate position, acknowledging that Hebrews was probably not composed by Paul, but that its ideas are essentially Pauline. Almost without exception, official LDS discourse from Joseph Smith to the present has assumed Pauline authorship. However, this assumption seems to be based entirely on the traditional assignment of authorship, which has no direct basis in the text and arises out of an early Christian tradition many centuries removed from Paul himself.
  • Heb 6:11-12. These two verses are probably best thought of as a continuation of the thoughts expressed in the preceeding verses. What we are seeing is the delicate rhetorical game that the author is playing of exhorting his audience while only condemning them obliquely. The transition to the next section comes with the reference at the end of v. 12 to "inherit the promises."
The phrase is interesting as it invokes two separate sorts of relationships: inheritances and contracts. An inheritance is essentially a status-based relationship. One becomes entitled to benefits because one stands in a particular -- generally familial -- relationship with the benefactor. The classic example is the relationship between a father and an eldest son. A promise, in contrast, invokes the notion of contract. Generally speaking, a contract defines the purely voluntary obligations between two otherwise unrelated parties. No adoption or other change in familial status is necessary in order to become an obligee or an obligor under a contract. Rather, the touchstone becomes mutual assent to the transaction. The notion of promising also invokes oaths, a category closely related to contract. The idea of an oath is that one promises something and then invokes divine punishment upon oneself in the event of lapse.
By discussing salvation in terms of "inheritance of the promises" the author finesses a difficult aspect of Christian conversion. On one hand, conversion is thought of in voluntarist terms, a choice that reflects the deepest, most personal condition of one's soul. On the other hand, the relationship formed by conversion is much richer than those defined by contract. We do not simply make a kind of anti-Faustian bargain with God, but rather become adopted into his household and ultimately co-heirs with Christ.
  • Heb 6:13-15. In these verses Abraham is offered as the prototypical example of one who becomes an "inheritor of the promises." Notice that God makes an oath to Abraham, which we then inherit as a kind of chose in action. There are a couple of important things to think about in the choice of Abraham as the model. First, Abraham is the ur-founder of the Israelite nation, by identifying Christian salvation with the Abrahamic covenant we get continuity between Christ and the old testament prophets. Second, it is striking that Abraham's promise of infinite posterity is associated by Joseph Smith and the revelations of the Restoration with the promises of the temple. In Kirtland the "keys of the Gospel of Abraham" were restored to Joseph, and it is through the sealing ordinances that we receive the same promises of cosmic fecundity and posterity. Likewise, in Abraham we get the most elemental story of eternal increase as blessing, a notion that Joseph Smith expanded through the doctrine of exaltation into enternal progression and eternal families, worlds without number. It is perhaps not accidental that the author uses Abraham as a bridge back to his discussion of Christ, priesthood, and temple. Finally, Abraham shows up again in Heb 11's discussion of faith.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16 the writer places special emphasis on the word oath by transposing it from its expected position. In its expected position in Greek, the oath would fall in line with how it is translated in the KJV. Instead, the oath is transposed to the end of the sentence. To get the same affect in English we could translate this verse as: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, the oath." See Ex 22:11.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant to signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in Gen 15:10, and 15:17, where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by passing between the cut-up animal pieces. cf. Jer 34:11) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual.
  • Heb 6:17-20. Here the author suggests that the reliability of God's word comes from two sources. First, the oath that he as sworn, and second from his own inherent honesty. In v. 18-19 we have two images for the hope promised by God -- a refuge and an anchor. Even more striking, however, is the image of the veil. The temple, of course, had a veil that shielded the Holy of Holies, so with this reference the author once more links Christian salvation -- "the hope set before us" -- with the ritual of the temple.
In verse 20 we learn that Christ as a "high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" has gone before us into the Holy of Holies. Only the high priest of the temple was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, so suggesting that Christ's "Melchisedec" priesthood qualifies him for entry underscores its superiority to the old, Levital priesthood. The other interesting thing is that Christian believers are to follow Christ "within the veil." This, of course, is a priestly action, implying a kind of democratization of access to the sacred not available under the Levital order.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:14: Discernment and meat. Why do those who get "meat" require discernment between both good and evil? s this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 6:1-2.The author recapitulates the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Why is the order of repentance and faith reversed from what we see in the Articles of Faith?
  • Heb 6:10: Dead works. What is the distinction between the "dead works" referenced in v. 1 and the "work and labour of love" referenced in v. 10? Why the differing attitudes toward works?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 6:2: Alexander Bruce. For more on Alexander Bruce's take on how the principles of repentance and faith are modified by the four subsequent ordinances and doctrines, see The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study), 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 202-204. For more on Burce's discussion of why "baptisms" is plural, see pp. 205-6. For more on the phrase "dead works" see p. 204 and p. 352.
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. John Gill suggests this might refer to animal sacrifice.
  • Heb 6:6: Bruce on softening the impossibility of repenting. See The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study) by Alexander Bruce, 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 211.

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7

Heb 6:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 5b-6 / Verses 5:11-6:20
Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:11-14: Milk and meat. This passage, along with the beginning of chapter 6 (See Heb 6:1 et seq) is tricky to interpret. The author seems to be saying that his audience requires remedial Gospel instruction, that they are not ready for "meat" because they still have need of "milk." Yet as we shall see in chapter 6, the author does not content himself with mere "milk."
  • Heb 5:11-14: Differing levels. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, the fact that the author talks about differing levels of gospel knowledge in the context of the temple is striking. Aside from the secret of how one vocalized the tetragramaton, which was only spoken in the Holy of Holies, it is not clear that the tabernacle or the other temples of Israel were associated with esoteric knowledge, with "meat." The temples of the Restoration, however, most emphatically are, with their teachings hedged about with oaths of secrecy. It is also interesting that the author associates the "meat" unfit for those still requiring "milk" with priesthood, in particular learning about the symbolism of the higher priesthood of Melchezidek.
  • Heb 5:13: Unskilful in the word. This passage gives us the characteristics of those who are ready for "meat," namely they are "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." We also have the description of those that use milk as "unskilful in the word of righteousness." The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning." Hence, "unskilful in the word of righteousness" could also mean something like "unskilful in the reasoning of righteosness." Hence, with both meat and milk we have reference to what might be called critical faculties. This interpretation is undermined slightly by v. 12's reference to the audience as those who "ought to be teachers." Hence, the logos of v. 13 might be teaching.
  • Heb 5:14: Discernment. An interesting question arises of why those who get meat require discernment between both good and evil. Is this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 5:13: Word. The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning."
  • 'Heb 5:14: Strong meat: In modern English, the Greek phrase stereos trophe, translated here as "strong meat," is usually translated as "solid food." The word trophe can refer to any type of food that gives nourishment, not just animal flesh.
  • Heb 6:1-2: Principles of the doctrine of Christ. Some have speculated that the list of "principles of the doctrine of Christ" contained here was an early catechism or statement of belief, analogous perhaps to the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" refered to in the Articles of Faith. The list seems to be:
Repentance
Faith
Baptism
The Laying on of Hands
Resurrection
Eternal Judgment
The grammar of verse 2 also allows for an interpretation where the last four items modify the first two (see Bruce reference below). On this view, the last four items form a foundation of doctrine and ordinances upon which the principles of repentance and faith are built.
  • Heb 6:1: JST. The JST inserts the word "not" in front of "leaving." This insertion suggests a connotation of "leaving" that implies abandoning or jettisoning. However, one could also read "leaving" in the unaltered KJV as simply turning to something else, without jettisoning the first. Notice that the author suggests that the "foundation" he references is not sufficient for "perfection," which requires the greater teachings that he is about to impart.
  • Heb 6:1: Not laying again the foundation. This phrase parallels "leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ". The writer has already indicated a desire to talk about meatier doctrines (cf. Heb 5:12-14), he may be reiterating the desire to talk about such doctrines rather than addressing the topics of repentance and faith again.
  • Heb 6:1: Dead works. This phrase (which recurs in Heb 9:14) could refer to sinful works, or it could refer to righteous works (either ordinances like baptism or the laying on of hands or, more generally, any righteous act). If referring to righteous acts, the deadness of such acts could mean either that they do not lead to eternal life without the intervention of Christ, the great high priest, or that works performed with "artificial or servile legalism" are "worthless and pernicious" as Paul and Christ describe them (see discussion in the Bruce reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. This likely refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost or the ordination of the priesthood. Some suggest it could refer to the sacrifice of animals (see John Gill reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Why is baptisms plural? According to Bruce (see reference below), "Commentators generally concur . . . [that] the writer has in view not merely Christian baptism, but all the symbolic uses of water with which Jewish converts might be familiar."
  • Heb 6:3-6: Apostasy. In these verses, the author justifies leaving behind the discussion of the first principles—"This we will do" (v. 3)—by launching into an aside on the doctrine of apostacy. This discussion seems to be meant to justify why the audience of the letter cannot fall away from the truth. The move, however, is a rhetorical trick. The audience has in fact fallen away from the gospel, or at any rate is threatening to do so. Hence, the author uses his demonstration of the impossiblity of apostacy for his audience as an excuse to preach against apostacy precisely because it seems to be a real problem for his hearers.
  • Heb 6:4: Impossible. The Greek word adunatos is usually translated impossible as it is here in the KJV (and every other translation listed at Crosswalk). However, it can also mean "without strength, impotent, powerless, weakly, disabled", a slightly softer connotation. This verse may be referring to the unpardonable sin (see links below for cross references) or, esp. if the softer connotation is applied, it could be referring to how much more difficult it is for those who have once been righteous to repent, than it is for those who have never been righteous to repent (see 2 Pet 2:21, Alma 24:30, Hel 7:24, 3 Ne 6:18, and D&C 82:3.)
  • Heb 6:4: Tasted. The image of tasting the good word of God is striking. Joseph Smith employed the same image in the King Follett Discourse, where he refered to the truth as tasting good. There may be an oblique reference to the sacrament here, as the "word of God" could be a reference to Christ as the Word (see John 1:1) with our tasting being a reference to the Lord's Supper where he told his disciples that the bread has become his flesh and the wine his blood.
  • Heb 6:6: Softening the impossibility in v. 4? There are at least two different readings of verse 6 which can soften the impossibility of repentance being declared in verse 4. First, "crucify" and "put him to an open shame" may not be explaining what "fall away" means, but proposing a hypothetical case so that the meaning is "they cannot be renewed after falling away if they persist in crucifying" (there is a change of tense from the aorist to the present that suports this view). Another view is that "renew" is expressing a continuous action, so that the meaning is that it is impossible to keep repeating the process of falling and renewing—the repentance isn't genuine inasmuch as the repenter keeps falling away. (See Bruce reference below.)
  • Heb 6:7-8. These verses may be a reference to the parable of the sower, in which the word is likened to a seed thrown on various kinds of ground. If this is correct, then the "thorns and briers" are a reference to the cares of the world (cf. Mark 4:18-19). These verses help clarify the point being made in verses 4-6: those that hear the word of God but then foresake it are condemned. (See also those in Lehi's dream that partook of the fruit and then fell away, 1 Ne 8:25-28.)
Another possible reference is to the briers that the earth was cursed to bring forth in the face of Adam's labor after the fall. The reference to burning could be either to the post-mortal punishment of the particular apostate or to the final apoclyptic end of the earth, or perhaps both.
  • Heb 6:9-10. The author ends his aside started in verse 4 by—somewhat ironically perhaps—saying that none of his teachings about apostacy are meant to be applied to his audience. Given that his audience is in danger of turning from the gospel back to the law of Moses, this insistence is something of a rhetorical play.
Notice verse 10's emphasis on works. God does not forget the audience of the letter because of their labor of love and their ministering to the saints. If we accept a Pauline authorship for the letter, then this passage seems much less grace-centric than some of Paul's other writings, especially in Romans. If we reject Pauline authorship -- as virtually all modern scholars do -- then the tension with Romans is less provacative.
Interestingly, the current "Bible Dictionary" appended to LDS edition of the scriptures takes an intermediate position, acknowledging that Hebrews was probably not composed by Paul, but that its ideas are essentially Pauline. Almost without exception, official LDS discourse from Joseph Smith to the present has assumed Pauline authorship. However, this assumption seems to be based entirely on the traditional assignment of authorship, which has no direct basis in the text and arises out of an early Christian tradition many centuries removed from Paul himself.
  • Heb 6:11-12. These two verses are probably best thought of as a continuation of the thoughts expressed in the preceeding verses. What we are seeing is the delicate rhetorical game that the author is playing of exhorting his audience while only condemning them obliquely. The transition to the next section comes with the reference at the end of v. 12 to "inherit the promises."
The phrase is interesting as it invokes two separate sorts of relationships: inheritances and contracts. An inheritance is essentially a status-based relationship. One becomes entitled to benefits because one stands in a particular -- generally familial -- relationship with the benefactor. The classic example is the relationship between a father and an eldest son. A promise, in contrast, invokes the notion of contract. Generally speaking, a contract defines the purely voluntary obligations between two otherwise unrelated parties. No adoption or other change in familial status is necessary in order to become an obligee or an obligor under a contract. Rather, the touchstone becomes mutual assent to the transaction. The notion of promising also invokes oaths, a category closely related to contract. The idea of an oath is that one promises something and then invokes divine punishment upon oneself in the event of lapse.
By discussing salvation in terms of "inheritance of the promises" the author finesses a difficult aspect of Christian conversion. On one hand, conversion is thought of in voluntarist terms, a choice that reflects the deepest, most personal condition of one's soul. On the other hand, the relationship formed by conversion is much richer than those defined by contract. We do not simply make a kind of anti-Faustian bargain with God, but rather become adopted into his household and ultimately co-heirs with Christ.
  • Heb 6:13-15. In these verses Abraham is offered as the prototypical example of one who becomes an "inheritor of the promises." Notice that God makes an oath to Abraham, which we then inherit as a kind of chose in action. There are a couple of important things to think about in the choice of Abraham as the model. First, Abraham is the ur-founder of the Israelite nation, by identifying Christian salvation with the Abrahamic covenant we get continuity between Christ and the old testament prophets. Second, it is striking that Abraham's promise of infinite posterity is associated by Joseph Smith and the revelations of the Restoration with the promises of the temple. In Kirtland the "keys of the Gospel of Abraham" were restored to Joseph, and it is through the sealing ordinances that we receive the same promises of cosmic fecundity and posterity. Likewise, in Abraham we get the most elemental story of eternal increase as blessing, a notion that Joseph Smith expanded through the doctrine of exaltation into enternal progression and eternal families, worlds without number. It is perhaps not accidental that the author uses Abraham as a bridge back to his discussion of Christ, priesthood, and temple. Finally, Abraham shows up again in Heb 11's discussion of faith.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16 the writer places special emphasis on the word oath by transposing it from its expected position. In its expected position in Greek, the oath would fall in line with how it is translated in the KJV. Instead, the oath is transposed to the end of the sentence. To get the same affect in English we could translate this verse as: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, the oath." See Ex 22:11.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant to signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in Gen 15:10, and 15:17, where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by passing between the cut-up animal pieces. cf. Jer 34:11) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual.
  • Heb 6:17-20. Here the author suggests that the reliability of God's word comes from two sources. First, the oath that he as sworn, and second from his own inherent honesty. In v. 18-19 we have two images for the hope promised by God -- a refuge and an anchor. Even more striking, however, is the image of the veil. The temple, of course, had a veil that shielded the Holy of Holies, so with this reference the author once more links Christian salvation -- "the hope set before us" -- with the ritual of the temple.
In verse 20 we learn that Christ as a "high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" has gone before us into the Holy of Holies. Only the high priest of the temple was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, so suggesting that Christ's "Melchisedec" priesthood qualifies him for entry underscores its superiority to the old, Levital priesthood. The other interesting thing is that Christian believers are to follow Christ "within the veil." This, of course, is a priestly action, implying a kind of democratization of access to the sacred not available under the Levital order.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:14: Discernment and meat. Why do those who get "meat" require discernment between both good and evil? s this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 6:1-2.The author recapitulates the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Why is the order of repentance and faith reversed from what we see in the Articles of Faith?
  • Heb 6:10: Dead works. What is the distinction between the "dead works" referenced in v. 1 and the "work and labour of love" referenced in v. 10? Why the differing attitudes toward works?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 6:2: Alexander Bruce. For more on Alexander Bruce's take on how the principles of repentance and faith are modified by the four subsequent ordinances and doctrines, see The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study), 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 202-204. For more on Burce's discussion of why "baptisms" is plural, see pp. 205-6. For more on the phrase "dead works" see p. 204 and p. 352.
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. John Gill suggests this might refer to animal sacrifice.
  • Heb 6:6: Bruce on softening the impossibility of repenting. See The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study) by Alexander Bruce, 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 211.

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7

Heb 6:16-20

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 5b-6 / Verses 5:11-6:20
Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:11-14: Milk and meat. This passage, along with the beginning of chapter 6 (See Heb 6:1 et seq) is tricky to interpret. The author seems to be saying that his audience requires remedial Gospel instruction, that they are not ready for "meat" because they still have need of "milk." Yet as we shall see in chapter 6, the author does not content himself with mere "milk."
  • Heb 5:11-14: Differing levels. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, the fact that the author talks about differing levels of gospel knowledge in the context of the temple is striking. Aside from the secret of how one vocalized the tetragramaton, which was only spoken in the Holy of Holies, it is not clear that the tabernacle or the other temples of Israel were associated with esoteric knowledge, with "meat." The temples of the Restoration, however, most emphatically are, with their teachings hedged about with oaths of secrecy. It is also interesting that the author associates the "meat" unfit for those still requiring "milk" with priesthood, in particular learning about the symbolism of the higher priesthood of Melchezidek.
  • Heb 5:13: Unskilful in the word. This passage gives us the characteristics of those who are ready for "meat," namely they are "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." We also have the description of those that use milk as "unskilful in the word of righteousness." The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning." Hence, "unskilful in the word of righteousness" could also mean something like "unskilful in the reasoning of righteosness." Hence, with both meat and milk we have reference to what might be called critical faculties. This interpretation is undermined slightly by v. 12's reference to the audience as those who "ought to be teachers." Hence, the logos of v. 13 might be teaching.
  • Heb 5:14: Discernment. An interesting question arises of why those who get meat require discernment between both good and evil. Is this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 5:13: Word. The Greek term translated here as "word" is logos. It is a term with a very rich meaning, including "discussion" and "reasoning."
  • 'Heb 5:14: Strong meat: In modern English, the Greek phrase stereos trophe, translated here as "strong meat," is usually translated as "solid food." The word trophe can refer to any type of food that gives nourishment, not just animal flesh.
  • Heb 6:1-2: Principles of the doctrine of Christ. Some have speculated that the list of "principles of the doctrine of Christ" contained here was an early catechism or statement of belief, analogous perhaps to the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" refered to in the Articles of Faith. The list seems to be:
Repentance
Faith
Baptism
The Laying on of Hands
Resurrection
Eternal Judgment
The grammar of verse 2 also allows for an interpretation where the last four items modify the first two (see Bruce reference below). On this view, the last four items form a foundation of doctrine and ordinances upon which the principles of repentance and faith are built.
  • Heb 6:1: JST. The JST inserts the word "not" in front of "leaving." This insertion suggests a connotation of "leaving" that implies abandoning or jettisoning. However, one could also read "leaving" in the unaltered KJV as simply turning to something else, without jettisoning the first. Notice that the author suggests that the "foundation" he references is not sufficient for "perfection," which requires the greater teachings that he is about to impart.
  • Heb 6:1: Not laying again the foundation. This phrase parallels "leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ". The writer has already indicated a desire to talk about meatier doctrines (cf. Heb 5:12-14), he may be reiterating the desire to talk about such doctrines rather than addressing the topics of repentance and faith again.
  • Heb 6:1: Dead works. This phrase (which recurs in Heb 9:14) could refer to sinful works, or it could refer to righteous works (either ordinances like baptism or the laying on of hands or, more generally, any righteous act). If referring to righteous acts, the deadness of such acts could mean either that they do not lead to eternal life without the intervention of Christ, the great high priest, or that works performed with "artificial or servile legalism" are "worthless and pernicious" as Paul and Christ describe them (see discussion in the Bruce reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. This likely refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost or the ordination of the priesthood. Some suggest it could refer to the sacrifice of animals (see John Gill reference below).
  • Heb 6:2: Why is baptisms plural? According to Bruce (see reference below), "Commentators generally concur . . . [that] the writer has in view not merely Christian baptism, but all the symbolic uses of water with which Jewish converts might be familiar."
  • Heb 6:3-6: Apostasy. In these verses, the author justifies leaving behind the discussion of the first principles—"This we will do" (v. 3)—by launching into an aside on the doctrine of apostacy. This discussion seems to be meant to justify why the audience of the letter cannot fall away from the truth. The move, however, is a rhetorical trick. The audience has in fact fallen away from the gospel, or at any rate is threatening to do so. Hence, the author uses his demonstration of the impossiblity of apostacy for his audience as an excuse to preach against apostacy precisely because it seems to be a real problem for his hearers.
  • Heb 6:4: Impossible. The Greek word adunatos is usually translated impossible as it is here in the KJV (and every other translation listed at Crosswalk). However, it can also mean "without strength, impotent, powerless, weakly, disabled", a slightly softer connotation. This verse may be referring to the unpardonable sin (see links below for cross references) or, esp. if the softer connotation is applied, it could be referring to how much more difficult it is for those who have once been righteous to repent, than it is for those who have never been righteous to repent (see 2 Pet 2:21, Alma 24:30, Hel 7:24, 3 Ne 6:18, and D&C 82:3.)
  • Heb 6:4: Tasted. The image of tasting the good word of God is striking. Joseph Smith employed the same image in the King Follett Discourse, where he refered to the truth as tasting good. There may be an oblique reference to the sacrament here, as the "word of God" could be a reference to Christ as the Word (see John 1:1) with our tasting being a reference to the Lord's Supper where he told his disciples that the bread has become his flesh and the wine his blood.
  • Heb 6:6: Softening the impossibility in v. 4? There are at least two different readings of verse 6 which can soften the impossibility of repentance being declared in verse 4. First, "crucify" and "put him to an open shame" may not be explaining what "fall away" means, but proposing a hypothetical case so that the meaning is "they cannot be renewed after falling away if they persist in crucifying" (there is a change of tense from the aorist to the present that suports this view). Another view is that "renew" is expressing a continuous action, so that the meaning is that it is impossible to keep repeating the process of falling and renewing—the repentance isn't genuine inasmuch as the repenter keeps falling away. (See Bruce reference below.)
  • Heb 6:7-8. These verses may be a reference to the parable of the sower, in which the word is likened to a seed thrown on various kinds of ground. If this is correct, then the "thorns and briers" are a reference to the cares of the world (cf. Mark 4:18-19). These verses help clarify the point being made in verses 4-6: those that hear the word of God but then foresake it are condemned. (See also those in Lehi's dream that partook of the fruit and then fell away, 1 Ne 8:25-28.)
Another possible reference is to the briers that the earth was cursed to bring forth in the face of Adam's labor after the fall. The reference to burning could be either to the post-mortal punishment of the particular apostate or to the final apoclyptic end of the earth, or perhaps both.
  • Heb 6:9-10. The author ends his aside started in verse 4 by—somewhat ironically perhaps—saying that none of his teachings about apostacy are meant to be applied to his audience. Given that his audience is in danger of turning from the gospel back to the law of Moses, this insistence is something of a rhetorical play.
Notice verse 10's emphasis on works. God does not forget the audience of the letter because of their labor of love and their ministering to the saints. If we accept a Pauline authorship for the letter, then this passage seems much less grace-centric than some of Paul's other writings, especially in Romans. If we reject Pauline authorship -- as virtually all modern scholars do -- then the tension with Romans is less provacative.
Interestingly, the current "Bible Dictionary" appended to LDS edition of the scriptures takes an intermediate position, acknowledging that Hebrews was probably not composed by Paul, but that its ideas are essentially Pauline. Almost without exception, official LDS discourse from Joseph Smith to the present has assumed Pauline authorship. However, this assumption seems to be based entirely on the traditional assignment of authorship, which has no direct basis in the text and arises out of an early Christian tradition many centuries removed from Paul himself.
  • Heb 6:11-12. These two verses are probably best thought of as a continuation of the thoughts expressed in the preceeding verses. What we are seeing is the delicate rhetorical game that the author is playing of exhorting his audience while only condemning them obliquely. The transition to the next section comes with the reference at the end of v. 12 to "inherit the promises."
The phrase is interesting as it invokes two separate sorts of relationships: inheritances and contracts. An inheritance is essentially a status-based relationship. One becomes entitled to benefits because one stands in a particular -- generally familial -- relationship with the benefactor. The classic example is the relationship between a father and an eldest son. A promise, in contrast, invokes the notion of contract. Generally speaking, a contract defines the purely voluntary obligations between two otherwise unrelated parties. No adoption or other change in familial status is necessary in order to become an obligee or an obligor under a contract. Rather, the touchstone becomes mutual assent to the transaction. The notion of promising also invokes oaths, a category closely related to contract. The idea of an oath is that one promises something and then invokes divine punishment upon oneself in the event of lapse.
By discussing salvation in terms of "inheritance of the promises" the author finesses a difficult aspect of Christian conversion. On one hand, conversion is thought of in voluntarist terms, a choice that reflects the deepest, most personal condition of one's soul. On the other hand, the relationship formed by conversion is much richer than those defined by contract. We do not simply make a kind of anti-Faustian bargain with God, but rather become adopted into his household and ultimately co-heirs with Christ.
  • Heb 6:13-15. In these verses Abraham is offered as the prototypical example of one who becomes an "inheritor of the promises." Notice that God makes an oath to Abraham, which we then inherit as a kind of chose in action. There are a couple of important things to think about in the choice of Abraham as the model. First, Abraham is the ur-founder of the Israelite nation, by identifying Christian salvation with the Abrahamic covenant we get continuity between Christ and the old testament prophets. Second, it is striking that Abraham's promise of infinite posterity is associated by Joseph Smith and the revelations of the Restoration with the promises of the temple. In Kirtland the "keys of the Gospel of Abraham" were restored to Joseph, and it is through the sealing ordinances that we receive the same promises of cosmic fecundity and posterity. Likewise, in Abraham we get the most elemental story of eternal increase as blessing, a notion that Joseph Smith expanded through the doctrine of exaltation into enternal progression and eternal families, worlds without number. It is perhaps not accidental that the author uses Abraham as a bridge back to his discussion of Christ, priesthood, and temple. Finally, Abraham shows up again in Heb 11's discussion of faith.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16 the writer places special emphasis on the word oath by transposing it from its expected position. In its expected position in Greek, the oath would fall in line with how it is translated in the KJV. Instead, the oath is transposed to the end of the sentence. To get the same affect in English we could translate this verse as: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, the oath." See Ex 22:11.
  • Heb 6:16. In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant to signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in Gen 15:10, and 15:17, where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by passing between the cut-up animal pieces. cf. Jer 34:11) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual.
  • Heb 6:17-20. Here the author suggests that the reliability of God's word comes from two sources. First, the oath that he as sworn, and second from his own inherent honesty. In v. 18-19 we have two images for the hope promised by God -- a refuge and an anchor. Even more striking, however, is the image of the veil. The temple, of course, had a veil that shielded the Holy of Holies, so with this reference the author once more links Christian salvation -- "the hope set before us" -- with the ritual of the temple.
In verse 20 we learn that Christ as a "high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" has gone before us into the Holy of Holies. Only the high priest of the temple was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, so suggesting that Christ's "Melchisedec" priesthood qualifies him for entry underscores its superiority to the old, Levital priesthood. The other interesting thing is that Christian believers are to follow Christ "within the veil." This, of course, is a priestly action, implying a kind of democratization of access to the sacred not available under the Levital order.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 5:14: Discernment and meat. Why do those who get "meat" require discernment between both good and evil? s this something that is necessary because of the teachings? Does meat consist of an admixture of the two that must be critically evaluated? Or is this simply an indication of a greater spiritual maturity? Why exactly is maturity necessary for the teachings that follow?
  • Heb 6:1-2.The author recapitulates the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Why is the order of repentance and faith reversed from what we see in the Articles of Faith?
  • Heb 6:10: Dead works. What is the distinction between the "dead works" referenced in v. 1 and the "work and labour of love" referenced in v. 10? Why the differing attitudes toward works?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 6:2: Alexander Bruce. For more on Alexander Bruce's take on how the principles of repentance and faith are modified by the four subsequent ordinances and doctrines, see The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study), 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 202-204. For more on Burce's discussion of why "baptisms" is plural, see pp. 205-6. For more on the phrase "dead works" see p. 204 and p. 352.
  • Heb 6:2: Laying on of hands. John Gill suggests this might refer to animal sacrifice.
  • Heb 6:6: Bruce on softening the impossibility of repenting. See The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (An Exegetical Study) by Alexander Bruce, 2nd edition (first published 1899; reprinted in 1980, ISBN 0-86524-028-0), pp. 211.

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5a                      Next page: Chapter 7

Heb 7:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 7 / Verses 7:1-28
Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:1-3: Superiority of Melchizedek Priesthood. These verses contain an implicit argument for the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood: First, Melchisedec was the king that blessed Abraham at his moment of triumph over kings, suggesting that even at the moment when the great progenitor subjected earthly authorities to his power, Melchisedec remained higher than him. Second, Abraham paid a tithe to the king. This may imply that there was some sort of semi-feudal relationship between Abraham and Melchisedec, once again with Melchisedec in the superior position. Third, the author notes the derivation of Melchisedec's name, which was most likely a title rather than a proper name; furthermore both of the names are associated with Christ, who is the Prince of Peace and the Man of Righteousness. Fourth, the author seems to suggest that Melchisedec was an immortal being. Here he is playing on a convention by which it was assumed that a scriptural character whose genealogy was not given was in fact a quasi-divine being. Like the resurrected Christ, Melchisedec is portrayed as a divine priest of the eternal world who "abideth a priest continually."
  • Heb 7:4-5: Inferiority of Levitical priesthood. Having established Melchisedec's superiority to Abraham, the author now establishes the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. The Levites came out of Abraham, yet all paid tithes to them. We have an oblique reference here to the "seed of Abraham," a status that the Pharisees exalt in in the Gospels. (Although, the author of Hebrews clearly has the Levitical priests rather than the Pharisees in his sights. The priests in the time of Christ were Saduccees rather than Pharisees.)
The language about the Levites coming out of Abraham may also be playing on pre-modern ideas about human reproduction. According to many ancient thinkers, a person literally grew from the seed of his father. The mother's womb was an entirely passive vessel on this view. Hence, in a very literal sense one was actually present within the body of one's ancestor. One example of this way of thinking is an Islamic legend about Adam, his seed, and God. The story was meant to explain human obligation to obey God. Back when Adam stood before God, God extracted from him a promise to obey. He (God) then pulled out of Adam's genitals all of his semen (seed), which then grew miraculously so that the entire human race stood before God. Having promised to obey Him, God then once again shrunk the race down to an infintesimal size and packed the seed back into Adam. In a similar way, the author seems to be suggesting that not only are the Levites inferior in authority to Melchisedec, but that they were literally present within Abraham when he -- and they -- were subjected to the authority of Melchisedec.
  • Heb 7:24: Unchangeable priesthood. The Greek word aparabatos in v. 24 has been translated "unchangeable" in the KJV ("permanent" in most other translations, "never pass" in this Aramaic version), but has an additional connotation of "not liable to pass to a successor."
This raises the question of whether the priesthood can be passed on to others. Steven Barton discusses two uses of the term priesthood in the scriptures and argues that v. 24 is referring to Christ's unique priestly calling to atone for sins, a calling that is not transferable to anyone else. In support of this interpretation is the reference in v. 21 to Melchizedek who is associated with immortality in rabbinic and early Hebrew writings. According to Barton:
Many ancient people thought of Melchizedek as a being that popped in and out of the world and lives on still. Christ's priestly duty, then, was "after the order of Melchizedek," meaning (in Hebrews) that Christ's sacrifice was eternal (like Melchizedek). His role as true high priest and mediator has not been given to another, because (like Melchizedek) "he lives" (Heb. 7:8,25).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:3. Craig A. Cardon, "Moving Closer to Him," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 94–96. Elder Cardon speaks of the power of the priesthood that changes our natures to become more like the Son of God (see JST Heb 7:3). "This likeness is not only in ordination and ordinance but also in the perfecting of individual hearts, something that occurs 'in process of time' as we '[yield] to the enticings of the Holy Spirit...'"

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10

Heb 7:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 7 / Verses 7:1-28
Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:1-3: Superiority of Melchizedek Priesthood. These verses contain an implicit argument for the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood: First, Melchisedec was the king that blessed Abraham at his moment of triumph over kings, suggesting that even at the moment when the great progenitor subjected earthly authorities to his power, Melchisedec remained higher than him. Second, Abraham paid a tithe to the king. This may imply that there was some sort of semi-feudal relationship between Abraham and Melchisedec, once again with Melchisedec in the superior position. Third, the author notes the derivation of Melchisedec's name, which was most likely a title rather than a proper name; furthermore both of the names are associated with Christ, who is the Prince of Peace and the Man of Righteousness. Fourth, the author seems to suggest that Melchisedec was an immortal being. Here he is playing on a convention by which it was assumed that a scriptural character whose genealogy was not given was in fact a quasi-divine being. Like the resurrected Christ, Melchisedec is portrayed as a divine priest of the eternal world who "abideth a priest continually."
  • Heb 7:4-5: Inferiority of Levitical priesthood. Having established Melchisedec's superiority to Abraham, the author now establishes the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. The Levites came out of Abraham, yet all paid tithes to them. We have an oblique reference here to the "seed of Abraham," a status that the Pharisees exalt in in the Gospels. (Although, the author of Hebrews clearly has the Levitical priests rather than the Pharisees in his sights. The priests in the time of Christ were Saduccees rather than Pharisees.)
The language about the Levites coming out of Abraham may also be playing on pre-modern ideas about human reproduction. According to many ancient thinkers, a person literally grew from the seed of his father. The mother's womb was an entirely passive vessel on this view. Hence, in a very literal sense one was actually present within the body of one's ancestor. One example of this way of thinking is an Islamic legend about Adam, his seed, and God. The story was meant to explain human obligation to obey God. Back when Adam stood before God, God extracted from him a promise to obey. He (God) then pulled out of Adam's genitals all of his semen (seed), which then grew miraculously so that the entire human race stood before God. Having promised to obey Him, God then once again shrunk the race down to an infintesimal size and packed the seed back into Adam. In a similar way, the author seems to be suggesting that not only are the Levites inferior in authority to Melchisedec, but that they were literally present within Abraham when he -- and they -- were subjected to the authority of Melchisedec.
  • Heb 7:24: Unchangeable priesthood. The Greek word aparabatos in v. 24 has been translated "unchangeable" in the KJV ("permanent" in most other translations, "never pass" in this Aramaic version), but has an additional connotation of "not liable to pass to a successor."
This raises the question of whether the priesthood can be passed on to others. Steven Barton discusses two uses of the term priesthood in the scriptures and argues that v. 24 is referring to Christ's unique priestly calling to atone for sins, a calling that is not transferable to anyone else. In support of this interpretation is the reference in v. 21 to Melchizedek who is associated with immortality in rabbinic and early Hebrew writings. According to Barton:
Many ancient people thought of Melchizedek as a being that popped in and out of the world and lives on still. Christ's priestly duty, then, was "after the order of Melchizedek," meaning (in Hebrews) that Christ's sacrifice was eternal (like Melchizedek). His role as true high priest and mediator has not been given to another, because (like Melchizedek) "he lives" (Heb. 7:8,25).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:3. Craig A. Cardon, "Moving Closer to Him," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 94–96. Elder Cardon speaks of the power of the priesthood that changes our natures to become more like the Son of God (see JST Heb 7:3). "This likeness is not only in ordination and ordinance but also in the perfecting of individual hearts, something that occurs 'in process of time' as we '[yield] to the enticings of the Holy Spirit...'"

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10

Heb 7:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 7 / Verses 7:1-28
Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:1-3: Superiority of Melchizedek Priesthood. These verses contain an implicit argument for the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood: First, Melchisedec was the king that blessed Abraham at his moment of triumph over kings, suggesting that even at the moment when the great progenitor subjected earthly authorities to his power, Melchisedec remained higher than him. Second, Abraham paid a tithe to the king. This may imply that there was some sort of semi-feudal relationship between Abraham and Melchisedec, once again with Melchisedec in the superior position. Third, the author notes the derivation of Melchisedec's name, which was most likely a title rather than a proper name; furthermore both of the names are associated with Christ, who is the Prince of Peace and the Man of Righteousness. Fourth, the author seems to suggest that Melchisedec was an immortal being. Here he is playing on a convention by which it was assumed that a scriptural character whose genealogy was not given was in fact a quasi-divine being. Like the resurrected Christ, Melchisedec is portrayed as a divine priest of the eternal world who "abideth a priest continually."
  • Heb 7:4-5: Inferiority of Levitical priesthood. Having established Melchisedec's superiority to Abraham, the author now establishes the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. The Levites came out of Abraham, yet all paid tithes to them. We have an oblique reference here to the "seed of Abraham," a status that the Pharisees exalt in in the Gospels. (Although, the author of Hebrews clearly has the Levitical priests rather than the Pharisees in his sights. The priests in the time of Christ were Saduccees rather than Pharisees.)
The language about the Levites coming out of Abraham may also be playing on pre-modern ideas about human reproduction. According to many ancient thinkers, a person literally grew from the seed of his father. The mother's womb was an entirely passive vessel on this view. Hence, in a very literal sense one was actually present within the body of one's ancestor. One example of this way of thinking is an Islamic legend about Adam, his seed, and God. The story was meant to explain human obligation to obey God. Back when Adam stood before God, God extracted from him a promise to obey. He (God) then pulled out of Adam's genitals all of his semen (seed), which then grew miraculously so that the entire human race stood before God. Having promised to obey Him, God then once again shrunk the race down to an infintesimal size and packed the seed back into Adam. In a similar way, the author seems to be suggesting that not only are the Levites inferior in authority to Melchisedec, but that they were literally present within Abraham when he -- and they -- were subjected to the authority of Melchisedec.
  • Heb 7:24: Unchangeable priesthood. The Greek word aparabatos in v. 24 has been translated "unchangeable" in the KJV ("permanent" in most other translations, "never pass" in this Aramaic version), but has an additional connotation of "not liable to pass to a successor."
This raises the question of whether the priesthood can be passed on to others. Steven Barton discusses two uses of the term priesthood in the scriptures and argues that v. 24 is referring to Christ's unique priestly calling to atone for sins, a calling that is not transferable to anyone else. In support of this interpretation is the reference in v. 21 to Melchizedek who is associated with immortality in rabbinic and early Hebrew writings. According to Barton:
Many ancient people thought of Melchizedek as a being that popped in and out of the world and lives on still. Christ's priestly duty, then, was "after the order of Melchizedek," meaning (in Hebrews) that Christ's sacrifice was eternal (like Melchizedek). His role as true high priest and mediator has not been given to another, because (like Melchizedek) "he lives" (Heb. 7:8,25).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:3. Craig A. Cardon, "Moving Closer to Him," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 94–96. Elder Cardon speaks of the power of the priesthood that changes our natures to become more like the Son of God (see JST Heb 7:3). "This likeness is not only in ordination and ordinance but also in the perfecting of individual hearts, something that occurs 'in process of time' as we '[yield] to the enticings of the Holy Spirit...'"

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10

Heb 7:16-20

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 7 / Verses 7:1-28
Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:1-3: Superiority of Melchizedek Priesthood. These verses contain an implicit argument for the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood: First, Melchisedec was the king that blessed Abraham at his moment of triumph over kings, suggesting that even at the moment when the great progenitor subjected earthly authorities to his power, Melchisedec remained higher than him. Second, Abraham paid a tithe to the king. This may imply that there was some sort of semi-feudal relationship between Abraham and Melchisedec, once again with Melchisedec in the superior position. Third, the author notes the derivation of Melchisedec's name, which was most likely a title rather than a proper name; furthermore both of the names are associated with Christ, who is the Prince of Peace and the Man of Righteousness. Fourth, the author seems to suggest that Melchisedec was an immortal being. Here he is playing on a convention by which it was assumed that a scriptural character whose genealogy was not given was in fact a quasi-divine being. Like the resurrected Christ, Melchisedec is portrayed as a divine priest of the eternal world who "abideth a priest continually."
  • Heb 7:4-5: Inferiority of Levitical priesthood. Having established Melchisedec's superiority to Abraham, the author now establishes the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. The Levites came out of Abraham, yet all paid tithes to them. We have an oblique reference here to the "seed of Abraham," a status that the Pharisees exalt in in the Gospels. (Although, the author of Hebrews clearly has the Levitical priests rather than the Pharisees in his sights. The priests in the time of Christ were Saduccees rather than Pharisees.)
The language about the Levites coming out of Abraham may also be playing on pre-modern ideas about human reproduction. According to many ancient thinkers, a person literally grew from the seed of his father. The mother's womb was an entirely passive vessel on this view. Hence, in a very literal sense one was actually present within the body of one's ancestor. One example of this way of thinking is an Islamic legend about Adam, his seed, and God. The story was meant to explain human obligation to obey God. Back when Adam stood before God, God extracted from him a promise to obey. He (God) then pulled out of Adam's genitals all of his semen (seed), which then grew miraculously so that the entire human race stood before God. Having promised to obey Him, God then once again shrunk the race down to an infintesimal size and packed the seed back into Adam. In a similar way, the author seems to be suggesting that not only are the Levites inferior in authority to Melchisedec, but that they were literally present within Abraham when he -- and they -- were subjected to the authority of Melchisedec.
  • Heb 7:24: Unchangeable priesthood. The Greek word aparabatos in v. 24 has been translated "unchangeable" in the KJV ("permanent" in most other translations, "never pass" in this Aramaic version), but has an additional connotation of "not liable to pass to a successor."
This raises the question of whether the priesthood can be passed on to others. Steven Barton discusses two uses of the term priesthood in the scriptures and argues that v. 24 is referring to Christ's unique priestly calling to atone for sins, a calling that is not transferable to anyone else. In support of this interpretation is the reference in v. 21 to Melchizedek who is associated with immortality in rabbinic and early Hebrew writings. According to Barton:
Many ancient people thought of Melchizedek as a being that popped in and out of the world and lives on still. Christ's priestly duty, then, was "after the order of Melchizedek," meaning (in Hebrews) that Christ's sacrifice was eternal (like Melchizedek). His role as true high priest and mediator has not been given to another, because (like Melchizedek) "he lives" (Heb. 7:8,25).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:3. Craig A. Cardon, "Moving Closer to Him," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 94–96. Elder Cardon speaks of the power of the priesthood that changes our natures to become more like the Son of God (see JST Heb 7:3). "This likeness is not only in ordination and ordinance but also in the perfecting of individual hearts, something that occurs 'in process of time' as we '[yield] to the enticings of the Holy Spirit...'"

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10

Heb 7:21-25

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 7 / Verses 7:1-28
Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:1-3: Superiority of Melchizedek Priesthood. These verses contain an implicit argument for the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood: First, Melchisedec was the king that blessed Abraham at his moment of triumph over kings, suggesting that even at the moment when the great progenitor subjected earthly authorities to his power, Melchisedec remained higher than him. Second, Abraham paid a tithe to the king. This may imply that there was some sort of semi-feudal relationship between Abraham and Melchisedec, once again with Melchisedec in the superior position. Third, the author notes the derivation of Melchisedec's name, which was most likely a title rather than a proper name; furthermore both of the names are associated with Christ, who is the Prince of Peace and the Man of Righteousness. Fourth, the author seems to suggest that Melchisedec was an immortal being. Here he is playing on a convention by which it was assumed that a scriptural character whose genealogy was not given was in fact a quasi-divine being. Like the resurrected Christ, Melchisedec is portrayed as a divine priest of the eternal world who "abideth a priest continually."
  • Heb 7:4-5: Inferiority of Levitical priesthood. Having established Melchisedec's superiority to Abraham, the author now establishes the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. The Levites came out of Abraham, yet all paid tithes to them. We have an oblique reference here to the "seed of Abraham," a status that the Pharisees exalt in in the Gospels. (Although, the author of Hebrews clearly has the Levitical priests rather than the Pharisees in his sights. The priests in the time of Christ were Saduccees rather than Pharisees.)
The language about the Levites coming out of Abraham may also be playing on pre-modern ideas about human reproduction. According to many ancient thinkers, a person literally grew from the seed of his father. The mother's womb was an entirely passive vessel on this view. Hence, in a very literal sense one was actually present within the body of one's ancestor. One example of this way of thinking is an Islamic legend about Adam, his seed, and God. The story was meant to explain human obligation to obey God. Back when Adam stood before God, God extracted from him a promise to obey. He (God) then pulled out of Adam's genitals all of his semen (seed), which then grew miraculously so that the entire human race stood before God. Having promised to obey Him, God then once again shrunk the race down to an infintesimal size and packed the seed back into Adam. In a similar way, the author seems to be suggesting that not only are the Levites inferior in authority to Melchisedec, but that they were literally present within Abraham when he -- and they -- were subjected to the authority of Melchisedec.
  • Heb 7:24: Unchangeable priesthood. The Greek word aparabatos in v. 24 has been translated "unchangeable" in the KJV ("permanent" in most other translations, "never pass" in this Aramaic version), but has an additional connotation of "not liable to pass to a successor."
This raises the question of whether the priesthood can be passed on to others. Steven Barton discusses two uses of the term priesthood in the scriptures and argues that v. 24 is referring to Christ's unique priestly calling to atone for sins, a calling that is not transferable to anyone else. In support of this interpretation is the reference in v. 21 to Melchizedek who is associated with immortality in rabbinic and early Hebrew writings. According to Barton:
Many ancient people thought of Melchizedek as a being that popped in and out of the world and lives on still. Christ's priestly duty, then, was "after the order of Melchizedek," meaning (in Hebrews) that Christ's sacrifice was eternal (like Melchizedek). His role as true high priest and mediator has not been given to another, because (like Melchizedek) "he lives" (Heb. 7:8,25).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:3. Craig A. Cardon, "Moving Closer to Him," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 94–96. Elder Cardon speaks of the power of the priesthood that changes our natures to become more like the Son of God (see JST Heb 7:3). "This likeness is not only in ordination and ordinance but also in the perfecting of individual hearts, something that occurs 'in process of time' as we '[yield] to the enticings of the Holy Spirit...'"

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10

Heb 7:26-28

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 5-7 > Chapter 7 / Verses 7:1-28
Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:1-3: Superiority of Melchizedek Priesthood. These verses contain an implicit argument for the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood: First, Melchisedec was the king that blessed Abraham at his moment of triumph over kings, suggesting that even at the moment when the great progenitor subjected earthly authorities to his power, Melchisedec remained higher than him. Second, Abraham paid a tithe to the king. This may imply that there was some sort of semi-feudal relationship between Abraham and Melchisedec, once again with Melchisedec in the superior position. Third, the author notes the derivation of Melchisedec's name, which was most likely a title rather than a proper name; furthermore both of the names are associated with Christ, who is the Prince of Peace and the Man of Righteousness. Fourth, the author seems to suggest that Melchisedec was an immortal being. Here he is playing on a convention by which it was assumed that a scriptural character whose genealogy was not given was in fact a quasi-divine being. Like the resurrected Christ, Melchisedec is portrayed as a divine priest of the eternal world who "abideth a priest continually."
  • Heb 7:4-5: Inferiority of Levitical priesthood. Having established Melchisedec's superiority to Abraham, the author now establishes the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. The Levites came out of Abraham, yet all paid tithes to them. We have an oblique reference here to the "seed of Abraham," a status that the Pharisees exalt in in the Gospels. (Although, the author of Hebrews clearly has the Levitical priests rather than the Pharisees in his sights. The priests in the time of Christ were Saduccees rather than Pharisees.)
The language about the Levites coming out of Abraham may also be playing on pre-modern ideas about human reproduction. According to many ancient thinkers, a person literally grew from the seed of his father. The mother's womb was an entirely passive vessel on this view. Hence, in a very literal sense one was actually present within the body of one's ancestor. One example of this way of thinking is an Islamic legend about Adam, his seed, and God. The story was meant to explain human obligation to obey God. Back when Adam stood before God, God extracted from him a promise to obey. He (God) then pulled out of Adam's genitals all of his semen (seed), which then grew miraculously so that the entire human race stood before God. Having promised to obey Him, God then once again shrunk the race down to an infintesimal size and packed the seed back into Adam. In a similar way, the author seems to be suggesting that not only are the Levites inferior in authority to Melchisedec, but that they were literally present within Abraham when he -- and they -- were subjected to the authority of Melchisedec.
  • Heb 7:24: Unchangeable priesthood. The Greek word aparabatos in v. 24 has been translated "unchangeable" in the KJV ("permanent" in most other translations, "never pass" in this Aramaic version), but has an additional connotation of "not liable to pass to a successor."
This raises the question of whether the priesthood can be passed on to others. Steven Barton discusses two uses of the term priesthood in the scriptures and argues that v. 24 is referring to Christ's unique priestly calling to atone for sins, a calling that is not transferable to anyone else. In support of this interpretation is the reference in v. 21 to Melchizedek who is associated with immortality in rabbinic and early Hebrew writings. According to Barton:
Many ancient people thought of Melchizedek as a being that popped in and out of the world and lives on still. Christ's priestly duty, then, was "after the order of Melchizedek," meaning (in Hebrews) that Christ's sacrifice was eternal (like Melchizedek). His role as true high priest and mediator has not been given to another, because (like Melchizedek) "he lives" (Heb. 7:8,25).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 7:3. Craig A. Cardon, "Moving Closer to Him," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 94–96. Elder Cardon speaks of the power of the priesthood that changes our natures to become more like the Son of God (see JST Heb 7:3). "This likeness is not only in ordination and ordinance but also in the perfecting of individual hearts, something that occurs 'in process of time' as we '[yield] to the enticings of the Holy Spirit...'"

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 5b-6                      Next page: Chapter 8-10

Heb 8:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 8:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 8:11-13

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 9:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 9:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 9:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 9:16-20

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 9:21-25

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 9:26-28

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 10:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 10:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 10:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 10:16-20

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 10:21-25

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 10:26-30

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 10:31-35

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 10:36-39

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 8-10
Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 8:12. Anthony D. Perkins, "‘The Great and Wonderful Love’," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 76–78. Elder Perkins advises: "Start with yourself, and forgive others as well. If God will not remember our repented-of sins, then why should we? Avoid wasting time and energy reliving the past."

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 7                      Next page: Chapter 11

Heb 11:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 11
Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11: Chapter overview: Faith and action. Perhaps more than any other section of scripture, this chapter of Hebrews makes clear that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. Time after time in these verses and the ones that follow, faith is always mentioned in terms of what people did.
The examples given are many: Abel, who gave a sacrifice (verse 4); Enoch, who pleased God, presumably by his actions (verse 5); Noah, who built the ark (verse 7); Abraham, who obeyed in several ways (verse 8); Isaac, who blessed Jacob (verse 20); Jacob, who blessed the sons of Joseph (verse 21); Moses' parents, who protected him (verse 23); Moses, who didn't succumb to pressure (verse 24); those who marched around the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab, who welcomed the spies (verse 31); Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, who took all sorts of decisive action; and unnamed others (verses 35ff) who were tortured and martyred.
  • Heb 11:1: Substance. The Greek word hupostasis is translated in verse 1 as "substance." It is often rendered in modern translations as "assurance," which is also the word used in the Joseph Smith Translation.
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The Greek phrasing here might be more literally translated as "what is seen did not come into being from things that are visible" (see the NET note here).
  • Heb 11:4. Based on the rather terse account of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:4-5, it is not clear why Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. Two common views (confirmed by Jewish tradition, see for example the commentary on this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary volume for Hebrews) consider both the content and the attitude that the offerings were offered. It seems here that the author is interested in the difference in attitude since in verse 6 faith is described as requiring the belief that God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Interestingly, the first two examples of faith given here do not involve (at least explicitly) a response to God's call as described in the other examples (this seems to help explain the explanatory interruption in verse 6).
It is also not clear in what manner Abel "obtained witness that he was righteous." Some traditions say that Abel's sacrifice was taken up in flame whereas Cain's was not. The Greek word for the KJV "obtained witness" and "testifying" in this verse, martureo, is the same word used in verse 2 for the KJV "good report" (see lexical note above). In both cases, the attestation (cf. "witness" in Ether 12:6) is described as a consequence of faith. Accordingly, it seems that faith is not something that is only given by God. That is, although faith is an assurance (per verse 1), it seems that it is an assurance in which the individual himself participates, whether actively or passively. Thus, whether it is Abel's exertion of faith or reception of faith (as a gift), either way Abel participates in this faith/assurance in a way that Cain does not, and perhaps it is this participation that makes Abel's sacrifice more excellent than Cain's.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11:1: Faith and hope. Faith here is defined (or at least talked about) in terms of hope, and in a way that seems to make faith go beyond hope, or at least presupposes hope. That is, if faith is "the assurance of things hoped for," then it seems faith would not make sense unless we first hope for something. So if faith, according to this verse, is something that assures of us what we hope for, might we think about hope preceding faith, contra the faith-hope-charity order in which these terms are usually articulated?
  • Heb 11:2: Obtained a good report. The Greek means here, more literally, "were attested." What is the relationship is being suggested here between faith, hope, and attestation? Are the elders being praised for faith that they exerted? Could this mean that the elders received testimony of God by faith?
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. What are "things which do appear" (or, more literally, "things that are visible--see lexical note below)? Isn't God something that appears (or is visible)? Is this verse assuming that God is not visible, or is this drawing a distinction between God himself and God's word, or something else entirely?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13

Heb 11:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 11
Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11: Chapter overview: Faith and action. Perhaps more than any other section of scripture, this chapter of Hebrews makes clear that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. Time after time in these verses and the ones that follow, faith is always mentioned in terms of what people did.
The examples given are many: Abel, who gave a sacrifice (verse 4); Enoch, who pleased God, presumably by his actions (verse 5); Noah, who built the ark (verse 7); Abraham, who obeyed in several ways (verse 8); Isaac, who blessed Jacob (verse 20); Jacob, who blessed the sons of Joseph (verse 21); Moses' parents, who protected him (verse 23); Moses, who didn't succumb to pressure (verse 24); those who marched around the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab, who welcomed the spies (verse 31); Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, who took all sorts of decisive action; and unnamed others (verses 35ff) who were tortured and martyred.
  • Heb 11:1: Substance. The Greek word hupostasis is translated in verse 1 as "substance." It is often rendered in modern translations as "assurance," which is also the word used in the Joseph Smith Translation.
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The Greek phrasing here might be more literally translated as "what is seen did not come into being from things that are visible" (see the NET note here).
  • Heb 11:4. Based on the rather terse account of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:4-5, it is not clear why Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. Two common views (confirmed by Jewish tradition, see for example the commentary on this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary volume for Hebrews) consider both the content and the attitude that the offerings were offered. It seems here that the author is interested in the difference in attitude since in verse 6 faith is described as requiring the belief that God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Interestingly, the first two examples of faith given here do not involve (at least explicitly) a response to God's call as described in the other examples (this seems to help explain the explanatory interruption in verse 6).
It is also not clear in what manner Abel "obtained witness that he was righteous." Some traditions say that Abel's sacrifice was taken up in flame whereas Cain's was not. The Greek word for the KJV "obtained witness" and "testifying" in this verse, martureo, is the same word used in verse 2 for the KJV "good report" (see lexical note above). In both cases, the attestation (cf. "witness" in Ether 12:6) is described as a consequence of faith. Accordingly, it seems that faith is not something that is only given by God. That is, although faith is an assurance (per verse 1), it seems that it is an assurance in which the individual himself participates, whether actively or passively. Thus, whether it is Abel's exertion of faith or reception of faith (as a gift), either way Abel participates in this faith/assurance in a way that Cain does not, and perhaps it is this participation that makes Abel's sacrifice more excellent than Cain's.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11:1: Faith and hope. Faith here is defined (or at least talked about) in terms of hope, and in a way that seems to make faith go beyond hope, or at least presupposes hope. That is, if faith is "the assurance of things hoped for," then it seems faith would not make sense unless we first hope for something. So if faith, according to this verse, is something that assures of us what we hope for, might we think about hope preceding faith, contra the faith-hope-charity order in which these terms are usually articulated?
  • Heb 11:2: Obtained a good report. The Greek means here, more literally, "were attested." What is the relationship is being suggested here between faith, hope, and attestation? Are the elders being praised for faith that they exerted? Could this mean that the elders received testimony of God by faith?
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. What are "things which do appear" (or, more literally, "things that are visible--see lexical note below)? Isn't God something that appears (or is visible)? Is this verse assuming that God is not visible, or is this drawing a distinction between God himself and God's word, or something else entirely?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13

Heb 11:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 11
Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11: Chapter overview: Faith and action. Perhaps more than any other section of scripture, this chapter of Hebrews makes clear that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. Time after time in these verses and the ones that follow, faith is always mentioned in terms of what people did.
The examples given are many: Abel, who gave a sacrifice (verse 4); Enoch, who pleased God, presumably by his actions (verse 5); Noah, who built the ark (verse 7); Abraham, who obeyed in several ways (verse 8); Isaac, who blessed Jacob (verse 20); Jacob, who blessed the sons of Joseph (verse 21); Moses' parents, who protected him (verse 23); Moses, who didn't succumb to pressure (verse 24); those who marched around the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab, who welcomed the spies (verse 31); Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, who took all sorts of decisive action; and unnamed others (verses 35ff) who were tortured and martyred.
  • Heb 11:1: Substance. The Greek word hupostasis is translated in verse 1 as "substance." It is often rendered in modern translations as "assurance," which is also the word used in the Joseph Smith Translation.
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The Greek phrasing here might be more literally translated as "what is seen did not come into being from things that are visible" (see the NET note here).
  • Heb 11:4. Based on the rather terse account of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:4-5, it is not clear why Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. Two common views (confirmed by Jewish tradition, see for example the commentary on this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary volume for Hebrews) consider both the content and the attitude that the offerings were offered. It seems here that the author is interested in the difference in attitude since in verse 6 faith is described as requiring the belief that God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Interestingly, the first two examples of faith given here do not involve (at least explicitly) a response to God's call as described in the other examples (this seems to help explain the explanatory interruption in verse 6).
It is also not clear in what manner Abel "obtained witness that he was righteous." Some traditions say that Abel's sacrifice was taken up in flame whereas Cain's was not. The Greek word for the KJV "obtained witness" and "testifying" in this verse, martureo, is the same word used in verse 2 for the KJV "good report" (see lexical note above). In both cases, the attestation (cf. "witness" in Ether 12:6) is described as a consequence of faith. Accordingly, it seems that faith is not something that is only given by God. That is, although faith is an assurance (per verse 1), it seems that it is an assurance in which the individual himself participates, whether actively or passively. Thus, whether it is Abel's exertion of faith or reception of faith (as a gift), either way Abel participates in this faith/assurance in a way that Cain does not, and perhaps it is this participation that makes Abel's sacrifice more excellent than Cain's.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11:1: Faith and hope. Faith here is defined (or at least talked about) in terms of hope, and in a way that seems to make faith go beyond hope, or at least presupposes hope. That is, if faith is "the assurance of things hoped for," then it seems faith would not make sense unless we first hope for something. So if faith, according to this verse, is something that assures of us what we hope for, might we think about hope preceding faith, contra the faith-hope-charity order in which these terms are usually articulated?
  • Heb 11:2: Obtained a good report. The Greek means here, more literally, "were attested." What is the relationship is being suggested here between faith, hope, and attestation? Are the elders being praised for faith that they exerted? Could this mean that the elders received testimony of God by faith?
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. What are "things which do appear" (or, more literally, "things that are visible--see lexical note below)? Isn't God something that appears (or is visible)? Is this verse assuming that God is not visible, or is this drawing a distinction between God himself and God's word, or something else entirely?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13

Heb 11:16-20

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 11
Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11: Chapter overview: Faith and action. Perhaps more than any other section of scripture, this chapter of Hebrews makes clear that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. Time after time in these verses and the ones that follow, faith is always mentioned in terms of what people did.
The examples given are many: Abel, who gave a sacrifice (verse 4); Enoch, who pleased God, presumably by his actions (verse 5); Noah, who built the ark (verse 7); Abraham, who obeyed in several ways (verse 8); Isaac, who blessed Jacob (verse 20); Jacob, who blessed the sons of Joseph (verse 21); Moses' parents, who protected him (verse 23); Moses, who didn't succumb to pressure (verse 24); those who marched around the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab, who welcomed the spies (verse 31); Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, who took all sorts of decisive action; and unnamed others (verses 35ff) who were tortured and martyred.
  • Heb 11:1: Substance. The Greek word hupostasis is translated in verse 1 as "substance." It is often rendered in modern translations as "assurance," which is also the word used in the Joseph Smith Translation.
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The Greek phrasing here might be more literally translated as "what is seen did not come into being from things that are visible" (see the NET note here).
  • Heb 11:4. Based on the rather terse account of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:4-5, it is not clear why Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. Two common views (confirmed by Jewish tradition, see for example the commentary on this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary volume for Hebrews) consider both the content and the attitude that the offerings were offered. It seems here that the author is interested in the difference in attitude since in verse 6 faith is described as requiring the belief that God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Interestingly, the first two examples of faith given here do not involve (at least explicitly) a response to God's call as described in the other examples (this seems to help explain the explanatory interruption in verse 6).
It is also not clear in what manner Abel "obtained witness that he was righteous." Some traditions say that Abel's sacrifice was taken up in flame whereas Cain's was not. The Greek word for the KJV "obtained witness" and "testifying" in this verse, martureo, is the same word used in verse 2 for the KJV "good report" (see lexical note above). In both cases, the attestation (cf. "witness" in Ether 12:6) is described as a consequence of faith. Accordingly, it seems that faith is not something that is only given by God. That is, although faith is an assurance (per verse 1), it seems that it is an assurance in which the individual himself participates, whether actively or passively. Thus, whether it is Abel's exertion of faith or reception of faith (as a gift), either way Abel participates in this faith/assurance in a way that Cain does not, and perhaps it is this participation that makes Abel's sacrifice more excellent than Cain's.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11:1: Faith and hope. Faith here is defined (or at least talked about) in terms of hope, and in a way that seems to make faith go beyond hope, or at least presupposes hope. That is, if faith is "the assurance of things hoped for," then it seems faith would not make sense unless we first hope for something. So if faith, according to this verse, is something that assures of us what we hope for, might we think about hope preceding faith, contra the faith-hope-charity order in which these terms are usually articulated?
  • Heb 11:2: Obtained a good report. The Greek means here, more literally, "were attested." What is the relationship is being suggested here between faith, hope, and attestation? Are the elders being praised for faith that they exerted? Could this mean that the elders received testimony of God by faith?
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. What are "things which do appear" (or, more literally, "things that are visible--see lexical note below)? Isn't God something that appears (or is visible)? Is this verse assuming that God is not visible, or is this drawing a distinction between God himself and God's word, or something else entirely?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13

Heb 11:21-25

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 11
Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11: Chapter overview: Faith and action. Perhaps more than any other section of scripture, this chapter of Hebrews makes clear that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. Time after time in these verses and the ones that follow, faith is always mentioned in terms of what people did.
The examples given are many: Abel, who gave a sacrifice (verse 4); Enoch, who pleased God, presumably by his actions (verse 5); Noah, who built the ark (verse 7); Abraham, who obeyed in several ways (verse 8); Isaac, who blessed Jacob (verse 20); Jacob, who blessed the sons of Joseph (verse 21); Moses' parents, who protected him (verse 23); Moses, who didn't succumb to pressure (verse 24); those who marched around the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab, who welcomed the spies (verse 31); Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, who took all sorts of decisive action; and unnamed others (verses 35ff) who were tortured and martyred.
  • Heb 11:1: Substance. The Greek word hupostasis is translated in verse 1 as "substance." It is often rendered in modern translations as "assurance," which is also the word used in the Joseph Smith Translation.
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The Greek phrasing here might be more literally translated as "what is seen did not come into being from things that are visible" (see the NET note here).
  • Heb 11:4. Based on the rather terse account of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:4-5, it is not clear why Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. Two common views (confirmed by Jewish tradition, see for example the commentary on this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary volume for Hebrews) consider both the content and the attitude that the offerings were offered. It seems here that the author is interested in the difference in attitude since in verse 6 faith is described as requiring the belief that God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Interestingly, the first two examples of faith given here do not involve (at least explicitly) a response to God's call as described in the other examples (this seems to help explain the explanatory interruption in verse 6).
It is also not clear in what manner Abel "obtained witness that he was righteous." Some traditions say that Abel's sacrifice was taken up in flame whereas Cain's was not. The Greek word for the KJV "obtained witness" and "testifying" in this verse, martureo, is the same word used in verse 2 for the KJV "good report" (see lexical note above). In both cases, the attestation (cf. "witness" in Ether 12:6) is described as a consequence of faith. Accordingly, it seems that faith is not something that is only given by God. That is, although faith is an assurance (per verse 1), it seems that it is an assurance in which the individual himself participates, whether actively or passively. Thus, whether it is Abel's exertion of faith or reception of faith (as a gift), either way Abel participates in this faith/assurance in a way that Cain does not, and perhaps it is this participation that makes Abel's sacrifice more excellent than Cain's.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11:1: Faith and hope. Faith here is defined (or at least talked about) in terms of hope, and in a way that seems to make faith go beyond hope, or at least presupposes hope. That is, if faith is "the assurance of things hoped for," then it seems faith would not make sense unless we first hope for something. So if faith, according to this verse, is something that assures of us what we hope for, might we think about hope preceding faith, contra the faith-hope-charity order in which these terms are usually articulated?
  • Heb 11:2: Obtained a good report. The Greek means here, more literally, "were attested." What is the relationship is being suggested here between faith, hope, and attestation? Are the elders being praised for faith that they exerted? Could this mean that the elders received testimony of God by faith?
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. What are "things which do appear" (or, more literally, "things that are visible--see lexical note below)? Isn't God something that appears (or is visible)? Is this verse assuming that God is not visible, or is this drawing a distinction between God himself and God's word, or something else entirely?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13

Heb 11:26-30

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 11
Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11: Chapter overview: Faith and action. Perhaps more than any other section of scripture, this chapter of Hebrews makes clear that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. Time after time in these verses and the ones that follow, faith is always mentioned in terms of what people did.
The examples given are many: Abel, who gave a sacrifice (verse 4); Enoch, who pleased God, presumably by his actions (verse 5); Noah, who built the ark (verse 7); Abraham, who obeyed in several ways (verse 8); Isaac, who blessed Jacob (verse 20); Jacob, who blessed the sons of Joseph (verse 21); Moses' parents, who protected him (verse 23); Moses, who didn't succumb to pressure (verse 24); those who marched around the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab, who welcomed the spies (verse 31); Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, who took all sorts of decisive action; and unnamed others (verses 35ff) who were tortured and martyred.
  • Heb 11:1: Substance. The Greek word hupostasis is translated in verse 1 as "substance." It is often rendered in modern translations as "assurance," which is also the word used in the Joseph Smith Translation.
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The Greek phrasing here might be more literally translated as "what is seen did not come into being from things that are visible" (see the NET note here).
  • Heb 11:4. Based on the rather terse account of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:4-5, it is not clear why Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. Two common views (confirmed by Jewish tradition, see for example the commentary on this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary volume for Hebrews) consider both the content and the attitude that the offerings were offered. It seems here that the author is interested in the difference in attitude since in verse 6 faith is described as requiring the belief that God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Interestingly, the first two examples of faith given here do not involve (at least explicitly) a response to God's call as described in the other examples (this seems to help explain the explanatory interruption in verse 6).
It is also not clear in what manner Abel "obtained witness that he was righteous." Some traditions say that Abel's sacrifice was taken up in flame whereas Cain's was not. The Greek word for the KJV "obtained witness" and "testifying" in this verse, martureo, is the same word used in verse 2 for the KJV "good report" (see lexical note above). In both cases, the attestation (cf. "witness" in Ether 12:6) is described as a consequence of faith. Accordingly, it seems that faith is not something that is only given by God. That is, although faith is an assurance (per verse 1), it seems that it is an assurance in which the individual himself participates, whether actively or passively. Thus, whether it is Abel's exertion of faith or reception of faith (as a gift), either way Abel participates in this faith/assurance in a way that Cain does not, and perhaps it is this participation that makes Abel's sacrifice more excellent than Cain's.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11:1: Faith and hope. Faith here is defined (or at least talked about) in terms of hope, and in a way that seems to make faith go beyond hope, or at least presupposes hope. That is, if faith is "the assurance of things hoped for," then it seems faith would not make sense unless we first hope for something. So if faith, according to this verse, is something that assures of us what we hope for, might we think about hope preceding faith, contra the faith-hope-charity order in which these terms are usually articulated?
  • Heb 11:2: Obtained a good report. The Greek means here, more literally, "were attested." What is the relationship is being suggested here between faith, hope, and attestation? Are the elders being praised for faith that they exerted? Could this mean that the elders received testimony of God by faith?
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. What are "things which do appear" (or, more literally, "things that are visible--see lexical note below)? Isn't God something that appears (or is visible)? Is this verse assuming that God is not visible, or is this drawing a distinction between God himself and God's word, or something else entirely?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13

Heb 11:31-35

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 11
Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11: Chapter overview: Faith and action. Perhaps more than any other section of scripture, this chapter of Hebrews makes clear that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. Time after time in these verses and the ones that follow, faith is always mentioned in terms of what people did.
The examples given are many: Abel, who gave a sacrifice (verse 4); Enoch, who pleased God, presumably by his actions (verse 5); Noah, who built the ark (verse 7); Abraham, who obeyed in several ways (verse 8); Isaac, who blessed Jacob (verse 20); Jacob, who blessed the sons of Joseph (verse 21); Moses' parents, who protected him (verse 23); Moses, who didn't succumb to pressure (verse 24); those who marched around the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab, who welcomed the spies (verse 31); Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, who took all sorts of decisive action; and unnamed others (verses 35ff) who were tortured and martyred.
  • Heb 11:1: Substance. The Greek word hupostasis is translated in verse 1 as "substance." It is often rendered in modern translations as "assurance," which is also the word used in the Joseph Smith Translation.
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The Greek phrasing here might be more literally translated as "what is seen did not come into being from things that are visible" (see the NET note here).
  • Heb 11:4. Based on the rather terse account of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:4-5, it is not clear why Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. Two common views (confirmed by Jewish tradition, see for example the commentary on this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary volume for Hebrews) consider both the content and the attitude that the offerings were offered. It seems here that the author is interested in the difference in attitude since in verse 6 faith is described as requiring the belief that God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Interestingly, the first two examples of faith given here do not involve (at least explicitly) a response to God's call as described in the other examples (this seems to help explain the explanatory interruption in verse 6).
It is also not clear in what manner Abel "obtained witness that he was righteous." Some traditions say that Abel's sacrifice was taken up in flame whereas Cain's was not. The Greek word for the KJV "obtained witness" and "testifying" in this verse, martureo, is the same word used in verse 2 for the KJV "good report" (see lexical note above). In both cases, the attestation (cf. "witness" in Ether 12:6) is described as a consequence of faith. Accordingly, it seems that faith is not something that is only given by God. That is, although faith is an assurance (per verse 1), it seems that it is an assurance in which the individual himself participates, whether actively or passively. Thus, whether it is Abel's exertion of faith or reception of faith (as a gift), either way Abel participates in this faith/assurance in a way that Cain does not, and perhaps it is this participation that makes Abel's sacrifice more excellent than Cain's.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11:1: Faith and hope. Faith here is defined (or at least talked about) in terms of hope, and in a way that seems to make faith go beyond hope, or at least presupposes hope. That is, if faith is "the assurance of things hoped for," then it seems faith would not make sense unless we first hope for something. So if faith, according to this verse, is something that assures of us what we hope for, might we think about hope preceding faith, contra the faith-hope-charity order in which these terms are usually articulated?
  • Heb 11:2: Obtained a good report. The Greek means here, more literally, "were attested." What is the relationship is being suggested here between faith, hope, and attestation? Are the elders being praised for faith that they exerted? Could this mean that the elders received testimony of God by faith?
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. What are "things which do appear" (or, more literally, "things that are visible--see lexical note below)? Isn't God something that appears (or is visible)? Is this verse assuming that God is not visible, or is this drawing a distinction between God himself and God's word, or something else entirely?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13

Heb 11:36-40

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 11
Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11: Chapter overview: Faith and action. Perhaps more than any other section of scripture, this chapter of Hebrews makes clear that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. Time after time in these verses and the ones that follow, faith is always mentioned in terms of what people did.
The examples given are many: Abel, who gave a sacrifice (verse 4); Enoch, who pleased God, presumably by his actions (verse 5); Noah, who built the ark (verse 7); Abraham, who obeyed in several ways (verse 8); Isaac, who blessed Jacob (verse 20); Jacob, who blessed the sons of Joseph (verse 21); Moses' parents, who protected him (verse 23); Moses, who didn't succumb to pressure (verse 24); those who marched around the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab, who welcomed the spies (verse 31); Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, who took all sorts of decisive action; and unnamed others (verses 35ff) who were tortured and martyred.
  • Heb 11:1: Substance. The Greek word hupostasis is translated in verse 1 as "substance." It is often rendered in modern translations as "assurance," which is also the word used in the Joseph Smith Translation.
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The Greek phrasing here might be more literally translated as "what is seen did not come into being from things that are visible" (see the NET note here).
  • Heb 11:4. Based on the rather terse account of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:4-5, it is not clear why Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. Two common views (confirmed by Jewish tradition, see for example the commentary on this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary volume for Hebrews) consider both the content and the attitude that the offerings were offered. It seems here that the author is interested in the difference in attitude since in verse 6 faith is described as requiring the belief that God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Interestingly, the first two examples of faith given here do not involve (at least explicitly) a response to God's call as described in the other examples (this seems to help explain the explanatory interruption in verse 6).
It is also not clear in what manner Abel "obtained witness that he was righteous." Some traditions say that Abel's sacrifice was taken up in flame whereas Cain's was not. The Greek word for the KJV "obtained witness" and "testifying" in this verse, martureo, is the same word used in verse 2 for the KJV "good report" (see lexical note above). In both cases, the attestation (cf. "witness" in Ether 12:6) is described as a consequence of faith. Accordingly, it seems that faith is not something that is only given by God. That is, although faith is an assurance (per verse 1), it seems that it is an assurance in which the individual himself participates, whether actively or passively. Thus, whether it is Abel's exertion of faith or reception of faith (as a gift), either way Abel participates in this faith/assurance in a way that Cain does not, and perhaps it is this participation that makes Abel's sacrifice more excellent than Cain's.

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 11:1: Faith and hope. Faith here is defined (or at least talked about) in terms of hope, and in a way that seems to make faith go beyond hope, or at least presupposes hope. That is, if faith is "the assurance of things hoped for," then it seems faith would not make sense unless we first hope for something. So if faith, according to this verse, is something that assures of us what we hope for, might we think about hope preceding faith, contra the faith-hope-charity order in which these terms are usually articulated?
  • Heb 11:2: Obtained a good report. The Greek means here, more literally, "were attested." What is the relationship is being suggested here between faith, hope, and attestation? Are the elders being praised for faith that they exerted? Could this mean that the elders received testimony of God by faith?
  • Heb 11:3: Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. What are "things which do appear" (or, more literally, "things that are visible--see lexical note below)? Isn't God something that appears (or is visible)? Is this verse assuming that God is not visible, or is this drawing a distinction between God himself and God's word, or something else entirely?

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 8-10                      Next page: Chapter 12-13

Heb 12:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 12:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 12:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 12:16-20

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 12:21-25

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 12:26-29

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 13:1-5

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 13:6-10

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 13:11-15

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 13:16-20

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

Heb 13:21-25

Home > The New Testament > Hebrews > Chapter 12-13
Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews


This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.


Summary[edit]

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion[edit]

This heading is for more detailed discussions of all or part of a passage. Discussion may include the meaning of a particular word, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout the passage, insights to be developed in the future, and other items. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

  • Heb 12:20: If so much as a beast touch the mountain. This seems to be a quotation of Ex 19:12-13.
  • Heb 12:22-24. Joseph Smith returned again and again to these three verses during the Nauvoo era, beginning from one of his earliest recorded discourses in 1839 and continuing right until his last days. The priesthood emphasis he placed on them makes it quite clear that these verses form the "theological basis" for many of the ritual developments of Nauvoo: baptism for the dead, the endowment (as performed there and since), sealing ordinances, plural marriage, receiving the fullness of the priesthood, etc. What is curious about this fact is that these classically Christian verses served as a sort of foundation for what are considered the most unique Latter-day Saint doctrines, the most radically "un-Christian" facets of the LDS Church. In other words, these three verses provide a sort of starting point for understanding Joseph Smith's unique manner of interpretation. The more one looks at how Joseph interpreted and used these three verses, the clearer it becomes that there is a radical difference between "traditional" interpretation of this passage and Joseph's reading of it, but careful investigation also reveals that both approaches are textually justified. That is, both Joseph's reading and the more "traditional" reading are clearly within the bounds of the hermeneutical possibilities bound up within this text. In order to see the range of possibilities--as well as the vastly important role these verses play in LDS "theology"--it would be best to set a more "traditional" approach to these verses side by side with the interpretations of the Prophet Joseph.
A further note about this passage is necessary to its interpretation. The whole of the book of Hebrews is a comparison of the higher and the lower, of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek, of the Mosaic and the Christian, and the present passage is no exception: it is caught up within just such a comparison as well. In other words, these three verses cannot be understood apart from verses 18-21, which sets Mount Sinai against Mount Zion. The comparison is important: Sinai is a "mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," a place where the Israelites were "intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more," and something so overwhelming and dreadful that even Moses did "exceedingly fear and quake." Over against this is Mount Zion, an exalted gathering of saints and angels. That the present passage is yet another such comparison (and one of the last of them) is vital for its interpretation: this passage--these three verses in particular--rides on all that has already been said about the superiority of the higher priesthood, of the order of Melchizedek, of the Christian powers of rending the veil, of being sealed up to eternal life, of a faith that stretches beyond obedience/law. All of this is absolutely vital, because one comes to a passage here that is already saturated with the very themes Joseph Smith reads into it: the highest and holiest orders and ordinances in the kingdom of God. At the very least, one must recognize the profundity of verses 22-24 even before reading them.
  • Heb 12:22: But. The contrast suggested here by the Greek word alla (but) seems to be referring to verse 18 where "ye are not come" there is contasted here with "ye are come." The main contrast, then, seems to be that whereas mount Sinai "might be touched," mount Zion is something that must be obtained through faith (cf. "not seen" in Heb 11:1).
  • Heb 12:22. Mount Zion (or "mount Sion") had several meanings anciently. It was the designation for the mountain upon which the City of David was built, on the top of which was Solomon's temple. Josephus misidentified a mountain a little to the west as the original site of the City of David (this city has been excavated over the past few decades), and now Mount Zion is the name of the mountain Josephus erroneously referred to. Regardless, it must first be understood that "Mount Zion" referred specifically to the mountain upon which the most ancient city of Jerusalem was built.
However, it is clear here that no "physical" mountain is meant, precisely because "mount Sion" is being opposed to "the mount that might be touched" (verse 18), Mount Sinai. That is, Mount Zion is here something eschatological, something non-earthly. This is confirmed a moment later when the author describes it as "the heavenly Jerusalem." It is clear from this that Jerusalem is precisely what is meant (the city built on Mount Zion in the most literal sense), but that all of these things are to be understood as heavenly, not earthly. In other words, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, etc., are being used here as designators for heavenly counterparts to earthly realities. That is, Jerusalem and Mount Zion are here "spiritualized" or recognized as types of something in heaven. (It might be worth noting that this does not call the passage or the book into question, despite the fact that "spiritual" readings of the scriptures have been often derided among Latter-day Saints: the earthly reality is not at all denied in a "spiritual" reading, but rather its function as sign alters its relation to things and among things on earth.)
Though a whole list of "things" to which "ye are come" is about to laid out, it is clear from the first that there is an order to things here. The first "thing" to which one comes is the mount: long before coming into the company of angels or of God, one comes just to the foot of the mountain to begin to climb. Part of the way up, one passes through the gates of "the city of the living God," coming closer bit by bit to the actual place of God. By the end of this verse, one passes through the outer limits of the gathered throngs of angels, breaking into the heavenly circle. Over the course of the following two verses, one passes through all of these things to stand in the presence of God Himself and Christ with Him. There are some difficulties about the order there, but they must be discussed below.
These several points of passage tie in with traditional Hebrew imagery (or beliefs): upon Mount Zion stands the city of David, the city eventually to be the abode of the Messiah (the King), a place that is heavenly inasmuch as the temple remains central and sacral. If one is able to pass through the veil of the temple (boldy, as implied by the "But" with which this verse starts: not with the fear and quaking of Sinai, but with boldness), one enters into "an innumerable company of angels," what Nephi describes (in discussing Lehi's vision) as "numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (1 Ne 1:8). The imagery of this verse, that is, is one of climbing up the sacred mountain and into the very presence of God by coming into His council. There, in the midst of the angels (perhaps through a rite of apotheosis; cf. Isa 6), one is given the opportunity to face God and to dwell in a heavenly place that is, nonetheless, on earth.
If all of these details combine well to make a clear picture of things, Joseph Smith's commentary on the verse only enriches it further by making this picture a temporal as well as a spiritual one. That is, if Mount Zion is here spiritualized, Joseph Smith re-temporalizes it without denying the purely spiritual (or typological) character of the author's intention. Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith explained that "Dan VII Speaks of the Ancient of days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council." He further explained, "Those men to whom these Keys have been given will have to be there. (I.E. when Adam shall again assemble his children of the Priesthood, & Christ be in their midst) the Ancient of Days come &c &c [note added by John Taylor]) And they without us cannot not be made perfect. These men are in heaven, but their children are on Earth. Their bowels yearn over us. God sends down men for this reason, Mat. 13. 41. & the Son of man shall send forth his Angels &c-All these authoritative characters will come down & join hand in hand in bringing about this work."
Quite simply put, Joseph Smith's interpretation seems to have understood this "coming to an innumberable company of angels, of God and of Christ" business to be a reference to the eventual assembly at Adam-Ondi-Ahman, where the Ancient of Days will sit in judgment and council, Christ will appear, and Adam will deliver up his stewardship. On this reading, the imagery of the verse becomes, even if spiritual, literal as well. Coming up to the mount, but perhaps not climbing it, one remains in the valley where the innumerable company of angels will gather to seal up every key, etc. What seems to have been more important about all of this to Joseph, however, is not where it will take place, or that there is a literal event to be spoken of, but that all of these things amount to a sealing up of the fathers and the children, of earth and heaven, of the temporal and the spiritual, of angels and men, etc. The significance of Adam-Ondi-Ahman is precisely this: heaven and earth become one when the sealing ordinance binds the two, especially in binding the dead fathers to the living sons, sons alive at the coming of the Savior. Whatever else can be said about the present passage, one must keep Joseph's comments in mind.
  • Heb 12:24: Sprinkle blood. This phrase, similar to that used in Heb 9:13-14, seems to be alluding to passages such as Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21, and Ex 24:8. There may also be a reference to Isa 52:15 ("sprinkle many nations" in the KJV, "startle many nations" in most modern translations), but the LXX term used there is thaumasontai, which seems to mean something more like "startle," instead of rhantizo as used here. Although most quotations in Hebrews seem to be more similar to the Masoretic Text than the LXX, it seems there is some evidence that the author of Hebrews was quoting from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text (see Howard, p. 208).

Points to ponder[edit]

This heading is for prompts that suggest ways in which all or part of this passage can influence a person's life. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

I have a question[edit]

This heading is for unanswered questions and is an important part of the continual effort to improve this wiki. Please do not be shy, as even a basic or "stupid" question can identify things that need to be improved on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Resources[edit]

This heading is for listing links and print resources, including those cited in the notes. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

"I love the symbolism of women reaching out to touch the Savior. We long to be close to the Lord, for we know that He loves each of us... His touch can heal ailments spiritual, emotional, or physical... Where else would we reach, where else would we come but to Jesus Christ, 'the author and finisher of our faith?'"
  • Heb 12:22. The material quoted in the exegesis for verse 22 can be found in Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, in the talk they label "Before 8 August 1839 (1)." The discourse is also online here.
  • Heb 12:24.Howard, George. "Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 2/3 (Apr. - Jul., 1968), pp. 208-216. Howard writes, "It has been popular in the past to begin a commentary or an introduction to the Epistle by stating that the writer always uses the Septuagint version of the OT (sometimes in the form of Codex Vaticanus, but more often in the form of Codex Alexandrius) and never shows acquaintance with the Hebrew. Since the discovery of the Qumran Literature and the impetus given by it to the study of the pre-Masoretic text, it is now probable that the text used by the author of Hebrews is, on occasion, closer to a Hebrew recension more ancient than the Masoretic text)" (p. 208).

Notes[edit]

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves, such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word. In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources are preferable to footnotes.




Previous page: Chapter 11                      This is the last page for Hebrews

For efficiency this page often uses a cached copy of an older version. If you need to refresh the cache, to see the most up to date version, click here.