Difference between revisions of "Heb 6:16-20"
m (→Verse 16: revised further for accuracy) |
Nathan Oman (Talk | contribs) (→Exegesis) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {| | + | [[The New Testament]] > [[To the Hebrews]] > [[To the Hebrews 6|Chapter 6]] |
| − | | [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next]] | + | {| |
| + | | [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous (Heb 6:11-15)]] || || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next (Heb 7:1-5)]] | ||
|} | |} | ||
== Questions == | == Questions == | ||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
===Verse 16=== | ===Verse 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 [[Gen 15:17|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. | 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 [[Gen 15:17|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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Verses 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 democraticization of access to the sacred not available under the Levital order. | ||
== Related links == | == Related links == | ||
| Line 18: | Line 24: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | {| | + | {| |
| − | | [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next]] | + | | [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous (Heb 6:11-15)]] || || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next (Heb 7:1-5)]] |
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 00:51, 20 October 2006
The New Testament > To the Hebrews > Chapter 6
| Previous (Heb 6:11-15) | Next (Heb 7:1-5) |
Questions
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions
Lexical notes
- 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.
Exegesis
Verse 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.
Verses 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 democraticization of access to the sacred not available under the Levital order.
Related links
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links
| Previous (Heb 6:11-15) | Next (Heb 7:1-5) |
