What’s “New”

About The

“New Testament”

© 6/7/12

By

Russ Hills, Ph.D.

  2

Brethren, This very short paper came about as a result of a recent discussion among Brothers in Y’shua. By brothers I

mean: those who accept Y’shua as Yahweh having come in a human body, was the lamb of Father Yahweh that took away the sins of the world, recognizes Him as savior, Messiah and as Master/Lord. A brother is also one who accepts all of Yahweh’s Word as contained in the 66 Books we call The Bible. True followers of Y’shua are those who live out His Word in daily life. I encourage all true followers of Y’shua to walk in peace in this matter and not allow this to become divisive. The Issue of This Paper Is:

What is the best representation (translation) of the Hebrew (B’rit Ha-Dashah) and Greek (Kainos

Diathaka) words regarding “new” as in “New Covenant”? I believe this is an important issue that will eventually affect every Messianic-Hebrew Roots group. I’ll be looking as several views on the subject. I believe this issue is another test that serves as a “filter” of sifting. Part of that test is how we treat each other as true Brothers along the path of discovery. The “New Covenant” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Harris, Archer, Waltke, Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1980

Generally, the best work available today is TWOT by Harris, Archer & Waltke. Some entries are a bit short. But, it is still the best. I took an “Old Testament” Introduction class from Dr. Waltke at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1969. I also attended five days of lectures in chapel given by Dr. Archer. Dr. Archer’s Introduction To The Old Testament is one outstanding publication among many. Dr. Waltke’s knowledge of ancient Semitic languages is astounding. He and his colleagues have done an amazing job of making their presentation in TWOT both scholarly and reasonably easy to read. Harris and Archer are also on that level – beyond 99% of Ph.Ds today. One value of attending a school with such scholars is the promotion of a genuine sense of humility. The TWOT for the Hebrew word ha dashah:

Hadash is used in the sense of “repair” or “rebuild” referring to cities (Isa 61:4), the temple (II Chr

24:4, 12) and the altar (II Chr 15:8). It is also used figuratively. Under Samuel the kingdom was renewed at Gilgal (I Sam 11:14). David wanted a right spirit, equivalent to a clean heart, renewed within him (Ps 51:10 [H 12])…

Hadash. New, new thing fresh {not “refreshed”}. This adjective, usually attributive, describes as in English, a variety of physical objects (e.g., house, wife, cords, sword, garment, cruse, meal offering, king, gate, etc.). It is also used for non-material things as name (Isa 62:2), song (Ps 149:1), covenant (Jer 31:31), God’s mercies (Lam 3:23), heart and spirit (Ezk 36:26)…(Entry 613a on pages 265-266)

Brown Driver Briggs has a more extensive list, but also identifies hadash as “new” in Jeremiah 31 (The

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew And English Lexicon, Hendrickson, Peabody Massachusetts, 2010 - reprint of 1906 edition, p.294)

Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2006

Kohlenberger referred to Mounce’s work as “Vine’s for the 21st century.” It (as the others noted above) is scholarly and is useful for serious students of Scripture. It has the added value of present Hebrew words and Greek words under the same English entry:

Old Testament…hadas denotes the state of being different, new and superior to a previous state. The term is best translated as “new”…Of special theological significance is the reference to the “new covenant” in Jer. 31:31 and its NT use in Heb. 8:8, 12. In addition the phrase “new things” is a repeated motif in Isa 42:9, 10; 43:19; 48:6…The same emphasis is given in 65:17 and 66:22, which refer to the “new heavens and the new earth,” a phrase that gains apocalyptic meaning in 2Pet. 3:13 and Rev. 21:1-4…

  3

…New Testament…Adjective:… kainos means “new” in contrast to the old (Lk. 22:20; 1Cor. 11:25; 2Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8)….Before the time of biblical Greek, kainos had a distinctive meaning from its synonym neos (GK 3742) in that neos meant new in time and kainos referred to something new in the sense of something unused. However, in NT Greek there is some overlap in the meaning of the two words so you cannot assume the same distinction is still present. The “new covenant” phrase, for example, is referred to by both kainos (Heb. 9:15) and neos (12:24) (pp. 469-470).

The Expanded Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Kohlenberger, Swanson & Vine, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1984

John Kohlenberger is another scholar who has a number of outstanding works published including a Hebrew-English interlinear of the Tanach. Dr. Kohlenberger’s work in revising the original work by Vine is a great service to serious students of Scripture. Their entry:

The new things that the Gospel brings for present obedience and realization are: a new covenant,

Matt. 26:28 in some texts {manuscripts} a new commandment, John 13:34; a new creative act, Gal. 6:15; a new creation, 2Cor. 5:17; a new man, i.e. a new character of manhood, spiritual and moral, after the pattern of Christ, Eph. 4:24; a new man, i.e., “the Church which is His (Christ’s) body,” Eph. 2:15.

The new things that are to be received and enjoyed hereafter are: a new name, the believer’s, Rev. 2:17; a new name, the Lord’s, Rev. 3:12; a new song, Rev. 5:9; a new Heaven and a new Earth, Rev.21:1; the new Jerusalem, Rev. 3:12; 21:2; “And He that sitteth on the Throne said, Behold, I make all things new,” Rev. 21:5.”

The above are also supported by A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and other Early

Christian Literature, Danker, Baur, Arndt, Gingrich, Kurt & Barbara Aland and Reichman (commonly abbreviated as DBAG), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 2000, pp. 496-497 and Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Thayer, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 2009 (Reprinted from 1896 Fourth Edition), pp. 316-317.

Anyone who has engaged in a serious study of other languages understands that it is not appropriate or sensible to simply “plug in” any meaning from a concordance to any context. I refer to people who do this as “concordance theologians.” All of the above Hebrew and Greek scholars agree that “new” means “new.” As we will note later, that does not relieve us of the requirements of Torah that were expanded by Y’shua (Matthew 5-7). It also does not mean settling on the word “new” as is commonly used in English. The linguistic evidence for “new” is very convincing. However, before concluding on this English word other factors need to be considered.

A Note To: Teachers - Rabbis – Pastors – Leaders 2Timothy 2:15: Be diligent–have a passion for-study (spoudasonto: aorist imperative of speudo) present yourself for Yahweh-Elohim’s approval, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, because you are rightly dividing (orthotomounta: accusative singular masculine present participle of orthotomeo) the Word of truth.(RHT) The word for “rightly” dividing is used in the Septuagint in Proverbs 3:6: Proverbs 3:5: Trust in the Yahweh with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding… 3:6: in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight. (NIV) James 3:1: Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment (NASB). 2Corinthians 5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Messiah that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. (NIV)

Repentance is a way of life among people who truly desire to follow Y’shua. Teachers who refuse to repent will face Yahweh and be held accountable for their false teachings.

  4

Two Extremes…

…that have developed on this subject are those which focus on a misunderstanding about the place of Torah in the Scriptures. 1.) Some tend to develop a sense of exclusivity for the first five books of the Bible. The ultimate extreme is to exclude all other Words of Yahweh. Ultimately, this leads to some forms of “ultra-orthodox” Judaism. 2.) The other extreme is an attempt to exclude many parts of Tanach with a paganized understanding of the Brit Hadashah. This paper focuses on the first extreme.

“The Expanded Covenant” or “The Covenant Expanded Upon”

The term I have used up to this point has been “Expanded Covenant” because that is what Y’shua did with

The Covenant in many places, including Matthew 5-7. It is not a lexical term. But, it is one way that Y’shua clearly used Torah. I have come to realize that that term (while being true in concept and part of the “New” Covenant) is not an adequate representation of the words for “new” in Hebrew or Greek relating to the Person and Work of Y’shua.

“The Renewed Covenant”

There is considerable diversity in views regarding the Renewed Covenant.” Rather than to go into great detail about each I have chosen what I consider to be the most influential. A. The “Consummation-Renewed Covenant” 1.) The renewal of the Covenant is implicit in the observance of the Festivals, particularly the Day of Atonement. 2.) The renewal is explicit: Deuteronomy 31:10-11: …At the end of every seven years at the feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel comes to appear before Yahweh your Elohim at the place He will choose, you shall read this Torah/Instruction In Righteousness before them in their hearing… Joshua 8:30-35: The reading of Torah from Mounts Ebal and Gerizim Nehemiah 8 3.) Statement of The View: Y’shua was the consummation and fulfillment of the sacrificial system, and as such, renewed the Covenant in a way that was similar to sacrifices that were used to renew the Covenant before Him with the exception that He made the once for all sacrifice that ended any further acceptable sacrifices-for-sin. As we accept Y’shua’s sacrifice and receive His Holy Spirit by faith we “drink” His blood (not transubstantiation) (John 6) and we are empowered to live the Covenant.

B. Other Views of “Renewed Covenant” or “Refreshed Covenant”

There are a variety of views in this group that accept different parts of the “Consummation-Renewed Covenant.” However, one way or another, many of them (in this second group) sacrifice important “new” things that Y’shua brought to The Covenant. Many do not realize the implications of a simple “renewal.” Not all of them are anti-Christ/anti-Messiah. Some are.

People who know me very well know that I do not usually use names of people with whom I am critical. However, in this case, I believe it is important to identify some public figures who use or promote the terms “renewed” or “refreshed.”

Monte Judah is a name that is well known among Messianic-Hebrew Roots people. He has used “renewed”

or “refreshed” to describe the “New” Covenant. He has questioned the inclusion of the Book of Hebrews in the Brit Hadashah (“New Testament”). I have addressed some of those challenges in the section on the Book of Hebrews below. There are a number of other issues Mr. Judah has. See: http://www.therefinersfire.org/book_of_hebrews.htm

  5

Nehemiah Gordon is another well-known person who has connections in Hebrew Roots circles. He frequently travels with a professed follower of Y’shua named Keith Johnson. Mr. Gordon uses the term “renewed” Covenant. In his case, he is very clear about his denial of Y’shua as Messiah. The fact that he regularly uses the term is telling. One way or another, he seems to recognize that the use of the term allows him to reject Y’shua as Messiah and Savior. A simple “renewal” of The Covenant is just that: a renewal. It does not recognize changes that Y’shua brought with Him.

One way or another, the behavior exhibited by these two men is a denial of the clear linguistic use of Ha-

Dashah and Kaina* Diathaka. In the case of Mr. Judah, it is an attempted denial of Words Inspired by Yahweh the Holy Spirit in the Book of Hebrews, thus attempting to deny certain aspects of Messiah’s person and work. Anyone who really has the Holy Spirit indwelling him will not deny the Words of the Holy Spirit that inspired the Words in The Bible. In the case of Mr. Gordon, the denial of Messiah is very direct. I consider both of them to be anti-Christ/anti-Messiah until they repent. (*Kaina is the adjectival form of the noun kainos.) Jeremiah 31:31

The historical context of Jeremiah has to do with the people of Judah and Jerusalem continually living in

rebellion against Torah (“The Law”) in the general time frame of the 600’s & 500’s B.C.E. bringing about the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians.

Looking at the text, we need to understand that there are letters that are not usually brought into the English

translation. Two of these letters are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph & Tav. This is similar to the Reference of Y’shua as the Alpha and Omega that we find in the book of Revelation – the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. I believe that Aleph-Tav pointed people to Y’shua the Messiah and is a reminder of Him in the Tanach. I also believe that it often has the idea of “all.”

After looking at the Hebrew text, I didn’t find a translation that brings out the emphasis and development of

thought that I see in the text. So, I decided to put together my own informal translation. One part of that emphasis has to do with the word for covenant, which is cutting. I understand that cutting a covenant had to do with the cutting of animals in two that people would walk between. However, I think that the concept of cutting is expanded upon regarding the “New Covenant.” 31: Behold! Days (are) coming (by) declaration of Yahweh when I will cut with house of Israel and with house of Judah cutting (covenant) the new (ha deshah/’o kainos) 32: not like the cutting (covenant) that I cut (made) with their forefathers on (the) day I took them by the hand to lead them from land of Egypt - because they broke Aleph-Tav (Alpha-Omega/A-Z) of my cutting/covenant/agreement even though I was a husband to them declares Yahweh.

33: But, this [new] the cutting that I will cut with house of Israel in those days (by) declaration of Yahweh: I will put (natan) Aleph-Tav (of) my Torah - I will cut/engrave her in their minds and on their heart. And I will be as Elohim (aloha) to them. And, they will be to me as people.

34: And not will they teach (any) longer man Aleph-Tav neighbor or Aleph-Tav his brother to say: “know Aleph-Tav Yahweh” for all of them will know from the least of them and to the greatest of them…(RHT)

This passage is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12. The Greek text has some weaknesses in relating the Hebrew

text. However, in both languages (in Jeremiah 31 & Hebrews 8) the concept of cutting is conveyed. It is also interesting to note that the Hebrews Chapter 8 quote from Jeremiah is closer to the Hebrew Jeremiah than the Greek Septuagint.

One important point that is made is that the Torah will be cut (engraved) on the heart. The Greek word used

in Hebrews 8:10 for “write” (epigrapho) is used in other verses as inscribe (cut into) (c/w Acts 17:23 & Revelation 21:12). And that is how it should be translated here in agreement with the Hebrew text.

  6

Another interesting point of agreement is “giving or putting.” In Hebrew the word used for put (natan) my Torah, her, in their heart can have a connection with a plant shoot (Strong’s 5414). The Greek word didomi is used in contexts of bearing fruit (Mark 4:7-8). This understanding of “put” is not as strongly connected linguistically as the other words we’re looking at. But, the imagery is Biblical – Elohim/Aloha putting a sprout in our hearts that bears beautiful fruit.

One thing that seems to be missing in Greek here (as with most English translations of the Hebrew as well)

is the feminine use for Torah from Jeremiah 31:33. This is because the Greek personal pronoun “them” (autous) is understood as agreeing in gender with the Greek masculine word for “Law” or “Torah” which is nomos. This is also true in the Septuagint.

Some things that can be understood from looking at these passages are: that the “New” Covenant involves:

1.) Affirmation of Torah. 2.) The new cutting/covenant of Torah would be lived out as a husband and wife become one and have their hearts united through love. The husband-wife relationship of Yahweh with His people may be found many places in scripture including: Isaiah 54:5, Hosea, Ephesians 5 & Revelation 18:23.

One question people ask me is: “how is the writing done?” I believe the writing is done through the Holy

Spirit based on the work of Y’shua demonstrating His love for us by being our lamb of Yahweh-Elohim by dying in our place – for our sins on the cross. The efficacy of His once-for-all-time-sacrifice for sin was demonstrated by His resurrection. As His Apostle of Love, John said: “We love Him Because He first loved us.” Experiencing the love of Y’shua is transformational.

Another question people ask me is: “what about, ‘And no longer will any man teach his neighbor or his

brother to say: ‘know Yahweh’ for all of them will know Yahweh from the least of them and to the greatest of them…” from Jeremiah 31:34. My response to that is that He is not done writing yet.

Yahweh will restore the five-fold ministry that will be a part of bringing this about (Ephesians 4:11-13, c/w

Romans 8:30) along with the gifts/manifestations of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 12-14). But, it will not be completely fulfilled until Y’shua, the perfection comes (1Corinthians 13:10 & 12).

Nature of The “New Covenant”

In Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 it is very clear that the new (ha dashah/ ho/ha kainos) is distinguished from

the past (“not like the Covenant I cut with their forefathers”).

Problems with the use of the terms “renewed covenant ” or “refreshed covenant ” regarding the work of Y’shua regarding Torah: 1.) When these words are used for “new” in this way, they are not contextually correct linguistically and 2.) They do not appropriately recognize the unique person and work of Y’shua.

A simple renewal or refreshment of Torah would be just that, a renewal or refreshment. The work of

Y’shua goes beyond “renewed” or “refreshed.” People may have initially used this expression in an attempt to recognize the ongoing responsibility to live the Expanded Torah rather than to accept a paganized view of the Brit Hadashah (“New Testament”). Whatever anyone’s original intent was, the designations have serious problems.

One of the problems with understanding “new” in our modern usage is that we tend to think of it as

something that is a total replacement. There have been replacements. Such a statement could be shocking to some. One reality is that it has been impossible to offer sacrifices through Torah prescribed priests at the Temple

in Jerusalem since 70 C.E. Actually, it was impossible to be completely Torah compliant regarding sacrifices, because the high priest could not sprinkle blood on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant on the day of Atonement because it was taken by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. Blood was sprinkled on the floor until 70 C.E.

At the same time, one reality of the “New Covenant” is that Y’shua did expand Torah’s moral

requirements. Now, people are not only evaluated by Yahweh for what we actually do. We are also evaluated on what we allow to stay in in our hearts and minds (Matthew 5-7).

  7

Conclusion

The sacrifices-for-sin system of the Covenant was done away with. The moral requirements of the Covenant were expanded (Matthew 5-7). Therefore, the “New” Covenant was not a simple “refreshing” or a “renewal” of the Covenant. I also do not believe that “The Consummation Renewed Covenant” conveys many elements that are new in the sense of the unique person and work of Y’shua The Messiah. I believe our current English designations are inadequate.

So, I would like to suggest the “incorporation” of different words as a replacement for “renewed” or “new.”

Those words are: B’rit Ha-Dashah. (I understand some issues with transliteration.) I believe we should use the actual Hebrew Words. We already use Hebrew words in our fellowship such as Y’shua, YHVH (in various forms), Torah, Shabbat and Shabbat-Shalom etc. This would be done with an understanding (definition) of the important elements of the unique Person and Work of Yahweh-Y’shua:

Yahweh-Y’shua, having come in human flesh, consummated/fulfilled the prophetic elements of the sacrifices-for-sin-system as the New Eternal High Priest (of the priesthood of Melchizedek replacing the Aaronic) and New Eternal King of Israel, who has expanded the moral requirements of Instructions In Righteousness (Torah) and through His work on the execution stake (or tree) and resurrection, has imparted the Holy Spirit (to those who truly believe* in Him) to live within us to empower us to live Expanded Instructions In Righteousness (Torah).

*"Believe In" means to give oneself over completely to Y'shua as Lord/Master as a "bond-servant" as opposed to simple intellectual assent or statements that do not reflect a true born-from-above-born-again life changing experience. 

  8

Some Attacks Against The Book of Hebrews

One book that has been attacked recently by false prophets is the Book of Hebrews. Because a number of things are challenged regarding Hebrews, a more detailed presentation is needed than for other passages noted in this book. One important strategy of satan in this regard is to discount/demean the person and work of Y’shua in people’s minds so satan can eventually destroy them. Just a note of warning: Hebrews 10:28-29: Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God [Yahweh-Elohim] under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? (NIV) Extremes & Supernatural Living

Many Christian church people mistakenly perceive Y’shua as one who has somehow “freed” them from Torah (“Law”) and Tanach. The fact is He did not relieve anyone of moral responsibility concerning the Torah. He expanded moral responsibility. Real freedom comes through having the indwelling Holy Spirit that empowers us to live the Covenant as expanded by Y’shua.

On the other extreme are those who devote more of their lives to attempting to “follow Moses” than they do

Y’shua. If a person were to make a choice, “following Moses” would actually be much easier. For both of the groups mentioned under “extremes,” an honest reading of Matthew 5-7 proves both “faith” systems to be in error.

The strategy of the enemy of our souls is influence people to follow any way other than Yah’s way. One

way satan accomplishes this is to promote an erroneous view of Y’shua that often endorses “cheap grace” or lawlessness. Another strategy is to appeal to “the flesh” in people to encourage them to “follow Moses,” thus leaving the door open for polygamy, slavery and even prostitution.

This last statement may seem exaggerated. But, the sad reality of the matter is that such deceived people

are “out there” and one way or another are promoting their views. This writing, particularly regarding Hebrews, recognizes the Biblical Y’shua as Yah’s only way. His

requirements for living are beyond human ability and can only be lived out through the supernatural work of His Holy Spirit of truth within us when we are really born again. Book Context, Moses & The Sinai Trips

One point frequently missed by Bible students is the importance of Book context. The Book presents requirements to be willing to give up literally everything of this world to follow Y’shua (Hebrews 10:19-13:25).

The context of Hebrews also has to do with the fulfillment of the prophetic nature of the high priest,

Aaronic sacrificial system and priestly service in the Temple. Y’shua is superior to the system that Yahweh-Father-Son-Holy Spirit gave to Moses (Exodus 31:18), because He is the fulfillment of the prophecy imbedded in the sacrificial system. Hebrews does not detail every part of Torah. Hebrews primarily deals with the fourth trip of Moses to Mount Sinai.

A careful reading of Exodus indicates different trips up Mt. Sinai by Moses. Regarding the trips: There are

some interesting distinctives for each trip – particularly the Exodus 24:13-30:38 trip as noted below: 1st Trip: Exodus 19:1-20:20: Ten Commandments 2nd Trip: Exodus 20:21-23:33: Civil Law & Three Feasts 3rd Trip: Exodus 24:1-12: Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu & 70 Elders Visit & See Elohim (not His face c/w Exodus 33:20-23) 4th Trip: Exodus 24:13-30:38: Ceremonial Ordinances: The Tabernacle, Its Furnishings, Priesthood & Related Procedures 5th Trip: Leviticus 11:1-15:33 Health Promoting Dietary & Health Treatment Laws

  9

Authorship - Anonymity & The Brit Hadashah

One attack against the Book’s recognition and Y’shua the Messiah points to apparent anonymous authorship. Most of the letters in the Brit Hadashah indicate an author. However, many books in the Bible were anonymous at one time (1, 2 & 3 John do not specifically identify the author as John). This attack fails to recognize ancient literary form that was commonly anonymous.

Donald Guthrie noted that the title for Matthew (as for other Gospels) was affixed to it years after its

composition, in the case of Matthew, c. 125 C.E. Guthrie also noted that a number of important early persons recognized/accepted the designation and the Gospel of Matthew.2*

Re: Hebrews 1.) Origen of Alexandria (185 – 254 C.E.) commended those who accepted Pauline authorship:

If I give my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle [Paul], but the diction and phraseology are those of someone who remembered the apostolic teachings and wrote them at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But, who wrote the epistle God knows.3

A Liberal scholar, Bart Ehrman, described Origen: “…the most learned, prolific and famous scholar of the

first three Christian centuries…Origen was a true Genius.”4

____________________________________________________________________________________________ *2. New Testament Introduction, Donald Guthrie, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1990, pp. 43-48. 3. Ecclesiastical History By Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter 25:13ff 4. Lost Christianities…by Bart Ehrman, Oxford Press, New York, 2003, pp. 154-155

The Bible Believing Conservative scholar, Donald Guthrie recognized the importance of the testimony of Origen: “After all, that acute scholar, Origen of Alexandria, recognized here the thoughts of Paul.”5

That is not to say that Origen’s methodology was always the best. But, for a man of his intellectual

capabilities to recognize the thoughts of Paul in Hebrews is supportive of Pauline authorship. If Origen had been in closer contact with the Eastern Aramaic believers of his time he may have had

stronger convictions about the Book. Also, given the context of Origen’s statements, it may be that he found it politically expedient to recognize

the claim of some who believed that Clement of Rome wrote the Book. 2.) Aramaic Manuscripts

The author of the Hebrews Epistle was none other than Rav Shaul (Apostle Paul)…in the Middle East there was no doubt about it. The earliest manuscripts of the Epistle state: End of Letter to the Hebrews, which was written from Italy of Rome; and was sent by the hands of Timothy. Timothy was known to deliver manuscripts for Rav Shaul alone. Furthermore, Timothy is only mentioned as being imprisoned along with Rav Shaul in Rome and released before his master to deliver his letters (Romans 16:21, Philippians 1:1 [c/w 1:14], 1Thessalonians 3:2; 1Timothy 1:2, 2Timothy 1:16; Philemon 1:10, 13).6*

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. New Testament Introduction, Guthrie, p. 673 *6. AENT 4th Edition, p. 814

  10

3.) Regarding Anonymity & Tanach

Y’shua recognized the human agency of Moses regarding Torah (John 5:45-46). He also recognized inspiration and authorship for King David regard Psalms (Matthew 22:43). The critics of the Book of Hebrews may not grasp the importance of their criteria for criticizing it. If the same principles are applied, it brings the whole Brit Hadashah into question. Eliminating the credibility for the Brit Hadashah would also remove an important witness for the Tanach.

It is likely that manuscripts much closer to the original Torah were available at the time. True followers of

Y’shua, recognize the truth of His Words. As helpful as the Dead Sea Scrolls are, their copies of Torah are still a thousand years removed from the original composition, c.1450 B.C.E.

A number of Books in the Tanach are “anonymous” and some of them speak in the third person, as do the

Brit Hadashah Gospels. Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Kings, Ruth, Esther and Job (among others) are dependent upon the Talmud for their title designations and/or author attributions.24*

As followers of Y’shua, we regard all of the Books of Tanach to be faithfully transmitted documents

penned by persons who were inspired by Yahweh. This brief presentation regarding Tanach is only intended to point out problems with consistency that critics

have regarding how Tanach and the Book of Hebrews came to be recognized as inspired by Yahweh’s people throughout the centuries. Far more information is available in support of the Book of Hebrews than a number of Books in the Tanach. And, an attack against one part of Yahweh’s Word ultimately becomes an attack against all of His word. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ *7. Introduction To The Old Testament by R. K. Harrison Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Massachusetts, 2004, pp. 665-667, 680, 695, 718, 1060, 1022. 4.) Greek Manuscripts (Translations from Earlier Aramaic)

In 1844 C.E., Dr. Tischendorf discovered a Greek manuscript of the New Testament (dating from the mid 300’s C.E.) at St Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai, now known as “Sinaiticus.”

In 1889 C.E. another valuable Greek manuscript (dating from the mid 300’s C.E.) was discovered at the

Vatican in Rome, now known as “Vaticanus.” Both of these early manuscripts contain the Book of Hebrews (with some fragments missing due to age and wear).

Two of the most important collections of papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament were acquired by Sir Chester Beatty of London in 1930-1 and by Martin Bodmer of Geneva in about 1955-6. The second Chester Beatty biblical papyrus, designated P46, comprises 86 leaves… contained on 104 leaves ten Epistles of Paul in the following order: Romans, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Slightly earlier than P45, it dates from about A.D. 200.8

The inspiration of the Book of Hebrews was recognized very early in the Eastern Aramaic Assemblies of

Yahweh – before the later writings of 2Peter, 2John, 3John, Jude and Revelation. The inclusion of the Book of Hebrews in the collection of the writings of Paul, as found in the Chester

Beatty papyri collection dated at 200 C.E., is very important. This is strong evidence of the recognition of Pauline authorship very early. Dr. David Trobisch recognized the importance of these manuscripts to the discussion:

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. The Text Of The New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, pp. 53-54.

  11

There is no need to speculate about whether the Letter to the Hebrews was part of a collection of the Letters of Paul in the second century, because a second century exemplar of the Pauline letter collection, P46, containing the letter at issue actually exists.9

Trobisch also noted the importance of the compilers/assemblers of the Brit Hadashah needed to present

their collections with credibility and “insist that the documents promoted in their collection are authentic.”10 Trobisch’s work is also noteworthy because he considered the Greek New Testament to have been

published by 100 C.E. Because the Book of Hebrews was originally penned in Aramaic, it is clear that the original Aramaic was published and circulated before 100 C.E.11 5.) Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 C.E.)…

…noted that The Letter to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew by the Apostle Paul and carefully translated by a close associate of Paul named Luke.12 (c/w Jerome’s statement below.) This means that Hebrews had already been translated at least as early as 200 C.E. That was long before major church councils convened to recognize Scripture. 6.) Quotes By Polycarp (b. circa 55 – martyred in Rome 155 C.E.) Polycarp of Smyrna quoted from many Brit Hadashah Books in his Letter To The Philippians, including Hebrews: Polycarp-Philippians 6:3: “serve him with fear and all reverence” from Hebrews 12:28. Polycarp-Philippians 12:2: “the eternal High Priest” from Hebrews 6:20 & 7:3. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 9. The First Edition of The New Testament, Trobisch, p.37 10. The First Edition of The New Testament, p.60 11. The First Edition of The New Testament, pp.44 & 130 12. Ecclesiastical History by Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 14: Reference to Clement’s Hipotyposes 7.) The Testimony of Jerome (c. 340-420 C.E.)

Jerome spent from about 373 to 380 C.E. in the Antioch Chalcis area and 380-381C.E. in Constantinople studying documents and local history, much of which has been lost or possibly moved to the Vatican. Later (382 C.E.), Jerome recognized the authorship of Paul and the language as being Hebrew based on the ancient documents and testimony of Semitic people of his time.

He [Paul] being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul. 13

8.) Related to Other Writings of Paul Romans 8:34:Who is He [Yahweh] condemning? It is Messiah who has died, but rather also is raised, who also is at the right hand of Yahweh, who also makes intercession for us (Esposito). (c/w Hebrews 1:13) Ephesians 1:20: Which He worked in Messiah in raising Him from the dead; and He seated Him at His own right hand in heaven (Esposito). (c/w Hebrews 1:13)

1Corinthians 5:7b: For our Passover [lamb] is Messiah who was sacrificed for our sake (Esposito).

Romans 6:10: For the [death] He [Y’shua] died, He died because of/for [to pay for] sin once for all time (RHT). “Once for all time” is a translation of the Greek word, ephapax. This is an intensified form of hapax. This same intensified form is found in the translation of Paul’s Hebrews (10:10). ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. On Famous/Illustrious Men Chapter 5

  12

Hebrews 9:4

…the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense…(NIV & many others), thus seeming to place the altar in the wrong place in the Tabernacle. It is most unfortunate that the word for “altar” has been mistranslated from Greek.

The common Biblical Greek word (as found in the Septuagint) for “altar” is thusiastarion as opposed to

one of the Biblical Greek words for “censer” which is thumiatarion. Spelling differences are noted with bold letters. The New King James Version translation team translated thumiatarion correctly as “censer.”

Danker, Aland, Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich used non-Biblical Greek usage to relate thumiatarion to Hebrews

9:4 as “altar.” But, their earlier Tanach and Tanach related literature recognized it as “censer.”14 They may not understand the implications of recognizing the Bible (Tanach and Brit Hadashah) as being one Book of developing Revelation, in this citing.

A scholar’s presuppositions regarding the work of Yahweh inspiring, assembling and preserving His Word

affect how that scholar uses materials and what conclusions he comes to. Their lexical work (DBAG) is truly outstanding and probably contains more information than any other lexicon before it. However, one part of their methodology has to do with emphasizing contemporary use of words (synchronic method) as opposed to dealing with words dia-chronically (through all of Scripture). One of the possibilities in that context is “altar” rather than “censer.” _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 14. A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament And Other Ancient Literature By Danker, Bauer, Kurt & Barbara Aland, Reichman, Arndt & Gingrich, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 461

However, other outstanding linguists do not follow their presuppositions or methodology. Instead, scholars like W.E. Vine, James Swanson and John Kohlenberger put an emphasis on Biblical use.15 Bradford Scott also makes a good case for Brit Hadashah word meanings/definitions based on the Tanach.16

Ezekiel 8:11:…Each had his censer (thumiatarion) in his hand [singular]. They were not carrying altars around with their hands. Each one was carrying a censer with one hand. 2Chronicles 26:19: Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer (thumiatarion) in his hand [not an altar] to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests and in the house of the LORD (Yahweh), by the altar (thusiastarion) of incense (ESV). In this verse the word for “censer” is actually contrasted with the word for “altar.”

In the Tanach thusiastarion is used as the predominate word for “altar.” Thumiatarion is only used as “censer.” This word for censer was used in the context of sin and judgment.

One reason that the translation thumiatarion was used instead of the more common word for censer

(purion) was to remind the readers of the rejection of Yahweh and His Words by Israel shortly before Yahweh’s glory departed the Temple and Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and the ensuing captivity and dispersion.

This reminder also connected those earlier rejecters of Yahweh to the first century rejection of Yahweh’s

Word, His Son and His Apostles. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 15. The Expanded Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1984, p. 169 16. The Tanach: The Dictionary of The New Testament, by Brad Scott, Wildbranch Ministry, Vernal, Utah, 2009

  13

Another case of drawing attention to a matter by an unusual use of a word is found in the Gospels regarding the last Passover supper. As Y’shua was breaking unleavened bread, the Greek word that is used for bread is the common use word for leavened bread, artos. Artos is used for unleavened bread in Leviticus 2 and Numbers 6.

The use of artos in Leviticus 2 is instructive. Y’shua was an offering without leaven, particularly the leaven

of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod (Matthew 16:6, 11, 12, Mark 8:15 & Luke 12:1). Leviticus 2 also mentions salt. Y’shua had told His disciples that they were/are the salt of the earth. Part of

that is taking Torah and Tanach to make disciples. Salt also prevented corruption of foods. Living Torah could prevent decay in a culture. Y’shua was also the salt of the “New” Covenant.

Another part of Leviticus 2 is the fragrant aroma. The Apostle Paul makes reference of Messiah – the

aroma of life to those who turn to Y’shua (2Corinthians 2:14-16). Numbers 6:15 is in the context of the Nazarite vow. Part of that vow involved shaving the hair that had

been grown and using it as an offering. It was symbolic of self-sacrifice. This was particularly noteworthy because all present at “the last supper” were well acquainted with a

prophet from the priestly tribe of Levi named John (The Immerser) who lost more than his hair because he was faithful to Yahweh’s calling.

Y’shua was preparing to fulfill the prophetic words of His cousin John (the Immerser): Behold the lamb of

Yahweh that takes away the sin(s) of the world. Back to Hebrews: There was a prophecy implied with the use of these words as is evidenced by another

destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem and another dispersion - the second time at the hands of the Romans. Other prophetic elements are found in Hebrews. One is in Hebrews 7:12.

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is a change in the law (NKJV).

The “being changed” of this verse is a present passive participle, metatithemenas from metatithami. Translating this as: For the priesthood is being changed helps to clarify that a change was in progress between 30-70 C.E. The Greek verb is based on the noun metathesis.

This is similar to what Paul wrote in 1Corinthians 3:11: For if what was being brought to an end came with

glory, much more will the permanent have glory (ESV). Metathesis in language has to do with changing the order of letters. One simple example of this regarding

spelling and pronunciation is the English word “little.” The pronunciation has engaged in metathesis by speaking the word as though it is spelled as “littel.”

The reason this is significant here is that metathesis was used to relate to a repositioning of the Aaronic

and Melchizedek priesthoods. The older Melchizedek priesthood was being moved back to its place of prominence. However, since the

salvation work of Y’shua, He is the High Priest and all of His true followers became priests (1Peter 2:5). This language relating to process may be an adjustment for some. But, that is the language that was used.

Since Paul wrote Hebrews he knew that change was developing. However, during the course of that change, Paul and other brothers had an effective testimony of The Lamb

of Yahweh-Elohim that took away the sins of the world when they participated in sacrifices at the Temple (Acts 21:26). Some believe this is a glimpse of memorial sacrifices at the third Temple in the millennium.

  14

Hebrews 7:11 Therefore, if perfection [completion or final completion] were through the Levitical priesthood - for under it the people received [a] Law - what further need [was there] that another priest [singular] should rise according to the organizing arranging headship/leadership [of] order who is Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? (RHT)

The Greek here is fairly simple. But, there is much information packed into this verse that is difficult to smoothly convey in English. The translators of the Septuagint used taxis for the Hebrew word for order in Psalm 110:4. In the context of Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:11, it strongly implies leadership over a group as in an organization. The Greek word, taxis, means bringing/establishing an/to order. In context it implies an agent of bringing order, a leader/organizer.

There is a strong emphasis of the identity of Melchizedek as that leader. So, “order” is Melchizedek as well

as a group that is like Him/ordered/molded after Him. The Hebrew of all of Psalm 110 (particularly verse 4) helps to “order” the meaning of the phrase “Order of Melchizedek” in Hebrews 7:11.

“Order of Aaron” does not have the strong connection with kingship (“King of Righteousness & “King of

Shalom/Peace”) as Melchizedek. The close connection of the people of Melchizedek being like Him is likewise not present with the Aaronic priesthood.

Some critics demean the Melchizedek Priesthood because some outside of “the faith” have misused or

misapplied the term “Order of Melchizedek.” One reality of life is that people counterfeit or pervert truth. If this “methodology” of critics were to be used in life experiences in general, the only way to “be safe” would be to do nothing. Of course, that is one strategy of satan. The “Order of Melchizedek” is inspired as all other Words of Yahweh.

“Melchizedek” is a combination of two Hebrew words – “melek” meaning “king” and “tsedeq” meaning “righteousness.” The word is first mentioned is found in Genesis 14:18: Then, Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread [leavened bread in Hebrew & Greek] and wine. He was priest of God most high (NIV). Another way to translate this is: Then, King of Righteousness – King of Shalom/Peace brought out bread and wine. He was Priest of [the] most high Elohim.

The vowel pointing for “Salem” is different than “Shalom.” But the consonants and the meaning of the word are the same. Vowel points were not added to the Hebrew text until the 9th century C.E. “King” is used twice to describe Melchizedek (King of Righteousness and King of Peace).

This appearance of Melchizedek was shortly after Elohim had given Abraham a great victory over his

enemies. The next use of “Melchizedek” is in a prophetic Psalm of David: 110: 1: Yahweh says to my Adonai/Master, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. (c/w Hebrews 10:13) 2: Yahweh will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies. 3: Your troops will be willing on your day of battle, Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn. You will receive the dew of your youth. 4: Yahweh has sworn and will not change His mind: “You are a Priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” 5: Yahweh is at your right hand; He will crush kings on the day of His wrath. 6: He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. 7: He will drink from a brook beside the way, therefore he will lift his head up high (NIV). (Also may be rendered: The one who grants succession will set Him in authority.)

  15

Mark 12: 35: And teaching in the sanctuary [Temple courts], answering, Yahshua said, “How do the scribes say that Messiah is the son of David? 36: For David himself said by the Holy Spirit, Yahweh said to my Adonai, sit at my right [hand] until I place Your enemies as a footstool under your feet. 37: Then David himself calls Him Master. And from where is He is son?” (Esposito).

Some scholars today understand that the people of Israel were much better educated regarding the Tanach, and more intelligent than they had been given credit for in previous centuries.17*

One important part of rabbinic practice was memory work and repetition. It was common for a Rabbi to

start a Psalm and expect listeners to bring the Psalm to memory verbally or mentally. Y’shua was very clearly connecting Himself to “Melchizedek.”

The use of “Melchizedek” in the Book of Hebrews not only had to do with the change of priesthood. It was

a reminder that all of Yahweh’s enemies would, at some point in time, be utterly defeated and that Messiah Melchizedek would rule – more prophecy. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ *17. The Messianic Hope by Michael Rydelnik, Broadman & Holman (B&H) Publishing, Nashville, Tennessee, 2010, p. 7, footnote 23.

Hebrews 8 7-8: For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming says the Lord [Yahweh] when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” – (NKJV).

Was Paul actually referring to the Law as having fault? Considering the quote from Jeremiah that immediately follows, that is ludicrous. Paul quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 stating that the new covenant would be Torah engraved/cut into/written on the hearts of His people. By so doing He has been circumcising the hearts of His people throughout history.

What Paul was doing was to use language to get the attention of his readers. One example of this kind of

literary/linguistic use is 1Corinthians 4:8 & 10:… you already become rich; you have become strong without our council ( and oh that you really were kings, so that we also might reign with you!)…We are fools for the sake of Messiah, but you are wise in Messiah…(Esposito).

Anyone who understands the languages well enough to make a close comparison of Hebrews 8 (in Greek)

with Jeremiah 31 (in Hebrew) will find a very close, almost exact translation that very clearly indicates a very high quality of translation.

This is particularly noteworthy because the faithful quote comes from a book (Jeremiah) that, in general is

about 13% shorter in the Septuagint than in early Hebrew manuscripts.18 The only real difference is the Greek personal pronoun “them” (autous) which is generally understood as

agreeing in gender with the Greek masculine word for “Law” or “Torah” which is nomos. This is also true in the Septuagint.

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 18. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible translated by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, HarperOne/HarperCollinsPublishers, New York, 1999, p. xiii

  16

While most grammars understand this Greek usage, it should be noted that a number of Greek dialects have been discovered in the last 200 years. It is entirely possible that the use of autous with nomos was part of a dialect that was closer to Hebrew-Aramaic at the time and place of the Greek recipients of the letter.

Immediately after the quote from Jeremiah we come to Hebrews 8:13a: In that He says, [“A new

covenant”] He has made the first obsolete…(NKJV). What did He make obsolete – the Torah that he had just said was being written/engraved/cut into/on our hearts? Of course not! It was the old (Aaronic) way of approaching and experiencing Yahweh.

Hebrews 8:13b: …What is becoming obsolete, becoming old/obsolete even [now] growing old/obsolete

[repetitive form for emphasis] is near vanishing/destruction (aphanismou)…(RHT) This is also similar to what Paul wrote in 1Corinthians 3:11: For if what was being brought to an end came

with glory, much more will the permanent have glory (ESV). Israel was given a 40 year probation. After they rejected Messiah, the leaders in Israel used the Romans to

murder Y’shua in 30 C.E. (Acts 2:23). They (Jewish leaders) murdered Stephan (Acts 7) and endorsed Herod’s murder of James the brother of the Apostle John the same year (Acts 12:2, 30 C.E.). They murdered James (the half brother of Y’shua) in 62 C.E.36

The prophecy of Hebrews 8:13b was fulfilled in 70 C.E.! Yahweh was very emphatic about making the

change through the destruction of the Temple. Yahweh, through judgment, made it impossible for the Aaronic priesthood or anyone else to “comply” with Torah regarding priestly services in the Temple, including sacrifices offered at Festivals.

One of the criticisms of Hebrews is that the human author did not seem to be acquainted with the

Tabernacle or Temple and is Greek rather than Hebrew oriented. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 19. Antiquities of The Jews, by Josephus, Book 20, Chapter 9

The fact is that Paul was obviously very well acquainted with the details. He was clear and effective in communicating them to the Hebrews and the Hebrew-Aramaic was indeed “eloquently” translated into Greek.

Aramaic Considerations Re; Hebrews 9:4

While there is considerable documentary support for the authenticity of Hebrews in its first translation language (Greek), the original language for Hebrews is Hebrew-Aramaic. Ancient historical witnesses to the Book of Hebrews written in Hebrew or Hebrew-Aramaic: Jerome (c. 382 C.E.)20 and Clement of Alexandria (c. 185 C.E.).21

Something that is often overlooked in Bible language study is the change in position of one of the

foundational persons in Brit Hadashah language studies, Brooke Foss Westcott. Even though he supported Greek primacy in 1881, He changed to recognizing Aramaic primacy in 1896.22 More recently, the importance of Aramaic in 1st century Israel has been recognized, if not fully appreciated.23

Andrew Roth pointed out that the Aramaic word for “censer”, machtah, is used in this connection.

Regarding the presence in the Most Holy Place/Holy of Holies, Roth also pointed out that the censer did make it into the Holy of Holies once a year.24 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 20. On Famous Men by Jerome, 3;5 21. Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius, Book 6, Chapter14, Reference to Clement’s Hypotyposes 22. A General Survey of the History and Canon of the New Testament 7th Edition by Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillian & Company, London, England, 1896, pp. 244-248, 23. Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, New York 2003, p. 102 24. Aramaic English New Testament, Andrew Roth, p.806

  17

He [The High Priest] is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before Yahweh [“The LORD”] and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain [Holy of Holies] (Leviticus 16:12).

Exodus 27:3 indicates that the censer was made of brass. The description (“gold” or “golden”) is not in conflict with Torah. It simply gives a more detailed description of the censer. Roth continues:

It is important to note that “golden” need not refer to the metal, but the fact that Torah says that burning coals and incense are in the “fire pan” making it glow through the apertures [Having a golden glow] 25

Hebrews 9:19

The issue of the heifer and mixture of blood:

Some theologians posture that Hebrews 9:19 is inaccurate when referring to the heifer and the mixture of its blood, hyssop, water and scarlet wool because the sprinkling is not mentioned in Exodus 24…Most experts assume “thread” is implied (Genesis 38:28), just like the Hebrew does not say “hand” directly when Benyamin is interpreted literally as “son of my right” but everyone knows it is “right hand.” …Rav Shaul probably derived the idea that the scarlet material was wool from verses like Exodus 26:31, 36 which indicate the tentway is made of A) scarlet (insert material of choice here) and B) fine twisted linen. In other words, the linen is not dyed and material A) is clearly shown not to be linen…The fact is, specific material is not mentioned in Torah unless it is required, as is also the case in Leviticus 13:47-48 and Deuteronomy 22:11.

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 25. Aramaic English New Testament, Andrew Roth, p.806.

Is there a contradiction in manner of sprinkling? Again, no…There is a clear telescoping of two events we know to be separated by the monthly timetable established in the Tanak... Two events are being taught together at one time, to establish a spiritual point; the seams are quite evident…. …This idea [“this same blood” > “blood derived from this same manner”] becomes even clearer when we realize that Exodus 24:29 refers to burnt offerings and sacrificed bulls, where as Exodus 40:29 refers to burnt offerings and meal offerings.26

Hebrews 9:23

Some critics note the use of “copies” in this verse and think of it as an exact representation or copy. Paul

had already referred to Laws relating to the Temple as being a shadow. I think most people could understand that an object is usually different than the object’s shadow.

The Greek word used here (upodeigma) is a general word for “copy” or “representation” in contrast to the

word that is used in Hebrews 1:3 (xarakter - pronounced “character”) to describe the exact representation of Father Yahweh by Y’shua. Xarakter was used to describe engraving or making a physical impression as with impressing an image on a coin.

Some also make an issue of the plural used for sacrifices. Roth thinks that the Aramaic was poorly

translated. Given the precise eloquent translation noted up to this point, I think that unlikely.

This kind of plural use when a singular might be expected is found in Hebrew in Psalm 116:13 where the phrase cup of salvations is used. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 26. Aramaic English New Testament, Andrew Roth, p. 807.

  18

The use of the plural in Greek provided a clarification or an emphasis similar to the use of the Greek word anomian in Matthew 7:23 to define “workers of iniquity” as those who were not living Torah.

The use of the plural in Hebrews 9:23 pointed to the all inclusive nature of Y’shua’s sacrifice. All of the

sacrifices of the Aaronic-Levitic priesthood were brought to an end by the Sacrifice of Y’shua. There is similar use of singular and plural in English regarding the word “mathematics.” An American uses

“math” as an abbreviation while the British use “maths.”

Hebrews 7:11 Who has not come according to the law of a carnal/fleshly commandment, but according to the power of endless life (KJV & NKJV). The ESV and NIV revel a much better understanding of the Greek text here, as does the Amplified Bible: Who has been constituted a Priest, not on the basis of a bodily {physical} legal [an externally imposed command {by Yahweh} concerning his physical ancestry], but on the basis of the power of an endless and indestructible {indissoluble} life (AMP).

The word “indissoluble/indestructible” here (akatalutou) is used as a legal term. The Aaronic priesthood was “dissoluble” meaning that it could be set aside. As we study further, we can understand that the Aaronic priesthood was something that was given to man by Yahweh as a prophetic system that pointed man to Y’shua. Part of that priesthood had to do with a physical/fleshly family lineage.

The priesthood of Melchizedek could not be set aside because it was unilaterally established by the eternal

Yahweh in the flesh, Y’shua the Messiah.

Hebrews 7:18-19 For (gar) there is verily an annulling/disannulling of the commandment going before (Greek: dia) the weakness (Greek: asthenes) and unprofitability (Greek: anopheles) of it. For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh/near unto God (KJV,NKJB); “weakness…and uselessness” (AMP, NASB, ESV, NIV).

Hopefully, by now, people can understand that what was being “abolished” was the Aaronic priesthood and the sacrificial system, not all of Torah. The first step to take in looking at 7:18-19 is to remember the origin of all of Torah, Yahweh the Father-Son-Holy Spirit (Exodus 31:18).

Did Yahweh change (“repent”) His mind (Hebrews 7:21)? Did Yahweh make anything that was useless?

Did the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to speak blasphemy against Words the Holy Spirit had previously inspired? What happened to All Scripture is breathed out by Yahweh-Elohim (2Timothy 3:16)? This can be problematic for all who claim to believe the Bible.

What had actually happened was/is that the Aaronic priesthood had served its Yahweh Inspired prophetic

purpose for over a thousand years. Once the prophecies were fulfilled regarding Messiah’s position as The High Priest and established the priesthood of Melchizedek, the old Aaronic priesthood was done away with. Gifts-manifestations of the Holy Spirit will also be set aside when the perfection comes (1Corinthians 13, particularly verse 10).

As a reminder: the translator of the Book of Hebrews from Aramaic to Greek (Luke) made use of many

older Greek forms, or used words in the 1st century with a classical Greek flavor (as he also did in Luke and Acts). The use of “for” (Greek: gar) should be understood in one of its older uses in the sense of “therefore.”27

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 27. “BDAG” p. 189

  19

One very important word in this passage is ginomai. Ginomai commonly represents Hebrew thinking and is often translated with “and” (Greek: kai) as: “and so it was” or “and so it happened.” It is used here in the present tense in the indicative mood. It may come as a surprise to 1st or 2nd year students of college or seminary Greek that some verbs are more fluid regarding understanding tense. Ginomai is one of these. Long-story-short: Ginomai acts as a perfect tense verb.

This means that it makes reference to an event in the past that has continuing results in the present and

future. The specific reference is related to the annulment/setting aside of the Aaronic priesthood. This came about because of the work of Y’shua fulfilling the requirements and the prophecies relating to the high priest, Temple service and sacrifices that were intrinsic to the Aaronic system.

Once that was accomplished, any attempt to look to the Aaronic priesthood, Temple service and sacrifices

as Yahweh’s provision for sin was/is considered a rejection of Y’shua. Yahweh considered this a serious enough issue that He used the Romans to destroy the Temple (after 40 years of probation) in 70 C.E.

The King James Version (along with most other translations) is very unclear and even confusing here, as is

its translation of dia. Dia can be translated many ways. In this context, I believe English readers would understand this better as “resulting in it [becoming-being] weak and unprofitable/useless.”28

It is understandable that modern Hebrew Roots people could be very puzzled by the language in this last

phrase of verse 18 (“weak and unprofitable/useless”). It also seems to be problematic for traditional Christian readers. If we look at the verse dia-chronically, it becomes simple and sobering. Forms of anopheles (“unprofitable/useless”) represents the Hebrew word ya’al are in the Septuagint in Isaiah 44:9-10 and Jeremiah 2:8. Jeremiah 2:8 is connected to Baal worship. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 28. BDAG p. 224 notes one early use of dia as “after.”

There is a predominantly negative connotation in the use of ya’al as it appears in the OT…in Isaiah’s famous satire on the manufacture of idols: “All who make idols [and/or “casts a god from molten material”] are nothing, and the things they delight in can do nothing (lit. “are of no profit”) [Isaiah 44:9-10]. In Jeremiah 2:8, 11, Israel is scathingly rebuked for exchanging the Lord for what were not gods, “But, my people have exchanged their glory for that which does not profit.” See also Jer 16::19; Hab 2:18; ISam 12:21.29[Brackets by Russ Hills]

The point is that when people rejected Y’shua and continued to trust in/live in the Aaronic system, they were acting like some Israelites that had made the golden calf and others that turned to Baal as recorded in the Tanach! Paul knew very well what vocabulary to use for his Aramaic readers and Luke knew very well how to translate it for clarity for his Greek readers. Bringing these things together dia-chronically, one “Amplified Bible approach” to translating this passage is: :18: Therefore, of truth/truly, there has been a setting aside of the previous commandment [regarding the Aaronic priesthood] resulting in a recognition of the inability [of that previous command] and indeed [those who continue to trust in the Aaronic system after Y’shua has come have no more hope than Baal worshippers.] [Their faith for salvation] accomplish nothing of value – they [faith & works in the Aaronic system for salvation] are useless :19: For Torah made nothing perfect [c/w 1Corinthians 13:10]. But, the bringing-in-of/through/by a qualitatively superior happy-positive-confident-expectation (hope) [through/because of Y’shua’s action/work regarding the cross/execution stake] we draw near to Yahweh-Elohim (RHT). ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 29. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Harris, Archer, Waltke, Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1980, pp. 389-390

  20

This brief presentation of some verses in the Book of Hebrews has presented some examples of the dia-chronic grammatical-historical method of interpretation

One important part of the dia-Chronic method is to recognize where a particular passage or books fits in the

flow of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The Book of Genesis presents a perfect garden with a perfect (though untested) couple, Adam and Eve.

Since the fall, Yahweh’s plan was/is to bring restoration of relationship of the children of Adam. The imagery of this restoration is related to the Bride of Messiah and the Temple in the New Jerusalem:

I did not see a temple in the city, because Yahweh-Elohim Almighty and the lamb are its Temple

(Revelation 2:22.) There have been many steps in the plan and there will be many more. This is a bit like going on a bus trip

that requires transfers: The Aaronic priesthood has taken Yahweh’s people from about 1450 B.C.E. to the work of Y’shua in 30 C.E.

The indwelling and gift-manifestations of the Holy Spirit were given at Shavuot (Pentecost) that same year

(30 C.E.). Those gifts are here to get us through the Millennium (with the 3rd Temple) until Y’shua (the Perfection” comes – 1Corinthians 13:10) with the New Jerusalem when the gifts are no longer needed.

Hebrews Summary & Conclusion

This has been a very brief presentation of the dia-chronic (Through time) grammatical historical method of

interpretation. The use and/or development of words or subjects were considered regarding use in the Tanach as well as use in the later Brit Hadashah. Also, the progression of historical events was integrated into the study.

The manuscript and historical evidence for very early recognition by Yahweh’s Spirit directed people in the first century is very strong.

The Greek translation from Hebrew-Aramaic is “eloquent” and precise which also agrees with a historical

record that continued up through the time of Jerome in the 300’s C.E. The content of Hebrews is well connected with the Tanach as is evidenced by its specific vocabulary

selection from Ezekiel 8, 2Chronicles 26, Psalm 110 and Jeremiah 31. The book presents material that is supported in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles of the Brit Hadashah and is

consistent with the historical cultural context of the first century – particularly regarding a process of change from 30 to 70 C.E.

Hebrews recognizes fulfilled and future prophecies concerning Messiah and the nature of the Expanded

(“New”) Covenant as Torah being written on hearts. As a prophetic book, prophecies concerning the change in the priesthood and the destruction of the Temple

in Jerusalem were fulfilled.

Unlike modern false prophets, the Book of Hebrews has fulfilled prophecy that is in agreement with Y’shua the Messiah.

  21

  22

  23

  2

  3

  4