16. Don't be like Israel in the desert (Heb. 3-4)

The journey concludes. I hope to write these up in some fashion. We'll see what form it ends up taking. The Story of Hebrews thus far...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
12 -- The Cheering Witnesses (Hebrews 11)
13 -- The Discipline of the Lord (Hebrews 12)
14 -- Celebrating the Enthroned Christ (Hebrews 1)
15 -- The Logic of Salvation (Hebrews 2)

_________________________ 

1. "The structure of your sermon is now fairly clear to me," Tertius said. "But tell me again how you see it."

"We will start triumphantly with the celebration of the enthroned Son" (Heb. 1), Apollos said, "followed by the logos of salvation and the key point of the sermon."

He continued. "We will hinge the argument at two places where we urge them to hold fast because Christ has passed through the heavens into the Most Holy Place of heaven where he now sits at God's right hand."

"Wonderful!" Tertius said.

"I do think there needs to be some warming up still before the first hinge (4:14-16),"Apollos continued. 

"Great," Tertius said. "Could you come back to that. For the moment, could you lay out the rest of the sermon as you see it?"

"Yes," Apollos said. "After the first hinge, we will start the argument that Jesus is a heavenly high priest (5:1 and chapter 7). But just as soon as we begin, we will startle them with the strongest warning of the letter (6:1-3). If they do not hold fast and fall away, they will not be able to return."

"Yet, each time," Tertius added, "you give your strongest exhortations, you remind them that they can still choose to hold fast and be faithful (10:26-31). It's not too late."

"The heart of the argument is when we show them that the new covenant is superior to the old one (chapter 8) and that Christ's sacrifice in the true heavenly sanctuary is superior to the Levitical sacrificial system and any earthly sanctuary (chapter 9).

"That ends with the second hinge, right? (10:19-25)" Tertius said.

"Yes. After the second hinge," Apollos continued, "we'll give them the cloud of witnesses urging them to keep running the race (chap 11). And we'll remind them of how beneficial the discipline of the Lord is (chap. 12)."

"And that will end the sermon, right?" Tertius asked.

"Yes. Then we'll add a letter closing after that (chap 13). It will wind down first with some general exhortations and then end with final greetings." 

2. "This is going to be a spectacular sermon," Tertius said. "Now about that material between the introduction to the sermon and the first hinge--what do you see going there?"

"We are going to use the negative example of Israel in the wilderness."

"Ah. They did not hold fast," Tertius said.

"Exactly. They left Egypt. They had the hope of the Promised Land," Apollos started.

"But their corpses fell in the desert" (3:17), Tertius said, completing his thought.

"Sadly so," Apollos agreed. "They are a reminder that it is not enough to be in the people of God at this moment," he continued. "It is not just about getting in. One must be faithful and stay in."

"Very sobering," Tertius said.

"Those who did not keep the covenant were ejected from Israel," Apollos said. "And so if these Roman converts do not persist in faith, they will have nothing to look forward to but a fearful look toward judgment" (10:27).

"And if the consequences were severe under Moses, how horrible will they be in the better covenant" (2:2-3; 12:25).

3. "I do want to start this section with reinforcement of Christ as greater than his equivalents in the first covenant," Apollos said.

He continued. "We will start the sermon with the fact that Christ is greater than the angels, who administer the first covenant."

"Then in the heart of the sermon," Tertius added, "you will show that Christ is greater than any earthly priest and sacrifice--and in a greater sanctuary."

"So in this part of the sermon between the introduction and the central argument," Apollos said, "I want to start wit the fact that Christ is greater than Moses" (3:1-6).

"That will be very controversial to some," Tertius said.

"Yes, but clearly the Messiah is a greater prophet than Moses," Apollos said. 

He continued. "Moses was a servant in God's household" (3:5; cf. Num. 12:7).

"Ah, but Christ is God's Son" (3:6), Tertius added.

"Exactly. In a household, a son is greater than a servant."

4. Apollos continued. "I want to end this section with the psalm that tells us not to harden our hearts like Israel in the desert" (Ps. 95:7-11).

"Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts," Tertius started. "That one?"

"Yes," Apollos answered. "God did not let them enter into his rest in the Promised Land because they did not continue in faith."

"We are only in God's household if we hold fast until the end" (3:6; 14), Tertius said. 

"I love how the psalm sets aside a day for us," Apollos said.

"Today?" Tertius asked.

"Indeed! Today! Today, if we hear his voice, God is calling us to enter his rest."

"And tomorrow will be another today," Tertius agreed with a grin.

"If the earthly Promised Land had been the full rest, David would not have spoken of another day" (4:8), Apollos said.

"So there remains a rest for us to enter," Tertius concluded.

"Yes. There is both the rest that we enter every day when we choose to hold fast."

"And there is the final rest we will enter when the kingdom fully arrives," Tertius extended the thought.

"Indeed! That final rest will be like God resting on the seventh day after he had finished putting all the creation in order," Apollos said.

"Ah, the ultimate Sabbath rest for the people of God!" (4:9), Tertius said.

"What a blessed hope!" Apollos said.

15 - The Logic of Salvation (Hebrews 2)

Getting close to the end. We've presented the content of Hebrews as a series of conversations between Apollos and Tertius. It is a fictional picture, but I don't think it's impossible. In my opinion, it's as good a guess as any specific guess could be.

The Story of Hebrews concludes...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
12 -- The Cheering Witnesses (Hebrews 11)
13 -- The Discipline of the Lord (Hebrews 12)
14 -- Celebrating the Enthroned Christ (Hebrews 1)

_________________________ 
1. "What is left of the sermon?" Tertius asked.

"The proposition," Apollos replied. "Near the beginning of the sermon, we want to state clearly that "Jesus was made like us in every way so that he could serve as a faithful and merciful high priest for us in order to atone for the sins of the people" (2:17-18). That's what this sermon is all about.

"That explains everything," Tertius said. "It hints that Jesus is the one who has taken care of the sins of Israel. Even though the temple is destroyed, Jesus is their true high priest."

"And Jesus has suffered unjustly like they are suffering," Apollos added. "So they can count on him to identify with their troubles."

"Many speeches start off with a narration of the situation," Tertius said. "Do you want to embed this key statement explicitly in what they are currently undergoing?"

Apollos paused for a moment. 

"I want to situate it in the cosmic story," Apollos anwered. "I want to situate them in the human problem."

"In Paul's letter to the Romans, he talked about Adam versus Christ," Tertius said.

"Yes, something along those lines, but maybe without naming Adam," Apollos responded.

2. "We've just celebrated the enthroned Christ as king," Apollos continued.

"Yes, Christ the Son of God who is far more exalted than the angels who mediated the first covenant," Tertius agreed.

"First, let's pause for the first exhortation," Apollos said.

"We've talked about that," Tertius agreed. "We will alternate between teaching and preaching."

"Christ is greater than the angels, so they had better pay attention and not drift away" (2:1), Apollos added.

"Because if the word spoken through angels was serious and breaking that word brought serious consequences," Tertius started.

"Then the consequences of neglecting the word through Christ will be even worse," Apollos finished. "And to think of all the signs and wonders that confirmed it, too!"

3. "Sounds good," Tertius said. "Now the story of salvation?"

"Yes," Apollos answered. "The coming world is not going to be for the angels of the first covenant. It will be for Christ and humanity."

"Makes me think of the eighth psalm," Tertius said.

"Exactly. They will know that association of Christ enthroned with the eighth psalm. 'What is humanity that you care for them... you crowned them with glory and honor and put everything under humanity's feet."

"At least that's the way it was supposed to be with Adam and Eve," Tertius agreed.  

"Sadly so," Apollos added. "We do not yet see everything under humanity's feet."

"But we see Jesus!" Tertius said triumphantly.

"He lived out the psalm!" Apollos agreed.

Apollos continued. "Let's use the word order to make it like we are investigators. We don't see all things under humanity's feet (2:8). What we see is the one having been made lower than the angels for a little while... Jesus. He lived out and fulfilled the psalm!" (2:9).

"And he was crowned with glory and honor!" Tertius said. "He tasted death for everyone."

"Yes, he tasted death so that we do not have to face death for all eternity. He destroyed the one who has the power of death--the Devil" (2:14).

"He was made like us, with blood and flesh," Tertius added. "So that he could solve our death problem" (2:14).

"There are some great words in the Psalms and Isaiah that fit here," Apollos said. "They speak of how the Christ was a brother alongside us" (Heb. 2:12; Ps. 22:22; Isa. 8:17-18). 

"Jesus solved the human problem," Tertius concluded.

"Yes. He was made like us so that he could fulfill humanity's intended goal, which had been foiled by death."

14 -- Celebrating the Enthroned Christ (Hebrews 1)

I'm thinking of moving to a Thursday-Sunday night rhythm for my blog posting. I seem to get good traffic on a Sunday night/Monday morning. I haven't always had great traffic on my Bible posts Sunday morning. I wondered if, if I posted the Bible material Wed-Thursday, if I might catch some sermon preparation.

What do you think?

The Story of Hebrews continues...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
12 -- The Cheering Witnesses (Hebrews 11)
13 -- The Discipline of the Lord (Hebrews 12)

_________________________ 
1. "Now that we know how most of the sermon will go, how do you want to begin it?" Tertius asked.

"The main point of the sermon is that the Romans need to rely on Christ for their atonement," Apollos said. 

"He is the greatest and truest high priest of all!" Tertius agreed.

"Yes," Apollos continued. "We are showing that, just as Jesus sits at God's right hand as Lord of all, he is also the eternal high priest in the Most Holy Place of God's cosmic temple."

"And every believer knows that Jesus is there in heaven, sitting at the right hand of Majesty in the heavens!" (1:3; 8:1), Tertius added.

"So, let's begin with a celebration of Jesus as king," Apollos said.

"I love it," Tertius agreed. "The first few moments of the sermon can be like a grand celebration of Jesus' enthronment as king of all!"

2. "I want the beginning of the sermon to be a grand proemium, a periodic sentence the likes Paul never wrote," Apollos said.

"Is it a competition, now?" Tertius said with a smile.

"Of course not," Apollos grinned. "How does this sound?"

Apollos continued: "Although God spoke in many and various ways formerly to the fathers through the prophets..." (1:1)

"I love that!" Tertius said.

"In these last days, he has spoken to us through a Son" (1:2).

"Great contrast," Tertius interjected. "You have the old covenant and the new covenant right there in one sentence. Is the mention of the "last days" an allusion to Jeremiah as well?"

"Indeed," Apollos answered. "I want them to see that the promises Jeremiah made about the new covenant are in fact what has now taken place."

Apollos continued. "But a great periodic sentence wouldn't end there. I want to expand on who the Son is, who this king of the cosmos is."

"You mean tell them more about who Jesus is?" Tertius asked.

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "Let's describe Jesus with a few descriptive phrases."

Apollos continued. "whom God placed as heir of all things" (1:2).

"He is the Son of God," Tertius nodeed. "Son's do inherit from their father. Also, didn't Philo write a treatise something like that?"

"Yes," Apollos agreed, "and of course Jesus is the Logos, which is the heir Philo had in mind. Good catch, Tertius."

Apollos continued. "through whom also God made the ages" (1:2).

"Wow, there's a Logos theme here that most of them won't catch," Tertius said.

"Can't I enjoy it," Apollos asked with a smile, "even if they don't fully pick up on all the undertones?"

Apollos continued. "Since he is a reflection of God's glory, and the image of his substance" (1:3).

"Now I hear the book of Wisdom" (Wis. 7:26), Tertius exclaimed. "You're likening Jesus to the wisdom of God!"

"You're pretty sharp, Tertius."

Apollos continued. "And since he bears all things by the word of his power..."

"Magnificent," Tertius exclaimed.

"After he had made a cleansing for sins, he sat on the right hand of Majesty in the heavens," Apollos said (1:3).

"Ah, now you have anticipated the high priestly theme without naming it," Tertius said.

3. "Yes," Apollos agreed. "I want to end this periodic sentence of the exordium with a transition to a piece contrasting Jesus with the angels."

"Why is that?"

"Because the angels were the ministers of the old covenant," Apollos answered. "Angels delivered the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai."

"I've heard that tradition. Jubilees?" Tertius asked.

"It's in many Jewish traditions, including our beloved Philo."

Tertius smiled.

"How about this?" Apollos continued. "having become as much greater than the angels as the name he has inherited" (1:4).

"That's a great transition," Tertius agreed. "Jesus sat on the right hand as king and priest, and this established him far above the angels."

"And thus," Apollos concluded, "the new covenant with Christ as mediator is far greater than the old covenant in which they served as ministers."

"It reminds me a little of the letter Timothy sent to Asia right after Nero had put Paul to death. There was a peculiar Jewish movement there that thought they were worshiping with angels in their synagogue worship."

"I remember that," Apollos said. "It was not long after the earthquake."

4. "So that's the introduction. What will we say next?" Tertius asked.

"I'm thinking about a chain of contrasts between the enthroned Christ and the angels, again, all along implying that the new covenant is greater than the old covenant."

"A catena!" Tertius said. "You sure know your rhetoric."

"Let's use a good deal of Scripture," Apollos said. "Pop, pop, pop."

"Like what?" Tertius asked.

"To which of the angels has he said, 'You are my Son. Today I have given you birth'?" (1:5), Apollos said.

"The second psalm," Tertius said. "A classic verse on how Jesus sat at God's right hand after the resurrection when he was enthroned as Lord."

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "And in Samuel, God said he would be the Christ's father."

"What other passages do you have in mind?" Tertius asked.

5. "There's a passage in Deuteronomy where God commands the angels to worship God's agent in the judgment of the world" (Heb. 1:6).

"In the song of Moses, yes?" (Deut. 32:43), Tertius asked. "It's in the Greek but not in the Hebrew. And it is more or less in the Essene version I think."

"But the Romans only read the Greek of the Old Testament, right?" Apollos asked.

"Yes, so they will know the passage that way," Tertius agreed.

"There is a grand passage in the psalms about the Christ's throne being forever" (Ps. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-10).

"Doesn't that psalm call the king God on his wedding day?" Tertius asked.

"Yes, in an extended sense. But I am reading it in a fuller sense of the Messiah," Apollos answered.

"And there's a grand psalm about the Lord founding the earth" (Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12), Apollos continued. "Here I want them to see that this created realm and the old covenant will fade away, but the kingdom of Christ will last forever."

"Isn't that psalm about God the Father?" Tertius asked.

"It is," Apollos said, "but this is a hymn to Christ. It is somewhat poetic. We are reading Scripture with the eyes of the Spirit. And Jesus is Lord too, is he not?"

"Indeed," Tertius agreed.

"All of these Scriptures about the enthroned Christ," Apollos continued, "we'll contrast them with verses about the angels. There's the psalm that calls them winds and flames--passing messengers of God" (Psalm 104:4; Heb. 1:7).

Apollos continued. "In the end, the angels are ministering spirits sent to serve us under the old covenant" (Heb. 1:14). 

"But Christ is king for all eternity," Tertius said.

"Amen."

13 -- The Discipline of the Lord (Hebrews 12)

The Story of Hebrews continues...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
12 -- The Cheering Witnesses (Hebrews 11)

_________________________ 
1. "I feel like I have a good sense of the heart of the sermon" (4:14-10:18), Tertius said, "and the very end of the sermon that is like a letter's end (13:1-25). And the exempla will clearly urge them to faithfulness (chap. 11). But it feels like we need something between the examples of faith and the letter ending. Something to help the bird land."

"That seems right to me too," Apollos agreed. "I think we want another mild warning. Not one as strong was we have made earlier. Something that will gently put in context the suffering they are experiencing right now."

"What about something more relating to paideia and training? We hinted a little that way back near the central warning of the sermon." Tertius asked.

Apollos thought for a moment.  

"I'm thinking perhaps something to do with the Lord's discipline," he finally said.

"Yes, I can see that," Tertius said. "Maybe even tie in the proverb about the Lord's discipline" (Prov. 3:11-12).

"Excellent," Apollos agreed. "We will liken their current suffering to the discipline of a father. Discipline is like training for a race, which fits well with the sense that they need to keep running even though they are getting tired."

"Yes," Tertius continued. "You cannot run a race unless you have trained. The Lord's training is the discipline that makes sure they can finish the race, as brother Paul once put it to the Corinthians here" (1 Cor. 9:24-27).

"Those whom the Lord loves, he disciplines, the proverb says." Apollos continued. "The discipline can be like correction, but it is much richer than that. It is direction. It is preparation for the future. It is training."

"It will help them get over their weak knees" (12:12), Tertius said with a smile.

"Yes, and their feeble hands."

2. Apollos thought I little more.

"We are very close," he said. "I think perhaps a stern warning goes here. Perhaps start with the negative example of Esau."

"Esau? How so?" Tertius asked.

"They are worried in part because of what the synagogues of Rome are telling them--that they need to participate in their meals for atonement now that the temple is destroyed."

"How does that connect to Esau," Tertius followed up.

"Well, Esau sold his birthright for a meal," Apollos said. "They are tempted to abandon Christ for a meal that they think is needed for atonement."

"Got it," Tertius said. "We will urge them not to be like Esau, who sold his birthright--his right to be the child of God--for food" (12:16).

"And he couldn't get it back," Apollos said very seriously. "He tried to find a place of repentance, but he couldn't" (12:17).

"That's so scary," Tertius said. "It's like he knew with his head what he needed, but it simply wasn't possible.

"I do want to sober the Romans up," Apollos agreed. "If they abandon the living God at this point, I don't think they will ever be able to come back. Their head might know better, but their hearts will be hardened."

3. "Now for the grand finale," Apollos continued after another pause.

"Are we going out with a thunderclap?" Tertius asked.

"Yes," Apollos answered. "Let's picture two mountains: Mt. Sinai and the heavenly Mt. Zion."

"You're reminding me again a little of Paul. Remember the letter he wrote to the Galatians? The Sarah and Hagar allegory."

"Indeed," Apollos said. "An allegory something like that but perhaps more comprehensive."

"So how will you set it up?" Tertius asked.

"They have two mountains in front of them. First, there is the mountain of the old covenant, which is earthly. We'll liken it to Mt. Sinai where Moses received the Law" (12:18-21).

"And the other mountain," Tertius said, "the one you're calling Mt. Zion? Isn't that the earthly Jerusalem, which is now in ruins?"

"Ah, but that's the key move of the allegory," Apollos responded with excitement. "The earthly Jerusalem was never the truest Jerusalem. Just as the true tabernacle is in heaven, the true Jerusalem is in heaven" (12:22-24).

"Ah, I get it," Tertius smiled. "You've already hinted at that when you've talked about Abraham. He was seeking a heavenly homeland (11:16). We don't have a city that remains here (13:14)."

"Exactly," Apollos agreed. "They have not come to Mt. Sinai, which was no doubt an awesome sight."

"They were terrified at it," Tertius added. "Man, even if an animal touched it, they had to put it to death! Even Moses was scared" (12:20).

"So imagine how much scarier it would be not to heed the voice of the one who is speaking to them now from heaven" (12:25).

"And how much more glorious is the heavenly Zion!" Tertius added. "You can picture the tens of thousands of angels in festive assembly" (12:22).

"Not to mention all the firstborn children of the Father throughout all of history" (12:23), Apollos agreed.

"And Jesus" (12:24), Tertius finished. "I can't wait to see Jesus."

4. "Let's end then the sermon part of the letter here with a look to the final judgment and restoration of
the world," Apollos said next.

"How will you do it?"

"I want to quote Haggai," Apollos continued. "God is not just going to shake the earth. He is going to shake the whole creation--skies and earth included" (12:26).

"What will be left?" Tertius said nervously.

"Of course the highest heaven cannot be shaken, the new, heavenly Jersualem we have just mentioned," Apollos explained.

"Whew," Tertius said. "You made me a little nervous there. I get confused between the true heaven and the created heavens."

"God will shake the created heavens and earth," Apollos said, "so that the unshakeable will be all that remains" (12:27).

"Will there be a new heaven and earth?"

"No doubt," Apollos said. "Perhaps the heavenly Jerusalem will come down to the new earth."

"What a picture!" Tertius exclaimed.

"It is going to be beyond our greatest imaginations," Apollos agreed.

12. The Cheering Witnesses (chapter 11)

The Story of Hebrews continues...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
_________________________
1. "Wow," Tertius said. "What profound truths you are sharing with the Romans!"

"And after we have shared this revelation about Jesus as high priest," Apollos said, "we will urge them all the more to stay faithful."

"Because they were once models of faithfulness, right?" Tertius asked.

"Yes. They once joyfully underwent the plundering of their possessions by the Romans (10:34). They underwent persecution (10:32-33). But they kept going."

"This is a difficult time," Tertius admitted. "All of the first apostles are dead. Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed. And Jesus has not yet returned as we thought he would."

"But they are not the kind of people who shrink back and are destroyed," Apollos said (10:39). "They are the kind of people who continue in faith and preserve their souls."

2. "So how will you urge them to stay faithful?" Tertius asked.

"In addition to the normal exhortations, I want to use two special arguments in the last part of the sermon. We'll start with an exemplum."

"A list of examples?" Tertius asked, "a catalog of faith?"

"Yes," Apollos responded. "We will bombard them with example after example of heroes from the Scriptures who either believed when they couldn't see or persisted in faith despite opposition."

"Why those who have not seen but still believed?" Tertius asked.

"Because things do not look good right now," Apollos replied. "We don't see Jesus returning. We don't see the kingdom being established on earth. Instead, we see Jerusalem and God's temple being destroyed. We see all the apostles going to their deaths.

"So I want to remind them," Apollos contined, "of all the holy ones in the Scriptures who persisted in faith even though they didn't see the promises come to pass--sometimes not even in their lifetimes" (11:13, 39).

"Wow," Tertius said. "That's rich."

3. "Even the world," Apollos said, "wasn't made out of materials that we can see. It was made out of raw materials we can't see. But we can see it now" (11:3).

"And Noah," Tertius picked up the thought, "how long did he work on the ark when he didn't actually see any rain?" (11:7).

"Yes," Apollos agreed.

"It's like brother Paul used to say," Tertius added. "his rightness with God came because of his faith" (11:7).

"And when you think of Abraham," Apollos continued. "God promised him all that land, but he never received the full promise while he was alive. Yet he still believed" (11:13).

"And, in a sense," Tertius said, "the earthly land was only the smallest part of the promise, right?"

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "The real homeland we are seeking is in heaven (11:16). We believers shouldn't be too upset about Jerusalem being destroyed because the real city we are looking for is in heaven, with foundations that were built by God" (11:10).

"In a sense," Tertius added. "We are all immigrants, foreigners in a strange land. We're not really earth people. We're people of heaven" (11:13),

"So the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple shouldn't be so upsetting. We were always just passing through."

"And Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac even though that must have made no sense to him" (11:17-18), Tertius said. "How could the promise come true if the one bearing it was dead?"

"Yes, and that's exactly how the apostles felt after Jesus' crucifixion," Apollos agreed. "How could he be the Messiah if he was dead?"

"Thankfully," Tertius agreed, "we have a God who raises the dead!" (11:19).

4. "Isaac and Jacob blessed their children," Apollos said, "even though they died before seeing them be blessed" (11:20-21).

"And Joseph foresaw the exodus centuries before it happened" (11:22), Tertius agreed.

"God keeps his promises," Apollos concluded. "More than once in the sermon, I want to emphasize that God is a God who keeps his promises" (6:13-20).

"It's a theme throughout the Scriptures, I can see now," Tertius said.

5. "Think of how Moses' parents hid him in faith" (11:23), Apollos said.

"How relevant an example that is," Tertius added, "since we now have the choice whether to submit to the Romans or defy the edicts of the king" (11:23).

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "Another set of examples in the chapter will allude to the fact that the Roman believers must ignore the shame that they are experiencing and be faithful to Christ even if it could mean persecution and death."

"Think of how easy Moses could have had it," Tertius offered.

"The pleasures of sin for a season" (11:25), Apollos remarked.

"What's that?" Tertius asked.

"If Moses had disobeyed God in order not to be persecuted, he would have enjoyed his sin for a whole."

"But not in the end," Tertius agreed.

"And so, the Romans might be able to avoid persecution if they obey the emperor."

"But it won't turn out well in the end," Tertius concluded.

6. "Think of all those in Scripture who were faithful in hard times," Apollos mused. "Gideon, Barak, Samson, David" (11:32).

"They conquered kingdoms, did what was right, received promises, survived lions, survived the fire, put armies to flight" (11:33-34), Tertius continued the thought.

"And they did all that because they continued in faithfulness. Isaiah was even sawed in half" (11:37), Apollos noted.

"Then there were the seven Maccabean brothers" (11:35), Tertius added.

"Yes, God rescues some. But others he lets die knowing they will have a better resurrection" (11:35).

"Which will the Romans experience?" Tertius asked.

"We don't know yet," Apollos answered. "God might rescue them, or they might face death. We have to be faithful either way."

7. "I also want to give some examples that allude to faith in the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ," Apollos continued.

"Like what?" Tertius aasked.

"Well, Abel offered the right kind of sacrifice" (11:4), Apollos answered. "Jesus is the right kind of sacrifice."

"And Isaac was the right kind of sacrifice?" (11:17), Tertius asked.

"Exactly--Abraham offered up his son like God offered up his Son."

"And the Passover," Tertius continued. "The Israelites had faith that the blood of the lamb might save all the firstborn" (11:28).

8. "All of these died believing in the promises," Apollos summarized. "In a sense, they were all waiting for Jesus."

"They were waiting for us" (11:40), Tertius added.

"And now that Christ has offered himself for sins," Apollos continued, "we can all be made perfect together" (11:40).

"What a great cloud of witnesses!" (12:1), Tertius exclaimed. "It's like those of us on earth are running a great race of faith."

"And they are in the stands, cheering us on," Apollos agreed. "All the more reason for us to run with endurance the race that is set before us" (12:1).

"And Jesus is also an example of faith!" Tertius added.

"Indeed! He was the pioneer and perfector of our faith" (12:2), Apollos said. 

"He endured the cross. He despised the shame."

"I like that," Apollos agreed. "He shamed shame itself. But he prevailed in the end."

"He is Lord, seated at the right hand of God!" Tertius exclaimed.

"So no matter what things look like now," Apollos concluded, "the Romans can also endure whatever cross they must bear."

"They can despise the shame they are enduring," Tertius agreed.

"And they will celebrate in glorious triumph in the end."

11. A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9 and 10)

The Story of Hebrews continues...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8)

_________________________________ 
1. "Now we get to the very center of Hebrews' argument," Apollos said.

"The offering of Christ?" Tertius asked.

"Yes. As Jesus was dying," Apollos continued, "the disciples couldn't make sense of it. Messiah's don't die -- at least that's what every Jew thought at the time."

"I get it," Tertius responded. "You expect a worthy king to win."

"But after the resurrection," Apollos added. "It made sense to think of Jesus' death as something like the deaths of the Maccabees -- a righteous death to atone for the sins of Israel. It is all there in Scripture. Before the kingdom could be restored, the sins of Israel needed atoned for."

"So the cross," Tertius added, "which was a tool of capital punishment, not to mention Roman shame and humiliation, becomes a sacrifice for sins."

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "Jesus is the Lamb of Israel, as John liked to put it."

"And the great insight of Paul," Tertius continued, "was that it was not just for Israel but for anyone who gives their allegiance to Christ."

"Yes," Apollos said. "What did you write with him in the letter to the Romans? God sent his Son to take care of sin? And clearly Paul meant all sin in the flesh -- the sins of all humanity."

"Yes, indeed," Tertius confirmed. "And now over ten years later we are writing the same people again, mostly non-Jews that Jesus' death was equally for."

2. "Here is the new insight," Apollos said, getting very serious now. "It was always Jesus. Jesus was always the plan. Sure, God didn't count the sins of those in the old covenant who offered sacrifices. He knew that Jesus' offering was coming."

"So their sacrifices weren't empty or vain?" Tertius asked.

"Their sacrifices purified them on a physical level (9:13)," Apollos answered. "It cleansed their flesh. But it couldn't in itself cleanse their spirits. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (10:4). To cleanse the spirit required a spiritual sacrifice."

"And Christ offered himself with an eternal Spirit?" Tertius asked (9:14).

"Yes," Apollos answered again. "As Silas likes to say in worship, 'Christ suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God, having died in the flesh, but having been made alive in the Spirit' (1 Pet. 3:18)."

"His indestructible life (7:16)," Apollos continued, "is what makes it possible for him to be a priest forever. It is what makes his sacrifice a once and for all sacrifice."

3. "So, how will you approach the argument?" Tertius asked.

"I'm going to explore the contrast between the true, heavenly sanctuary, and the earthly copy that was a shadow of it."

Apollos continued. "The structure of the earthly Tent of Meeting that God had Bezalel construct -- by the way, Bezalel means 'in the shadow of God' -- had an allegorical meaning. Every item inside it did as well, although we don't have enough space in this sermon to go into it" (9:5).

"I am very interested in these spiritual meanings," Tertius said. "Tell me more."

"Well, there were two tents, a first and a second one," Apollos began.

"Don't you mean two rooms in the one tent?" Tertius asked.

"No, two tents," Apollos continued. "The first one, the Holy Place, represents this present age (9:9). It represents the created world (9:11). It represents the continual sacrifices that earthly priests offer in the tent that only cleanse the flesh but can't cleanse sin" (10:1-2).

"Don't you mean offered, past tense" Tertius asked, "since the temple is now destroyed?"

"I am speaking of the old system and the old covenant," Apollos answered. "It is about the theology of atonement, the eternal pattern and its earthly shadow. Yes, the temple is destroyed but many think it will be rebuilt. I am speaking of the system itself, which is disappearing. But it won't entirely disappear until this created realm is consumed by fire and recreated" (12:26-29; cf. 2 Pet. 7, 10).

"I think I get it," Tertius said. "It will be difficult for some to grasp, but I think you are talking about the theory behind all the earthly sanctuaries of Israel. You are talking about the ideal behind them all, whether the first or second temple or even the tabernacle Moses had in the desert."

"Yes," Apollos said. "I am talking about the heavenly model, the heavenly pattern of which all those sanctuaries were just shadowy illustrations."

4. "So, if the outer room represents this present age and the created realm, what does the inner chamber represent?"

"Heaven itself" (9:24), Apollos answered. Christ passed through the created heavens into the highest heaven (4:14; 7:26), into God's throne room. The second tent, which you are calling the inner chamber, represents the new covenant, the age to come that has already begun but is not fully here."

"Are you saying that when Christ passed through the heavens and sat at the right hand of God, it was like the high priest going through the outer room into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement?"

"Exactly," Apollos said. "In a sense, he offered his blood to God in heaven itself" (9:12).

"Can you take blood into heaven?" Tertius asked. 

"I don't mean that part literally," Apollos answered. "Strictly speaking, heaven is a spiritual realm. The created realm is intrinsically inferior (12:27)."

"This will be a difficult letter for many to understand," Tertius said with a smile.

"But many will," Apollos added. "And for those who don't entirely grasp it, they will still get a strong sense of security in the depth of God's brilliance."

5. "Again, let me get this straight. All the various sacrifices of the Scriptures find their fulfillment in the death of Christ?"

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "From the ceremony involving scarlet thread (9:19) to the use of the ashes of a red heifer (9:13) to the Day of the Atonement sacrifice (9:7) to the daily sacrifices (10:11) -- they all were foreshadowings of Christ's once and for all sacrifice and offering."

"Wow," Tertius said in amazement.

"Even the inaugural sacrifices, the ones that sanctified the wilderness tent (Exod. 29), were a shadowy illustration of Christ's inaugural offering in heaven itself, the true tent" (9:18-24).

"It's funny," Tertius remarked. "According to the Law, blood is necessary for forgiveness (9:22). But none of the blood offered in the old covenant actually took away sins (10:4), only the blood of Jesus."

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "And even then, it was not the physical blood so much that was effective but Christ's eternal spirit" (9:14).

After a moment of reflection, Apollos continued. "With one offering, Christ has perfected forever each person who is made holy (10:14). With one sacrifice -- of his body -- he has taken away the Levitical sacrificial system and replaced it" (10:5-10).

"I know that psalm," Tertius said. "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire but a body you prepared for me" (Ps. 40:6; Heb. 10:5-10).

"Yes, in our Greek version of the Scriptures," Apollos said. "I remember Paul saying that the Hebrew has something about ears, but we will use the Greek." 

6. "What amazing truths you have shared today, Apollos."

"What did brother Paul write," Apollos asked. "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!" (Rom. 11:33).

"Amen!"

10. The New Covenant (Hebrews 8)

Hebrews time!

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
_________________________________
1. "So," Tertius said, "you will spend some time showing that Jesus is the only effective high priest, the only heavenly high priest. The others were only foreshadowings of the one effective sacrifice for all time."

"Yes," Apollos answered. "As a priest after the order of Melchizedek -- the only one there ever was -- he inaugurates a change of priesthood" (7:12).

"And thus a change of law too," Tertius added.

"Indeed. In fact, he inaugurates the new covenant that Jeremiah foresaw" (Jer. 31:31-34).

"Paul wrote a little about the new covenant in one of his letters to Corinth," Tertius mentioned. "Isn't that an Essene concept?"

"Yes, and thus it was also part of the teaching of John the Baptist. It was a significant part of the Baptist teaching I followed when I was only a follower of the Baptist. Many believers think of what Christ did as inaugurating the new covenant of Jeremiah."

Apollos continued. "I think I will quote that Jeremiah passage extensively. Somewhere about half way through the sermon" (Heb. 8:8-12).

"Is that the passage where God says he will write his law on Israel's hearts?" Tertius asked.

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "It is something God does through his Holy Spirit. We are living in the last days, the days that Jeremiah said were coming. God's people will keep this new covenant."

"I do have a question," Tertius began. "Is the covenant already here or is it only almost here?"

"We are living in a brief middle time," Apollos answered. With Christ having made his one time offering, with him seated as King at the right hand of God, the old covenant is obsolete. It is disappearing" (Heb. 8:13).

"That makes sense," Tertius agreed. "And I suppose the destruction of the temple is a sign of that fact."

"Yes," Apollos answered. "While many are already planning for it to be rebuilt, I'm not sure that God will let that happen. I believe Christ will return a second time (9:28) before those in Jerusalem will have the opportunity to rebuild it."

"So, in a sense, we are in between the ages," Tertius said.

"You might even say we are living in both ages simulaneously," Apollos quipped. "There is the new age that has already begun in heaven, and there is the old age that is near disappearance down here in the created realm."

"That's a powerful image!" Tertius said.

"Yes, we have such a great high priest who sits at the right hand of God (8:1-2). Heaven is the true Holy of Holies. It is the inner sanctum of the true, heavenly tent."

"Do you mean that literally?" Tertius asked.

"Well, I'm not saying that there is an actual temple building in the highest heaven. But you might say that the skies between us and the highest heaven are something like the outer room and outer courts of the heavenly tabernacle."

"And the highest heaven is like the inner sanctum?" Tertius added.

"Yes. It's a valid picture. When God told Moses to build the tabernacle, he designed it to mirror the cosmos. The heavenly sanctuary was the pattern of which the earthly tabernacle was a shadowy illustration" (8:5).

"That's brilliant!" Tertius said.

"It is the deeper meaning of Scripture," Apollos said. "Jesus wouldn't be a priest if he were on earth. But in heaven, he is the truest priest of all" (8:4).

9. An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)

It's Sunday! Time for the story of Hebrews!

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
_________________________________
1. "Shall we work on the core high priestly argument?" Tertius said. "You are really arguing for something remarkably new."

"It's been true all along," Apollos said, "right there in front of our eyes. It's just that the destruction of the temple has brought it into plain view."

"Yes, it would have seemed very subversive to make this argument while the temple was still standing -- to say that it is unneeded for atonement. I mean the Essenes were bold enough to say that the current temple and its priests were illegitimate. But to say the temple itself is unnecessary. Wow!"

"In part, that's why I'm going to stick to talking about the tabernacle in this sermon," Apollos said. "To be frank, the teaching I grew up around in Alexandria always made it clear that the cosmos was God's real temple. After all, as Isaiah says, what house could we possibly build for God? The highest heaven cannot contain him!" (Isa. 66:1)

"I can see it clearly myself now too," Tertius agreed. "I mean, all the Jesus-followers believe that Jesus' death was a sacrifice, just like the Maccabean martyrs. And in Romans, our beloved brother Paul used the image of Jesus as a priest. But you are taking his priesthood to a high priesthood on a whole new level." 

2. "So, you were saying a three prong argument," Tertius continued. "A greater high priest offering a greater sacrifice in a greater sanctuary."

"Right. Let's start with the first prong -- a greater high priest."

"What will you say first in this thread of the argument?" Tertius asked.

"As we were saying, we will give the proposition early on: Jesus was made just like us, fully human, so that he could be a merciful and faithful high priest" (2:17-18).

"Yes, he was not a demigod like Hercules or Perseus," Tertius agreed. "You can't serve as our high priest unless you are one of us."

"Then right before the core warning of the sermon," Apollos continued, "we will start slowly with the high priestly argument. We will give the pivot -- We have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens into the true tabernacle of the cosmos. He is at God's right hand, by God's throne" (4:14-16).

"Who wouldn't want a high priest like that?" Tertius responded. "He is like us. He has been tempted like us. He knows human weakness, but doesn't have sin. And he has God the Father's ear!"

"Exactly," Apollos agreed. 

3. "We'll ease into the argument," Apollos continued. What is a high priest?"

"First, someone chosen by God" (5:1, 4), Tertius said. "You can't just decide to be a high priest when you grow up."

"Yes. And the key function is to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people" (5:1), Apollos added, "with the high priest making the most important offering once a year in the Most Holy Place."

"And you really want to emphasize that Jesus can identify with us, right?" Tertius asked.

"Yes, I want to keep reminding them that Jesus was tempted to give up like they are, but he didn't give up. Although he was God's son, he endured the discipline of suffering" (5:8).

"It was even the suffering that perfected him, right?" (5:9).

"Yes," Apollos answered. "In the Garden, he offered up prayers to see if it were possible for him to escape death and the cup of suffering (5:7). But he obeyed. He endured. And God made him an eternal high priest (5:9-10) -- a priest after the order of Melchizedek!"

4. "Fascinating!" Tertius responded. "Aren't all priests descendents of Levi?"

"All the earthly priests are," Apollos answered. "That's a key point. Jesus is priest on a whole new level, a completely different order."

"Melchizedek?" Tertius asked.

"Yes. The Psalm calls the Messiah a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4). That was the great insight that the Holy Spirit has revealed. Philo saw clearly that the Logos is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. He just didn't know that the Logos would be fully embodied in a human being, Jesus."

"So, we will look at the story of Melchizedek in Genesis," Apollos continued. "What insights has the Spirit given us in the story of Melchizedek that are spiritually about Jesus?" (Gen. 14).

"So not necessarily about the actual Melchizedek but what the Spirit is revealing allegorically?"

"Yes," Apollos said. "the deeper meaning of the passage."

"So, what do you see?" Tertius asked.

"Well, Genesis does not tell us Melchizedek's priestly lineage. It does not tell us who his father or mother was (7:3)."

"And it doesn't say when he stopped being a priest!" Tertius added.

"Exactly! As a priest after the order of Melchizedek, Jesus has no father or mother, no priestly geneology. He has no beginning of days or end of life."

"No beginning of days?" Tertius asked. "Aren't you arguing that Jesus is installed as high priest when he was exalted to God's right hand?"

"Yes, it is a bit hyperbolic, but I am alluding to Jesus being the Logos of God. The key point that we will develop in this part of the sermon is that Jesus has no end of days. He is an eternal priest."

5. "So you are going to argue that a priest after the order of Melchizedek is of a higher order than a priest after the order of Levi?" Tertius asked.

"Yes," Apollos answered. "you can see that clearly in Genesis. Abraham gives tithes to Melchizedek on his way back from war" (7:4-10).

"So, he is superior to Abraham?"

"Yes," Apollos said. "And Levi is Abraham's grandson. He is inside of Abraham and, effectively, offers tithes to Melchizedek too."

"Therefore, Melchizedek is a greater priest than Levi."

6. "And even more crucially," Apollos continued. "The Levitical priests were constantly changing. They would get old, die, and there needed to be another one" (7:23-24).

"But Jesus lives forever!"

"Yes, he is seated at God's right hand. He is priest forever. He doesn't have to be replaced. His sacrifice is eternal," Apollos added.

"And the fact that God has changed the priesthood shows that the first order was never a permanent order?" Tertius asked.

"Yes, it was never intended to be permanent. It never actually took away sins in itself."

"A symbol? An allegory?" Tertius followed.

"It was a shadowy illustration of Christ's one time sacrifice."

"Wow. What a radical teaching!" Tertius said. "You are saying that the Law perfected nothing, that it was only a preface to the new covenant, the new law" (7:12, 19).

"I want to be clear," Apollos said. "By Law here, I am referring to the sacrificial system. It was all part of God's plan. I am not trying to disparage the Levitical system. It was great. It just was never the reality. It wasn't what makes atonement truly possible. Only Christ is finally able to do that. All those who sacrificed before were offering in hope."

"Thank you for clarifying that," Tertius responded. "When he spoke of the Law, our brother Paul usually was talking about the aspects of the Law that distinguished a Jew from a Gentile."

"No, that is not the part of the Law I am referring to," Apollos clarified. "I am referring to the sacrificial Law."

7. "And the oath of the psalm indicates that this change is permanent," Apollos continued. "The psalm says that God has sworn and will not change his mind" (Heb. 7:21; Ps. 110:4).

"Jesus' priesthood is eternal then," Tertius concluded. "He sits as priest at God's right hand forever, able to intercede for our sins."

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "And he didn't have to offer the sacrifice for himself because he had no sin. He is a priest who has been perfected forever, installed eternally as the heavenly high priest -- the true high priest for all time" (7:28).

5 -- The Main Takeaway of Hebrews (4:14-16; 10:25-31)

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
_______________________________________
The main takeaway of Hebrews is to keep going. Hold fast. Persist in faith.

1. Hebrews hangs on two hinges. Amid all its complex argument, the author wanted to make its main takeaway clear, so he put it in twice.

4:14-16 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the skies -- Jesus, the Son of God -- let us hold fast the confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses but one who was tempted in every way similarly without sin. Therefore, let us approach the throne of grace with boldness so that we might receive mercy and find grace for a well-timed help.

This verse stands at a key point in the sermon. The author is about to go full steam about Jesus as a high priest. This was surely a fairly striking and new idea. Sure, the early Christians had understood Jesus' death as a sacrifice since the very beginning. But there's a big difference between thinking of Jesus as a sacrifice and thinking of him as the one doing the sacrificing. [1]

To think of Jesus as a high priest is unprecedented in the rest of the New Testament. It would have been deeply, deeply controversial if the temple were still standing. [2]

2. We often take these verses in an abstract theological way, but it was pastoral through and through. Jesus was tempted to give up too -- to let the "cup pass" from him. He didn't. And he'll help you make it too. He gets it.

The audience of Hebrews is having a hard time. Persecution. Shame. 

But they have help. They have the ultimate intercessor with God. Their atonement is assured because the greatest high priest has entered the Most Holy Place of heaven -- God's throne room.

10:19-23 Therefore, brothers [and sisters], since we have boldness to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Christ, a new and living way that he made new for us through the veil -- that is, his flesh -- and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in fullness of faith, our hearts sprinkled from a consciousness of evil and our bodies having been washed with pure water, let us hold fast the confession of hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. 

This is the second hinge. This one comes off Hebrews' central argument about Jesus as high priest. See how similar these two paragraphs are:

• Both have the central point -- "let us hold fast the confession."
• Both back up this point with the fact that Jesus is a great high priest.
• Both urge the audience to approach Jesus as priest for help, confident in his priestly work.

Again, these speak to the situation of Hebrews. They are under duress. They are worrying about atonement. They are in a situation where they might not confess Christ or the hope of his coming kingdom.

The implied worry about a means of atonement is strong. The author is really hammering that their sins are forgiven through Christ -- they should have no worry or consciousness of them any more. Their bodies are washed with pure water through their baptism. They should keep trusting in God's promises.

10:24-25 And let us consider how to spur one another on to love and good works, not neglecting the assembling of ourselves as is the custom of some but exhorting each other and all the more as we see the day approaching.  

Some have stopped meeting together for the weekly agape meal, no doubt accompanied by a word of exhortation like the sermon of Hebrews. 

We can think of several reasons why. One is clearly social pressure and shame fatigue. Another may be actual persecution -- leaders have died and people are in jail. Perhaps Jerusalem has been destroyed and Jewish leaders put to death in Rome. Monuments to the event will be erected.

Perhaps all the twelve disciples are gone. Paul is gone. Peter is one. John the son of Zebedee is gone. John the elder is perhaps the only first disciple still standing.

The theme of loving one another is real in the New Testament. It's not some liberal crap. It's right there in the New Testament, page after page. If you don't like it, if your first impulse is to come up with exceptions, you probably have a spiritual problem.

[1] There is a hint in Romans 8 of Paul thinking of Jesus as an intercessory priest (8:34). But this is a unique image in itself in the New Testament.

[2] Hebrews is an "intermediate form" in the development of Christian theology. It is not quite at the Logos of Hebrews, but Philo did consider the Logos to be the high priest of the universe (Dreams 1.215-16). I personally suspect that logos speculation of this sort was instrumental on the way to the high Christology of John.

4 -- Hebrews' Closing Clues (13:1-19)

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus
______________________________
What clues might Hebrews 13 give us about the story of Hebrews? The hypothesis. The church is coming off a time of persecution, possibly in the wake of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction. Leaders have died. Others are still in jail. Maybe, Apollos and Timothy are planning to visit Rome again. Or insert a different name and destination.

In the wake of the temple's destruction, synagogue meals have taken on a heightened importance. What other formal connection to atonement is left at this moment in time? So being kicked out of the synagogue was even more devastating than before.

The author reminds them that they have a table (the Lord's Supper) that is connected to the one truly effective sacrifice of Christ -- not the sense of "you need to participate to get atonement" but in the sense of "you don't need to worry about being excluded from the synagogue." Note that God-fearers could participate and be excluded from the synagogue too.

Now the details.

1. "We do not have a city here that remains but we are seeking the one that remains" (Heb. 13:14). The verse doesn't necessarily mean that Jerusalem has been destroyed.

But it might. 

Jerusalem is the city in question. The author has just talked about how Jesus suffered outside the gate of Jerusalem. That's what Romans did. They crucified people on major thoroughfares into the city to make an example of them.

Apollos (for the sake of argument) wants the believers of Rome (for the sake of argument) to "eat the shame" of being followers of Jesus. He uses the analogy of the Day of Atonement, where the high priest takes the blood of the sacrificed into the Most Holy Place. The carcasses, however, are taken outside the camp, just like Jesus' body died outside Jerusalem.

Could there be a "twin shame" here? There is first the shame of being a Christian Jew (whether ethnically Jewish or a proselyte). You are shamed by the mainstream Jewish community, which is increasingly rejecting Jesus followers. If Jesus followers primarily rejected the Jewish War, this could have led to an even more profound ostracism.

Then, just maybe, there is the shame of being associated with the city the Romans have just destroyed, just like they crucified Jesus outside the gate. Bearing shame is a major feature of Hebrews. [1] We see it not least in 12:2, where the example of Jesus "despising the shame" is given as a model for the audience to emulate. 

Clearly, they are experiencing some "shame fatigue."

2. "Don't be led astray by various strange teachings" (13:9).

This is one of the more cryptic comments in Hebrews. The author seems to have some specific kinds of teachings in mind, because he goes on to warn them that "foods" do not establish one's heart before God. What foods does he have in mind? Well, it would seem to be sacrificial foods of some kind because he lifts up  the "foods" believers are privileged to eat that "those who serve the tent" cannot eat.

What a strange comment! For one, he doesn't speak of the temple but of the wilderness tent. As we will see, the book of Hebrews nowhere explicitly mentions the Jerusalem temple. Like Philo, the argument is a theological exploration rather than a concrete one. I would argue this makes a lot of sense especially if the temple has been destroyed. The author is "starting with why" the whole sanctuary thing existed in the first place.

Throughout most of church history, Jerusalem was a favored suggestion for the destination of Hebrews. Perhaps these verses would give the strongest argument. How could you eat from the "table of the tent" anywhere in the world but Jerusalem?

But it seems much more likely to be metaphorical. We can eat from the Lord's table and Jerusalem priests can't -- if they're not believers. 

But he tells them to stay away from strange teachings. This suggests that we're going to have a hard time guessing what alternative he has in mind. It's strange. A sacrificial meal in Jerusalem isn't strange. It's normal.

3. So let's speculate a little. It involves foods of some kind. And, "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent do not have authority to eat." So the food is thought in some way to represent a sacrificial meal someone might have in the temple -- except it's not in Jerusalem.

Yep, that's strange alright.

We're looking for a practice that claims to function like a temple meal. The best candidate I can think of is synagogue meals or synagogue meals associated with certain key Jewish festivals. [2] 

Even before the temple was destroyed, there is some reason to believe that many Jews saw synagogue meals as extensions of, perhaps even proxies for temple meals.  After the temple was destroyed, it seems even more likely that this sort of sentiment would have exploded in significance. We can hear the argument: "Now that there aren't temple sacrifices being offered, participation in the synagogue meal is essential for atonement." [3]

So, here's the hypothesis. In the absence of the temple, synagogue meals took on an even greater significance than before (or perhaps certain key synagogue meals did, such as the one on Yom Kippur). You can hear the argument -- "If you are not part of the synagogue, you are cut off from (what is left of) the atonement system."

The author's counterargument is that participation in the communal meals of the Christian assembly -- the Lord's supper, in other words -- is more than equivalent. It is a table connected to the one effective sacrifice for all time as opposed to a table connected to the (no longer offered) sacrifices that merely represented Jesus' one true sacrifice. [4] Believers had authority to eat from the true table.

And believers continue to offer sacrifices of praise to God (13:15). Indeed, doing good and sharing fellowship is a pleasing sacrifice to God as well (13:16). The church is a "cultic" community, just as almost certainly the synagogue community was viewed.

4. "Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Observing the outcome of their conduct, imitate their faith" (13:7).

The most natural way to take this verse is that the leaders of the (perhaps Roman) church have been martyred. The author urges the audience to demonstrate the same faithfulness that they did. Indeed, the whole point of Hebrews 11 is to spur the audience to continued faithfulness in the light of those who have gone before.

When did these leaders die? They certainly may have died in the Neronian persecution ca. 64. 

Could individuals like Paul and Peter be in view? It's possible, although it doesn't fit the verse as well as the community's own leaders, since Paul was under house arrest when he was there, and Peter probably was not in Rome too long before he was martyred.

This points to a date at least in the late 60s, and a date around 71 or 72, as I am suggesting, would fit as well. [5]

The well-known verse -- "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever" (13:8) -- was not just a general theological statement. The context tells us the author is telling the audience that they can rely on Jesus today just like their leaders relied on him yesterday. So they will always be able to rely on his atonement forever. 

This sense of the eternal efficacy of Jesus' blood was a new stage in the early church's sesnse of the scope of Jesus' atonement.

5. "Remember those in prison" (13:3). This at least makes us think of Timothy, who had just been released (13:23). We get the impression that the church is recovering from a hard time, perhaps a global hard time. While there were no empire-wide persecutions of Christians this early, the wake of the Neronian persecution or the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem probably fit this tone best.

6. "Obey your leaders" (13:17). Their job is to watch over your souls. In every generation, the people of the church can be in tension with those who watch over their souls. Similarly, of course, leaders can be tempted to "lord it over" congregations in every generation.

7. This final chapter also has some instruction of a general nature -- the kind that you might hear on a Sunday morning in any sermon.

• Love each other (13:1). The early church struggled with this just like we do.
• Show hospitality to strangers (13:2). This is a notable verse because there are voices that want to limit the church's love to those inside the church. Hebrews extends the love to strangers. This is also a curious verse in its mention that angels sometimes walk among us, possibly an allusion to Genesis 18 and the men who visited Abraham.
•  Be faithful to your marriages (13:4). In all times and all places, this is a concern because fallen human nature always struggles with sexual temptation.
• Don't be overcome with the love of money (13:5). Again, a problem for certain people in every generation. Be content with what you have.

Hebrews quotes a couple verses to support the idea that we can depend on God (rather than money). "I will never forsake you" (Josh. 1:6) and "The Lord is my helper. I will not fear what a mortal might do to me" (Psalm 118:6) puts together two verses in a way only done elsewhere this way in Philo. In fact, there are several quotations in Hebrews that parallel Philo's way of quoting them exactly -- and found in those forms nowhere else. Drip, drip, Apollos.

[1] See David deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (SBL, 2008).

[2] Philo's description of the Therapeutae's celebration of Pentecost in On the Contemplative Life seems to see their meal as analogous to eating the table of presentation in the temple.

[3] I first encountered this speculation in relation to the temple sacrifice in Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge University, 1991).  

[4] It is not widely held, but W. E. Brooks once suggested that they may have continued to offer sacrifices on the temple mount even after the temple was destroyed: "The Perpetuity of Christ's Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews" JBL 89 (1970): 205-14.

[5] Although we come at the question from slightly different angles, the work of Jason Whitlark fits very well with my dating here. E.g., Resisting Empire: Rethinking the Purpose of the Letter "To the Hebrews" (T & T Clark, 2014).

3. Hebrews 13:22-25 -- The Context of Hebrews at Corinth/Ephesus

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
______________________
1. Here's the hypothesis. Argument to follow. We, of course, don't know for certain.

Apollos is at Corinth or Ephesus. Timothy has just been released from jail somewhere not far away. Priscilla and Aquilla are there with Apollos. The churches of Ephesus have become more diverse in the last ten years with the arrival of refugees from Jerusalem during the Jewish War -- including John the son of Zebedee.

Some of this cadre had probably visited Rome in the meantime. It makes sense that while Paul was under house arrest in Rome for two years, Timothy and others would have made their way there to visit him. The audience knows this group of church leaders based in the Greece/Ephesus area.

These last two years have been hard. Jerusalem was destroyed. The temple burned to the ground. John was martyred at Ephesus. About the only original follower of Jesus now left standing is John the elder, who wasn't one of the twelve.

Apollos and Timothy plan to visit the churches of Rome soon. But given the drama of watching Rome kill all the captives from Jerusalem, Apollos worries that their faith might be wavering. He sends this sermon, this "word of exhortation" ahead of them to prepare the way.

What if this is the context of Hebrews 13:22-25?

Of course, there are seemingly endless other possibilities. More than any other part of Hebrews, these verses sound like Paul (see the previous post for arguments against Paul as author). Some suggest the author is Priscilla and that she is somewhat obscuring her identity (I don't see it, although it would be great). A couple key scholars think it is being written from Ephesus to Corinth. [1] 

I get it. Apollos to Corinth. Would make sense. But also notice that Timothy doesn't seem to be in the same place as the author. If Timothy was at Ephesus -- as 1 and 2 Timothy seem to imply -- then a little journey to join Apollos at Corinth would fit our traditions.

In any case...

2. And now the argument. The first twelve chapters of Hebrews are a sermon, a "word of exhortation" (13:22). But they were a "sent sermon." The author was in another location, maybe Corinth or Ephesus. He knew the audience, possibly in Rome. He planned to visit them soon. He was sending this letter ahead because he felt like they needed it to bolster their faith.

The audience also knew Timothy (13:23). At that time, he had just been released from jail -- perhaps at Ephesus. This is after Paul's time. Paul probably died around 62 in Rome at the end of his house arrest in Acts. [2] That was now almost ten years now in the past.

In the years since Paul died, surely much had happened at Ephesus. There are traditions that some of the apostles came to Ephesus, most notably John the son of Zebedee. [3] I personally suspect that the earliest part of the book of Revelation dates to the last days of the Jewish War, just a year or two before the Gospel of Mark and the sermon of Hebrews. John was then probably martyred in the environs of Ephesus, maybe on the isle of Patmos. [4]

Ephesus would soon become a somewhat theologically diverse set of churches. You had the earliest Pauline layer. Hebrews reflects it. You had a rising Jerusalem oriented layer, strengthened by the presence of John the son of Zebedee there. Revelation represents it. 

Another John, the elder, possibly the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John, would have great influence there in the last part of the century. [5] The Gnostic movement at Ephesus would grow to power in the midst of his ministry (cf. 1 John 2:19). It was a very Hellenistic -- Greek influenced -- branch of Christianity.

2. "Those from Italy greet you" (Heb. 13:24). It is very tempting to think this refers to Priscilla and Aquila. Wherever we think they were in Romans 16, 2 Timothy 4:19 has them at Ephesus at the end of Paul's life. They were of course from Rome (cf. Acts 18:2), so a letter to Rome might easily mention them.

3. We've already mentioned that Hebrews was a "word of exhortation." It's a homily or a short sermon. It has no letter introduction. Its beginning is far too magnificent to cloud with a mundane greeting.

Besides, the letter would be sent with someone who would make it abundantly clear who it was from.

Apollos is only a guess since we don't know. His name was not suggested in writing by the early church. Martin Luther in the 1500s is the first he is mentioned as a possibility.

But there is a reason, chiefly the cumulative (superficial) parallels with the writings of Philo. Apollos was from Alexandria and Philo taught at Alexandria. Apollos has the level of education that the author of Hebrews surely had.

Luke is sometimes suggested. On writing style, this is very possible. However, Luke's theology seems quite distinct from that of Hebrews. Acts 7 comes the closest to Hebrews' theology, and it is generally an outlier in the general attitude of Acts toward Jerusalem. In general, Luke-Acts is strongly oriented around the future kingdom of God on earth while Hebrews demonstrates much more of a dualism.

It is interesting to see Hebrews on a continuum that moves to the dualism of John and then on to the dualism of Gnosticism. Just maybe, this was in the water at Ephesus.

[1] Chiefly, Hugh Montefiore and Luke Timothy Johnson.

[2] This is not the most popular reconstruction, but it is the most likely. The last nine chapters of Acts repeatedly foreshadow Paul's death. He tells the Ephesians he'll never see them again (Acts 20:25). Agabas warns him not to go to Jerusalem, and Paul says he is ready to die (21:10-14). Agrippa II and the Roman governor Festus both agree it is a shame he appealed to Caesar because he was clearly innocent (26:31-32). These do not prove that Paul died in Rome, but the most likely way to take these comments is that they are foreshadowing a bad outcome.

The dating of Luke similarly is not really ambiguous. Both Matthew and Luke give hints that they were written after the temple's destruction. Matthew does it in the way he tells the Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matt. 22:7). Luke does it in the way he paraphrases Jesus' abomination of desolations statement (Luke 21:20). The fact that they both use Mark is another prong in this argument, since Mark also was also likely written around the time of Jerusalem's destruction (cf. Mark 13:14 -- "let the reader understand").

It is often protested, "Then why doesn't Acts tell us what happened to Paul. Don't you think he would have told us?" This is a narcissistic answer. Acts wasn't written to us. The original audience knew. He didn't need to tell them.

Acts is not some mere history book. It has clear theological and ideological tendencies. Acts is making an argument, and a key piece of that argument is that Christians -- and Paul -- were not troublemakers. Rather, their opponents oppressed them and stirred up problems all around them. The way Acts ends fits beautifully with this purpose. He implies Paul's innocence without saying Caesar was wrong. He stays far away from that puppy!

None of the above items are particularly ambiguous to me. They seem the obvious  and most natural way to interpret this data. Why would anyone question these conclusions? Sentimentality. I recognize the impulse because it once was me. It is an intellectually perverse drive to find alternative interpretations to fit a narrative that feels better -- even though no item of faith is at stake.

[3] One tradition is that John brought Mary, Jesus' mother there, but I consider it far more likely that she was dead by this time. The tradition probably grew out of John 19:27.

[4] The reason to suspect his martyrdom is because Mark seems to allude to it (Mark 10:39). The confusion is because the Beloved Disciple was possibly another disciple of Jesus who was also named John -- John the elder. Papias, writing in the early second century, mentions a "John the elder" at Ephesus (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4).

Given the style and theological differences between the Gospel of John and Revelation, it has been suggested since the early church that these were two different Johns (cf. Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.24–25). To me, Revelation sounds like it came from a "son of thunder" (cf. Mark 3:17). So it seems reasonable to think that the bulk of the Johannine corpus grew from the ministry of John the elder at Ephesus. See Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (SCM, 1989).

[5] See note 4 above.

Hebrews 2: The Cast of Characters

Continued from last week
____________________
1. Hebrews is full of unknowns, which means we could write many stories from its mysteries. And many have, including scholars. The more disciplined we are, the more generic its message becomes -- although its original meaning was almost certainly specific to a concrete situation.

Virtually every aspect of its context is debated. I've chosen a date not long after Jerusalem's destruction... which is debated of course. Who was the author? Unknown. Who were the recipients? Uncertain.

This book will play out a plausible scenario. It means to paint a vivid picture of what might have been, even though it must remain somewhat hypothetical. Just keep in mind that virtually every inch of Hebrews is debated. This is a book meant to bring the book of Hebrews to life.

2. Before I give the justification, here is the scenario under which we will explore Hebrews. We will sit somewhat lightly to it, knowing it is just one of many possible hypotheses. 

Not too long after the destruction of the temple, someone from the Pauline circle -- perhaps someone like Apollos -- writes a sermon to the churches of Rome to encourage them to persist in their faith. Those churches were primarily Gentile in nature, so they were converts not only to Christ but to Christian Judaism and the God of Israel.

The author is urging them not to fall away from the living God (3:12). I don't think they were necessarily in great danger of returning to paganism. But it must have been a serious enough possibility to merit this strong exhortation (cf. 6:3-12).

While the earliest Christians clearly understood Jesus' death to have atoning value, they had not really fully understood it yet as a wholesale replacement for the temple. This was the great insight of Hebrews -- that the temple was no longer necessary at all for atonement. They need not be discouraged about its destruction. The reality of atonement was something far greater.

Hebrews thus takes a potential source of faith crisis -- how can the God of Israel be legitimate if he lets his temple be destroyed by the Romans? And the author turns it into a matter of great confidence in Jesus -- the temple was never the truest temple, which is in heaven. The sacrifices done there were always shadowy illustrations of the one sacrifice of Christ that was coming. The priests there were never the ultimate priests that Christ is, who has an indestructible life.

While we will try not to force this scenario on the text, this is the picture we will keep in mind as we imagine the writing of this sermon, also making note of other readings along the way.

3. Now for the backstory.

It is not too controversial to suggest that a church at Rome or the churches of Rome in general might have been the destination of Hebrews. The expression, "those from Italy greet you" (13:24) isn't much to go on. Does it refer to Priscilla and Aquila? All we can say for certain is that it could. 

It makes sense that if you are writing to Italy you might send greetings from some individuals from there. That's probably the majority hunch, but it is just a hunch. Hebrews seems to have been known early on at Rome. The Christians there seemed to have better insight into its authorship than elsewhere -- namely, they knew it wasn't Paul. Other regions succumbed more easily to the starry-eyed sentimentalism that makes traditions out of wishful thinking.

A majority have also concluded that it was a "sent sermon." 13:22 styles the book a "word of exhortation," which we know from elsewhere in the New Testament was a sermon (cf. Acts 13:15). The book has no letter introduction, even though it ends much like one of Paul's letters. It begins more like a homily. So it is not unreasonable to see it as a sermon that was mailed as a letter to the churches at Rome.

4. The author is not named. A "Timothy" is mentioned in 13:23. If it is the same Timothy of Paul's fame, then that puts Hebrews earlier than the late first century. And it suggests that the author is in the Pauline circle. That cast of characters possibly included people like Titus, Silas, Luke, Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos.

Why not Paul? Again, the argument is not foolproof. On the surface, the style is rather more "high Greek" than Paul's letters. It's lofty style is more along the lines of Luke-Acts. It is fashionable to make recourse to secretaries these days to wiggle out of the different style of letters like Ephesians and Titus. Fair enough. But the style isn't Paul's just the same. 

(I used to get so frustrated about what I see as rampant sentimentalism even among scholars. The arguments are ingenius, the motives less than truth-seeking.)

The strongest argument against Paul is 2:2, in which the author locates himself as a second generation believer. He does not see himself as a direct witness to Jesus. Paul, as we know so well, emphasized that he himself was an apostle who had seen the risen Lord (1 Cor. 9:1). He received his understanding of the gospel directly from Jesus (Gal. 1:12). It's hard to hear Paul distancing himself from Jesus like that.

The theology is related but distinct from Paul's. For example, Paul's references to the Law tend to focus on those boundary issues that distinguished Jew from Gentile. Hebrews knows none of that. References to the Law in Hebrews largely focus on the sacrificial system -- something Paul never does. 

There is a reason Apollos is most often suggested these days as a possible author, and its because of the cumulative drip of superficial parallels between Hebrews and the writings of Philo. Apollos was from Alexandria, and it seems difficult to suppose that a young man growing up there would not have absorbed from the waters of the Great Synagogue some whiff of Philo's influence, even if superficial.

Ultimately, we just don't know. The author self-identifies grammatically in 11:32 as a male. Intelligent arguments have been made for why that is not an absolute argument for a male author. I would be delighted if Priscilla had been the author, but it just doesn't seem the most obvious proposal at all. The audience seems to know the author, so there doesn't seem to be any conspiracy to hide a female author in play. So I'll go with the most likely and say the author was a male. 

(Insert more condescending remarks about scholarly sentimentalism.)

5. I would be somewhat unusual to think that the audience was primarily Gentile, non-Jewish. However, I'll turn the tables and blame superficial thinking on the more common assumption that the audience must have been Jewish. "How would a Gentile have known so much about the Old Testament?" is like the worst argument ever.

I'm not Jewish. I know a lot about the Old Testament. The moment a Gentile believed in Jesus, the Jewish Scriptures immediatelly became their Scriptures. And many of the first Gentile converts had probably been God-fearers to begin with. They knew the Scriptures even before they believed on Jesus.

Galatians has an intricate argument -- and it was written primarily to non-Jews. An intricate Old Testament argument requires that the author know the Old Testament thoroughly. How many lectures go straight over the heads of their audiences? I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm just saying there's some pretty flimsy thinking going on here.

What convinced me of a primarily Gentile audience was 5:11-6:2. The author treats basic Jewish teachings -- faith in God, repentance for sins, resurrection, eternal judgment -- as matters the audience learned when they came to Christ. But if they were Jewish, they would have known these from the earliest days of their lives -- not from when they first believed on Jesus.

Why do we miss that? Because we unthinkingly have separated Judaism from Christianity when they were one and the same for the earliest Christians. To become a Christian in those days, was to become a Jew. Yes, a very specific kind of Jew -- a Christian Jew -- but it was to become a Jew nonetheless.

(Insert condescending remarks about how anachronistic so much popular Christian thinking and preaching is.)

Also, the churches at Rome were probably predominantly Gentile. The Emperor Claudius kicked the earliest Jewish layer out of the city. And I have argued elsewhere that Romans 16 was probably for Ephesus originally. From an inductive standpoint, the rest of Romans reads best as written primiarily to a Gentile church.

(Insert more condescending remarks about scholarly sentimentalism.)

6. Probably most American scholars date Hebrews to the 60s but before the destruction of the temple. Some of the arguments are really flimsy. "Hebrews talks about sacrifices in the present tense." So does Josephus. So does Clement. So does the letter to Diognetus. All written after the temple was destroyed.

Surely almost everyone would have assumed that the temple's destruction was temporary. After all, it had been destroyed once before. Until the Romans smashed bar Kokhba in 135, they would surely have expected it to be rebuilt. We only know it was really gone because we live 2000 years later. So "near disappearance" is not the foolproof argument anachronistic thinkers suppose.

There are clear hints that Hebrews comes from a post-destruction time. "We don't have a city that remains here" (13:14) fits really well just after the temple's destruction. So does Hebrews 11's strong comments on seeking a heavenly city (11:16) and homeland (14) rather than an earthly one. The sense of alienation, being strangers and aliens (11:13) fits this context very well also.

You'll see. As we get into the warp and woof of Hebrews, you will see the explanatory power this hypothesis gives. The sermon will "pop" under this proposal. And we'll mention other reconstructions too.

If Hebrews were written while the temple was still operating, it would have come off with a striking anti-temple tone. It would starkly say, "The temple, its priests, and sacrifices -- that stuff happening in Jerusalem right now -- are a failure." But that's not its tone. It's tone is "Don't be troubled by these things -- they were never intended to truly take away sins in the first place."

7. If you want further justification for all these positions, I have a scholarly monograph that explores Hebrews in relation to the "parting of the ways" here.