Featured Hebrews 4:9 rediscovered

In view is the Hebrew People, not Christians.


Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)


4 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.


2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.


3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.


5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.


6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:


7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.


8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.


9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.


10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.


11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.


In vv. 5-6 the "rest" in view is the promised land, and those who yet remained to enter were those who would eventually enter, those who sinned disqualified and refused entrance through death.

In vv. 7-9 we see that the "rest" of vv. 5-6 was not the accomplishment, for in David's day the "Rest" yet remained to be entered. Verse 8 is a reference to Joshua, not our Lord. In verse 9, again, the statement is directed to the Hebrew People, not Christians.

If one has entered into His rest, then his works cease, as did God's in Creation. The exhortation, as it is throughout Hebrews, is to the Hebrew People to embrace Christ and thus enter into the Rest that was prophesied in the Wilderness and through David.

It has nothing to do with Christians mingling the Covenant of Law with the Covenant we are under, the New Covenant.


God bless.

 

It is my view that anyone that equates Israel and all Old Testament Saints to the Church impose an insurmountable flaw into their Theology that mars many great Doctrines of Scripture. The Rest Christ has bestowed is made clear in Hebrews to be the making perfect, or, the completion of Remission of sins on an eternal basis. The Old Testament Saints all died not having received remission of sins on an eternal basis. If we could go back and allow Abraham to live for another year, within that year he would have had to offer up another sacrifice for sin. We, on the other hand, have been made complete at salvation in Christ, never to offer up the first sacrifice on our own behalf.

It is indeed amazing to track the Promises of God through Scripture, and see that the promises of God to Israel (the example in view here) were physical, not spiritual, and not eternal.


God bless.

 

There is an application, yes, but that does not change the fact that this is written specific to Hebrews. No different than the fact that the Corinthian Epistles have application to the Church as a whole but was specific to the Corinthians.

Here is an example:


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)


1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.


2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.


3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.


4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


Have you ever offered up sacrifice for your sin?

The Jews of the Writer's day had. And that is a primary thrust of his writing, to persuade them to embrace the sacrifice of Christ, not to continue in a Covenant and its practices that were made obsolete by the New Covenant. This is how one would "crucify Christ again," by offering up sacrifice, thus looking to those sacrifices for atonement and denying the validity of Christ's Sacrifice.

And that is the first clue, my friend: God did not speak to the world in general when He established the Covenant of Law.

That was specific to Israel. And while one could be a proselyte, that did not change the fact that God covenanted specifically with Israel.

That is why the Writer does not mention the Abrahamic Covenant, which held promise to the world as a whole (all families). The Covenant of Law was specific to Israel. Hebrews.

Agreed.

Agreed.

But not one Old Testament Saint received that which came only after Christ died, resurrected, and returned to Heaven, then sending the Comforter.

Works of righteousness are a result of salvation, not requirement that accomplishes or contributes to salvation in Christ.

There isn't the first command to the Christian to observe the Sabbath. Only a demand not to judge whether one does or not.

Kind of getting away from the issue we are looking at.

Me, I just blame Adam.

?


God bless.

 

It simply looks at those who do not understand the difference between the "rest" given Israel in the physical, and the Rest we have in Christ.


God bless.

 

And I have addressed those things which I view to be somewhat vague in your writing. You are welcome to comment on the points addressed.

An example would be this:

As I said, I agree with this from the application of Scripture to all men, but, that does not change the fact that this Epistle is addressed to Jews specifically. We can see in the writing that the Writer addresses those who are Christians, and those who associate with Christians (with no assumption of salvation on their parts, and the opposite, rather, those whose Christianity is definitely questioned), and those who are not Christians, made apparent because they have either fallen away or are in danger of that, and this primarily by remaining under the Covenant of Law and participating in the typological ceremony rather than embracing the realities Christ has revealed (i.e., sacrifice for sin for remission of sin).

Right...He is speaking to all men by His Son. Formerly He spoke through Prophets.

And that is not exclusive to Christians, because that is in fact how natural man becomes a Christian.


God bless.

 

What I say is absolutely true:


Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


This is just a basic principle of what the Writer is conveying to His Hebrew brethren. Much of Hebrews deals with pointing out that the Covenant of Law was never meant to be permanent. Notice in v.15 that He redeemed the transgressions that "were under the First Testament," which is, just as I pointed out, an indication of the incomplete nature of the Law (and in fact all economies that preceded it.

All of the Old Testament points to the Day when redemption would come to Israel, and going back to the original point, the Writer makes the point, "Hey guys, the rest secured by Israel in the day of Joshua, and in the day of David...was not the Rest God ultimately promised."

It is properly understood as "We enter into rest through believing," rather than a concept of concurrent result.

That is contrasted with the "fathers" not entering into rest because they did not believe.

Not at all, because the writer makes it clear often that men were not made complete in regards to remission of sins in the Old Testament economies:



Hebrews 7:11-1 &18-19

King James Version (KJV)

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.



18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.



Hebrews 9:8-10

King James Version (KJV)


8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


These statements apply primarily to those who were under the Law. These are not general statements that can be applied universally to men in general.

And the bottom line is the contrast between that which was available before (the Covenant of Law and it's provision) and that which he is declaring to them (Hebrews) in the day of this writing.

This is true, because the Son of God is God, and it has always been God who has declared His will to men and given them the necessary revelation by which they can conform to His will.

But that doesn't mean we write into the provision of the Law, or those economies that preceded that Age...that which was not there.

And that is the point he (the Writer and ultimately the Holy Ghost) makes in Hebrews Four...that there is a difference between the physical Rest provided to Israel (which they still clung to) and the Rest which was promised by God in the Old Testament. Completion in regards to remission of sins was an Old Testament Promise:


Jeremiah 31:31-34

King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The Writer quotes this:


Hebrews 8:7-12

King James Version (KJV)


7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.


Now watch the Writer make it absolutely clear:


Hebrews 10:15-18

King James Version (KJV)


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Now lets swing this back to your objection, and I ask you...

...was David's sins forgiven on an eternal basis when he offered up animals for the remission of his sins? Was Abraham's?

The answer is no, the Covenant of Law had no provision for remission of sins in completion, hence the promise of the New Covenant, and the awaiting for Christ to establish that Covenant through His Own offering of Himself.


God bless.

 

Council of Jerusalem proves Sabbath requirement not binding on gentiles.


Acts 15

19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”


Point is the APOSTLES who ARE CHRISTIAN JEWS had to explain to CHRISTIAN GENTILES what do JEWS DO in the Sabbath.

Had the CHRISTIAN GENTILES been "keeping Sabbath" what happens in the synagogue every Sabbath would already been known and practiced by EVERYONE.




Whats also worth noting is the council uses no scripture to back up the new doctrine they are about to put out.

Had this issue been decided by SCRIPTURE ALONE, it would of overwhelmingly sided with the Judaizers who wanted not only Sabbath keeping, but circumcision.

There was ZERO scripture to back up what the apostles were about to rule by church authority.

 

And if you lived during the period before The New Testament was given to us then you might have a reason for not giving Scripture respect.

Its ironic that you use a Scriptural historical reference to "prove" something, then go on to discount the Authority of Scripture.

As to the veracity of your statement, "Whats also worth noting is the council uses no scripture to back up the new doctrine they are about to put out," Perhaps you should reread the account:


Acts 15:13-19

King James Version (KJV)


13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:


14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.


15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,


16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:


17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.


19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:


His declaration concerning Gentiles is based on and given according to the Authority of Scripture. In view is a fulfillment of...

...what was written.




God bless.

 

All that scripture says is there is Gentiles will seek God.

There is no scripture YET to counter the Judiazer's position.

Had Peter had a King James version bible he would have quoted Paul's by faith rather then law.


We don't read a vote of 50 Judiazers vs 50 gentiles. Its Peter's judgment not scriptures.

He saw Gentiles get the Holy Spirit without needing Jewish Law. And God without distinction gave holy spirit to Jews and Gentiles.

If the law was like a flint and tinder to start a fire that no one knew how to make work. The gentiles already had a fire did not need the law.

A ruling and judgment had to be made by the church.

What was previously thought necessary, Jewish Law, was obviously not it is by faith. They are in the midst of learning this and later it does become or realized as doctrine.