What is the theme of this chapter?
What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?
The superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood.
What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verse 12
What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verse 12
For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?
Verses 12 and 27 are so important. I can use them to show people that we are no longer under the law, and, that is it an error to continue to 'sacrifice Christ' day after day after day by continually asking for forgiveness for that has already been paid (once!) for and forgiven.
Additional observations/questions:
Additional observations/questions:
Back to chapter two's question: "Verses 3 and 4 are the hardest verses for me to understand; is the audience unsaved Hebrews or slothful, believing Hebrews? For now I'm leaning toward unsaved Hebrews, but maybe I'll change my mind as I study more of this book."
Chapter three's question: "Have I come any closer to a conclusion on this? Maybe the audience is neither. Maybe it was just Hebrews who had believed Jesus Christ is the Messiah but now needed to understand all that the cross had accomplished, partly because Judaism as a religion (sacrifices, etc) was about to come to an end in 70 AD, but mostly because it was the next step in increasing their understanding. I think McLean was probably right when he said, "...the book of Romans explains the cross to the body of Christ, Hebrews explains the cross to Israel."
Chapter four's observation: Williams rather confirmed this interpretation this week. Are he and McLean right?
Chapter five's observation: Williams and McLean are still pretty much on the same track, though Williams seems to be saying that the book of Hebrews was to bring the Hebrews from Judaism to Christianity (the Body of Christ); not sure Williams is saying this, though.
Chapter three's question: "Have I come any closer to a conclusion on this? Maybe the audience is neither. Maybe it was just Hebrews who had believed Jesus Christ is the Messiah but now needed to understand all that the cross had accomplished, partly because Judaism as a religion (sacrifices, etc) was about to come to an end in 70 AD, but mostly because it was the next step in increasing their understanding. I think McLean was probably right when he said, "...the book of Romans explains the cross to the body of Christ, Hebrews explains the cross to Israel."
Chapter four's observation: Williams rather confirmed this interpretation this week. Are he and McLean right?
Chapter five's observation: Williams and McLean are still pretty much on the same track, though Williams seems to be saying that the book of Hebrews was to bring the Hebrews from Judaism to Christianity (the Body of Christ); not sure Williams is saying this, though.
Chapter Six's question: Everybody except McLean seems to be saying that this chapter is hypothetical. I must confess it bothers me to read it hypothetically. In view of the context, I'm not sure it's warranted. But can McLean be right and EVERYBODY ELSE be wrong? That bothers me, too.
This week's question: McLean brings up Jer 31:33, Heb 8:10, and Ezek 36:27, verses that I have been struggling with for quite some time now. He suggests that they were meant for the Hebrews only, saying that in both the Old and the New Testament people are ever and always associated with the law while the Body of Christ is not under the law — ever — but under grace (Rom 6:14). This makes sense. He further suggests that with the change of the law reported in Hebrew 7:12, God enables Israel by His Spirit to keep the law, which before this change had not been possible. Is this a possible interpretation? Or is it a stretch?
This week's question: McLean brings up Jer 31:33, Heb 8:10, and Ezek 36:27, verses that I have been struggling with for quite some time now. He suggests that they were meant for the Hebrews only, saying that in both the Old and the New Testament people are ever and always associated with the law while the Body of Christ is not under the law — ever — but under grace (Rom 6:14). This makes sense. He further suggests that with the change of the law reported in Hebrew 7:12, God enables Israel by His Spirit to keep the law, which before this change had not been possible. Is this a possible interpretation? Or is it a stretch?
No comments:
Post a Comment