What is the theme of this chapter?
Do not grow weary and lose heart.
What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 2-3
...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?
I will grow weary and lose heart if I look at my circumstances instead of keeping my eyes on Him.
Additional observations/questions:
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, or maybe just believing Hebrews in general? 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 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.
Chapter seven'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 questions/observations regarding chapter eight; still pondering all questions I've posed up to this point, though.
Chapter nine's question/observation: Not sure if I agree with McLean regarding his interpretation of "to bear of the sins of many" versus "all," that when Christ came to earth, he came but to the lost sheep of Israel, which would be 'many,' not 'all.' Interesting observation, though. Also, before this study I never knew that some believe it is Christ's life, not His death (or maybe in addition to His death) that put into effect the new covenant. I certainly don't agree because I know of no Scripture that backs it up. I found Newell's comments particularly interesting.
Chapter ten's question/observation: I found Wuest's quote regarding verses 16 and 17 particularly interesting: "The Old Testament saint was regenerated, thus becoming a partaker of the divine nature, and thus had that impetus to the living of a holy life." Looking at the account of Nicodemus in John 3, of course this must be true. But I had never heard it put quite this way before, so I'm still thinking it through.
Last week's question/observation: I think McLean made a good and clear point regarding verse 26: "Hebrews 11:26 does not say that Moses was looking forward to Christ or that somehow Moses knew Christ would be Israel's better sacrifice someday. What the verse does say is that Moses took the same sort of reproach that Christ suffered; and it is the writer of this book that ties those reproaches together, not Moses foreseeing Christ. The danger is that preachers and commentators warning against sin in their spiritualized exegesis, will mix law with grace and have Moses looking forward to the cross, which he did not."
This week's question/observation: The different outlooks between the commentators are clearly seen this week. I typed them all out as examples of this, not because I agreed with all of them.
Do not grow weary and lose heart.
What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 2-3
...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?
I will grow weary and lose heart if I look at my circumstances instead of keeping my eyes on Him.
Additional observations/questions:
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, or maybe just believing Hebrews in general? 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 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.
Chapter seven'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 questions/observations regarding chapter eight; still pondering all questions I've posed up to this point, though.
Chapter nine's question/observation: Not sure if I agree with McLean regarding his interpretation of "to bear of the sins of many" versus "all," that when Christ came to earth, he came but to the lost sheep of Israel, which would be 'many,' not 'all.' Interesting observation, though. Also, before this study I never knew that some believe it is Christ's life, not His death (or maybe in addition to His death) that put into effect the new covenant. I certainly don't agree because I know of no Scripture that backs it up. I found Newell's comments particularly interesting.
Chapter ten's question/observation: I found Wuest's quote regarding verses 16 and 17 particularly interesting: "The Old Testament saint was regenerated, thus becoming a partaker of the divine nature, and thus had that impetus to the living of a holy life." Looking at the account of Nicodemus in John 3, of course this must be true. But I had never heard it put quite this way before, so I'm still thinking it through.
Last week's question/observation: I think McLean made a good and clear point regarding verse 26: "Hebrews 11:26 does not say that Moses was looking forward to Christ or that somehow Moses knew Christ would be Israel's better sacrifice someday. What the verse does say is that Moses took the same sort of reproach that Christ suffered; and it is the writer of this book that ties those reproaches together, not Moses foreseeing Christ. The danger is that preachers and commentators warning against sin in their spiritualized exegesis, will mix law with grace and have Moses looking forward to the cross, which he did not."
This week's question/observation: The different outlooks between the commentators are clearly seen this week. I typed them all out as examples of this, not because I agreed with all of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment