Tag: hebrews

We get a sense of the audience by the opening, where the author refers to the prophets as “our fathers”. So by Hebrews we should be thinking Jewish Christians. This will make more and more sense as the letter progresses as one of the core points in here is how Jesus is superior to that which came before him, and the only group who particularly cares about that distinction are Jews. Note the point of the opening is making a case for the shift; God once spoke through the process, now he communicates to his people through Jesus. These arguments that will be made are arguments of both contrast but also continuance and fulfillment. God has always talked to His people, however the method has changed.

The communication aspect of this is interesting, because you have God speaking to the fathers by the prophets where the Hebrews (and us) receive communication through the Word (John 1), his Son, Jesus. The life of Jesus has the force of prophecy, He is the ultimate word from God, not just through what he says but what he does. God is communicating to His people through the example of Jesus as well as the words. He is the new law, the fulfilled identity, the heir of all things, the revelation of the Glory of God. (Holy cats, our calling is to follow and imitate the revelation of the Glory of God! Time to step up your game and put on some clean drawers, that’s a high calling).

Now enters the first foil: angels. We don’t have angel issues (we barely get the Holy Spirit, let alone getting caught up in the thoughts of the powers and influence of angels. Except that part in Jude when the archangel is tussling over Moses’ body, I still dig on that.) However, the persistence of the argument seems to imply that the Hebrews might be willing to think that perhaps Jesus is on par with them (or maybe was one? Seems possible given how much the author makes a case to persuade them from thinking so.) But he can’t be on par with the angels, because unlike them Jesus has “inherited” (is the imprint of) the very nature (name, essence) of God (because he is God!). The language here around Jesus is not without controversy as it leaves room for belief that he was created (inherited a name, imprint of God’s nature, later described as “firstborn”), all of this has a connotation of God acting upon Jesus vs. being around the whole time. But let’s let the letter breathe and see if that gets resolved. The trinitarian concept is a tough one, anyway, and I suppose it might have been even more difficult to get for Jewish Christians.

The argument continues. God did not call the angels “Son”, as in the quoted reference from Psalm 2 (read the whole Psalm, it’s certainly talking of a Messiah, not David’s earthly son, Solomon, who doesn’t consistently act in the way the Psalm describes this “son”.) “I will be to him a father…” is a quote from 2 Samuel 7. I struggle with this being applied to Jesus as 2 Samuel 7: 14 says [14] I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, (ESV). What’s with the iniquity? I’ve not found this resolved in a way I’m confident in yet so it remains a question as to how we should apply this to Jesus given the context of the original verse.

Even though the goal is to show how superior Jesus is to the angels, it’s not angels aren’t cool. They were created cool and glorious, but since Jesus the creator they are inherently reflecting more of Jesus’ awesomeness. And look at the rebuttal, the description attributed to the Son is directed to God (ok, we get that connection we were missing earlier). And then the next reference “You, Lord, laid the foundation…”is from Psalm 102, which reinforces the eternality of Jesus, His role in creation. These are big things the author is trying to communicate and it’s a bit of a heady argument, but it seems necessary if there is any doubt now that these folks are 30 years out of Jesus’ death and resurrection and likely facing persecution. They need the big picture to sustain their identities being fully committed and formed by Jesus instead of the remnants of the Jewish culture.

Ultimately, the angels are ministering spirits to those who have benefited from the work that Jesus has done. Without the work of Jesus (think both creation and securing of salvation), the work of the angels either doesn’t exist or means nothing. There’s a point to all this, and the author will start getting to it in chapter 2.

The long discussion in chapter 1 starts to come to relief in chapter 2. The reason we need to know that Jesus is greater than the angels is because they need to be reminded to focus that much more on the message that Jesus brings as they once focused on the message the angels had brought in the past. (Dig on Acts 7:5 where the Law is said to have been brought by angels. This is a Jesus is greater than the Law discussion. Perhaps the author is Paul after all, eh?) The Law given to Moses from God (through the angels) was reliable and there were just consequences built into it, they risk missing the great salvation that Jesus brings by focusing on that which has already been fulfilled.

Further, they know that the good news that Jesus brings is true because God himself bore witness to it by signs and wonders and miracles and the provision of the Holy Spirit. (This affirms the purpose of the miracles as understood through the Gospels, it’s how we know that what Jesus claims about himself is true. With that foundation in place, his message must be true and the call to obey it and follow him extends from that.)

The exaltation of Jesus continues. The “world to come” (think the end of the age, in which they/we are in the “last days”, ch. 1 v.2) is not under the rulership of angels but of Jesus. Hebrews author vaguebooks us here and acts like he has no idea where his quotation of “What is man…” is from. Sly boots. Its Psalm 8:4-6, which speaks of the majesty of God and the graciousness of his putting creation at the service of mankind. However, this quote serves two purposes here in relation to Jesus. One, it identifies him as a sharing the position of man when he came to serve and die on the cross, a time when he was indeed lower than the angels (affirming the counterargument the Hebrews may be having in context of chapter 1.) Yet, it also points to Jesus’ ultimate place as the “son of man” (the way Jesus refers to himself, calling us back to the Daniel 7 Messiah figure) who has everything in subjection under his feet. Except in this case, the “everything” is more than just earthly creation. In fact, our writer says that at the moment, we don’t even know everything that Jesus rules over. (Could be monsters, aliens and potentially some yet to be discovered mosquito species. Be open to other possibilities.)

Ultimately, it is fitting that that Jesus is crowned with glory and honor (in a way that mankind never really achieved) because he died on the cross so that we didn’t have to. To the writer, it makes sense that God would bring his “sons” (back to humans) to glory through Jesus, who is made “perfect” through suffering. We should think “made” in the sense of fulfillment, not changing of. Jesus lived his life perfectly on earth which is what allows him to be an appropriate sacrifice in our place.

And Jesus, this perfect, sacrificing Jesus, is not ashamed to call us his brothers (the word also means “siblings”). The rest of the chapter touches on this in one way or another. I know, certainly, that Jesus died on the cross to save me. But in practical terms, I have a hard time understanding that he is not ashamed to call me brother. He bailed me out, he continues to bail me out, and it is my actions, thoughts, and motivations that continue to causes the situation that I need bailed out of. But not only is Jesus willing to take the impact of my shameful action and pay the penalty for it, he is unashamed to proclaim to the world, to put his arm around me and say, “World, I’m Jesus. This is Ben, he’s my brother, I am happy to introduce you to him.” He who knows all, created all, gave all…not ashamed. I may live the rest of my life and not get that completely, but perhaps it will be the grace of God that I may live a life that reflects that reality.

The connection between Jesus and us are many. We are both “children” of God (in different senses, of course) but we did share flesh and blood (Jesus just for a time), and we were both subjected to the temptations of the enemy. However, the physical death of our imperfect lives could not destroy the enemy, and knowing this humanity lived in fear of death (and lifelong slavery). But Jesus, his death conquered that which brought us fear and death, the weapon of the enemy has been taken from his hands (he is bound!) and the fear of death and the slavery it brings with it no longer apply to the people of the Kingdom. That is to the benefit of children of Abraham, not to the angels, but to us, even though we were made lower than them.

The humanity of Jesus makes him the perfect high priest. The one who would enter the temple and make the sacrifices on behalf of the people and petition God’s mercy on their behalf to satisfy the penalties for the sins they had committed. Jesus is that, forever holding that role and administering the work behind it perfectly. We are safe with High Priest Jesus, whose job even has him continuing to minster to us (in his teaching, his life example, the provision of the Holy Spirit) that he might come to our aid when we are tempted. As he was human for a time, he is aware of our temptations and is able to help us as we fight against them.

A new foil of sorts enters: Moses. It’s really the same conversation, though. The Hebrews need to understand Jesus rightly and to set the framework the author continues to use things they already understand (Moses) to point them to things they don’t completely understand. One of the risks that remains today is to assume that things we don’t quite get probably aren’t true (as if either something being difficult to get or the fact that we don’t understand it are good evaluators of truth.) The Hebrews are facing a difficult thing, trying understand Jesus in context of the Law and the identity they had been living under. Jesus is new and proclaiming that things are changing and that’s kind of a hard shift. Except…all the disciples were Jews and after seeing what Jesus says and does, they’re in. And, messengers of God even hundreds of years prior had foretold this action. The Jews were ready for a change, they just hadn’t put everything on the table to be changed. Jesus changes that.

The comparison here with Moses is that Moses is good (just like angels are good), and Moses served faithfully as a servant to God. But Jesus is a son, the heir of the kingdom, and he gets more honor than the servant. (It doesn’t hurt that Jesus created the Kingdom, even as Moses tended to it.) And the promise for us in this is that we are where God resides, the church (body of believers) is where he makes his home. We get to be part of that if we keep our trust and faith (in word and deed) in Him.

There is still more to learn in this Moses motif, however. Just as in Moses’ day, people have the freedom to harden their hearts (think reject) the identity God gives and the things He provides. When Moses led the folk out of Egypt, some rebelled and thus God causes them to not be able to enter the promised land until that generation died off. Similarly, we have the option to reject God, to refuse to be part of His Kingdom, to not be the house. But that isn’t what the Hebrews want, they are Christians after all. The author is warning them here that you can follow God’s messenger out of slavery but if you don’t submit to the identity God gives you, accept His provision and trust his way of doing things, you were basically just leeching on the operation and you will not get to spend forever with him in the Kingdom. (Why would he want you to? You don’t even want to be there, you were just faking it to get out of something else.)

So, they are advised caution, to be mindful of an evil heart that seeks sin and causes you to fall away from God. It’s not that you won’t be tempted, the description in chapter 2 anticipates temptation and the need for Jesus’ help in that, but it is likely to be taken in by the deceitfulness of sin, convinced it’s not a problem when it is really destroying you. Be encouraged! And encourage one another! As long as there is breath in your lungs and today’s on the calendar, encourage one another to reject sin and its lies. This Kingdom, you see, is run by our brother Jesus, and we will share in its blessings if we can hold firm, be confident in God and His faithfulness that he has demonstrated through Jesus.

All that said, it’s not always so easy. The author reminds us that those who were deceived by sin were the very ones who saw God deliver them from Egypt. They saw it. They flippin’ saw it, and still hardened their hearts against God. That fight, to remember that which God has done and not to pursue your own selfish stuff, is not always easy but it is necessary.

V. 16-18 are basically the author’s exegesis of Psalm 95, a description of in what way that Psalm applied to those people. This is in preparation for a “therefore” that begins chapter 4. Whenever you see a “therefore”, you should ask yourself: what is it there for? What argument is this tying back to and how am I to apply what came before it to what comes after? We’ll see once we get to chapter 4.

The “therefore” points us forward. Based upon being reminded of those who had hardened their hearts against God even in the midst of being shown true things, these Jewish Christians need to be careful. Not listening, rejecting what God was doing is a risk that is just as present for these folks today as it was for their ancestors. Also, notice the quotations, the author continues the exegesis of Psalm 95, explaining how it applies to the generation that is being spoken to.

The subsequent discussion about “rest” appears to combat any restrictions that may have been anticipated on what God’s rest is. Perhaps they thought it was the promised land, but the writer here makes it clear God’s rest is still an appropriate aspiration today as it was when David wrote of it in Psalm 95 (obviously after the time of Joshua and the promised land). How should we think of it? I’m banking on the ultimate return of Jesus and final establishment of the Kingdom.

So back to the encouragement, the Hebrews are to strive to enter that rest. But just as in the past, God will not be fooled. His “word” is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword. (Word here really can’t mean Scripture, although the way folks use it to refer to Scripture isn’t untrue, either, it just isn’t particularly correct in this context.) “Word” here probably is safe as the “action” or “expression” of God, which is still living and active and it is that which cuts to the root of things, gets to them as they are. Again, there’s no fooling God, any impression otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

And yet, again, we have Jesus. Jesus the High Priest, aware of our frailties, sympathetic in our weaknesses. And the thing we do not deserve, confidence at the throne of God, we are graciously and mercifully given. That, my good fellas, is beautiful.

High priest discussion hasn’t stopped. The reminder here is that it is God who has chosen for the intercession that a high priest makes, first by man and sacrifice and then by Jesus and sacrifice. The human high priest sympathizes with the sin of those around him because he himself is guilty as well, he shares in their weakness. Jesus, although similarly appointed by the Father for the work of the sacrifice, was never guilty. His sympathy extends from having resisted temptation instead of having succumbed to it.

The marked drama of Jesus’ humility abounds here. At least the human high priest was a poor sap without a high horse who sympathized with us because he was one of us. Jesus voluntary becomes one of us and resists the temptations we so often fail at and yet looks at us with the same kind, forgiving eyes as the man who has been there and failed. He wasn’t in there sacrificing anyway because of his failures, he does it exclusively for ours. The only benefit to him is the expression of love for his people. Further, he is the sacrifice! He took every element of reconciliation between God and man and put it upon himself.

On Melchizedek, the reference is from Psalm 110 and what’s interesting here is that the vibe of that Psalm is quite a bit different than the humble, sympathetic high priest we’ve been hearing about. In fact, it’s starts with “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” There is a starkness between the justice of God and the mercy that he extends to his people. The positioning of this text in Hebrews is a little tricky because the author is trying to praise Jesus as the example of what the perfect high priest would do as a man. We read his Son of God identity into it and it gets confusing because we think, “of course he is reverent” and “was he not obedient before?”. But that isn’t the point. The writer is purposefully drawing comparisons between the office of high priest up to this point and how Jesus functions in that role in his human form and how that can be powerful enough to be a permanent means of reconciliation because he was more than man.

The writer anticipates this conversation might be difficult to follow but attributes it to the shallowness of the Hebrews understanding. Basically, they never moved beyond very basic understanding of what God was up to, even as He has revealed more to them. This is very much a potential issue for us. We struggle with parts like this in Hebrews because we have often taken in the Bible with a very limited context, subject to our own perspectives only, and without a sense of the bigger picture. If we do that, we miss out on part of God’s cool story and our part in it. We play a role in what God is up to, the establishing and growth of His Kingdom, and a right understanding of that bigger picture puts our work within that picture into a motivating perspective.

The immaturity discussed at the end of chapter 5 is expanded upon at the start of this chapter. The encouragement here is to stop debating the basics, that they repent from posturing and have faith in God, follow the example and instruction of Jesus in baptism (“washings”), and be confident in the resurrection of the dead and God’s ultimate justice. (Ha! Are these not still the same things some Christians are squabbling about? Faith v. works, the importance of baptism, the existence of hell, and the resurrection? Some things don’t change I guess.)

We need to get beyond it, for by this time we ought to be teachers! Most Christians are overweight by about 500 Bible verses for the amount of application they actually do with it. But the writer intends to fill this gap, to help them get beyond this, to help them move from milk to meat. And that’s exactly what is happening in the often tough verses that follow. He told them they have to get to the meat and he’s giving it to them directly.

The description of the Christian life that follows is awesome. The followers of Jesus are those who have seen the light, who have had the reality of the world, of creation, of God! revealed to them, exposed for them to understand and live within. Think about it, rejecting Jesus and the truths of God means that someone is purposefully choosing to see the world with a blindfold on. No wonder we find ourselves often in conflict on basic things with others in the world. It’s why we can’t seem to agree on the sanctity of life, whether something or other is actually true, etc. As we accept the truths of God, the world opens up, what was dark comes into relief and can be understood in ways that those who reject God will never see.

Christians also get the heavenly gift, a changed life that finds peace where it is hiding, joy where it is buried, love broader and deeper than previously possible. And we have shared in the Holy Spirit, God himself living within us as a helper to get the most of the gift he has given. We have been comforted and convicted by the word of God, it has brought us encouragement and edification and proper warning. We have been witness to or heard tell of the power of the age to come (yes, we see glimpses of renewal that we don’t yet dare to believe can actually be true for the whole world. But it will be. The power of God to change hearts, renew and restore His creation. That is the power of the age to come.)

And then the trouble…it is impossible for those who have been part of these things to be restored again when they walk away and reject Jesus and join the crowds who mock and spit on him and declare his death that of a worthless man. The illustration that follows, that of the ground that drinks the rain and either produces a crop or bears thorns and thistles, puts the issue into contrast. Both grounds take in freely that which God provides to produce a bountiful harvest, but only one uses it for good. The other takes in the rain but produces thistles and thorns, worthless things.

Now, the writer of Hebrews doesn’t seem to think it necessary to dive into the theological argument he has just started. Paul does, in Romans 5-8, and the previous points of a perfect high priest who is in service of those who obviously need a high priest shouldn’t be discarded. Neither should the things that follow in this chapter, including the just nature of God and the work that these folks are doing by loving God and serving His people. Further, the last part of the chapter focuses on the faithful promises of God, and a “…sure and steadfast anchor of the soul”. I mean, that sounds promising.

Broadly, although I think we can safely back away from some sort of standard that implies Christians do not still sin, even in their posturing to God (there is no NT letter that would permit us to believe in our own perfection), this is most certainly a stern warning. Two different situations seem viable to me (although other commentators would expand upon this list.) I think the warning can apply to those who are basically soaking up the environment, wandering over the Kingdom boundaries and trying to pass themselves off as citizens even though they haven’t really pledged fealty to the King. They drank the rain and then just flat out decided that they didn’t want it, produced nothing that the Kingdom wanted and decided to bail, joining in the crowds who called Jesus a fraud. That’s a tough reality.

The second option has a little more nuance but it would read the “they are crucifying once again the Son of God…” as more of a nonchalant action that should be understood that they obviously cannot be convinced to repent while they are acting this way vs. the lack of repentance being a permanent state of their heart.

The writer does, on the way out of this quandary, seem to focus on output; how they serve the saints, showing earnestness so they can have full assurance of hope, not being lazy but imitating those who through faith and patience get to partake in all God has promised. The connection here may inform our previous understanding in that you have folks that simply soak in all God has promised but never actually live as though it is true. That’s a shallow religion, and frankly doesn’t share a definition with Christianity.

Hebrew writer-man expands upon the surety of the promise by connecting long-term commitments that God has made (that they already trust) and connecting them to the work of Jesus. In this example, the Hebrews are to put themselves in the position of Abraham, trusting in God to fulfill that which his oath has guaranteed. Except that promise is being kept through Jesus. They appear to need more information on how to understand this (as the author promised more meat) so chapter 7 will really explore the continued use of Jesus as High Priest and the link to the mysterious man of the night, Melchizedek.

If we get caught up only in the curiosity of this Melchizedek character in this chapter, we miss out on a lot. However, the little that Scripture speaks of him is central to understanding the argument the Hebrews writer is making. To get this chapter correctly, it’s wise to read Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 (although the relevant parts of both are quoted in Hebrews as well).

Chapter 6 ends with a quote from Psalm 110, one we’ve already seen in Hebrews prior to this, the promise that the Messiah will be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Further, that v.4 from the Psalm affirms that this is a promise sworn by God, an oath (it’s going to happen, as sure as God keeping his promise to Abraham).

This is a long chapter so I’ll summarize where it’s going. Abraham tithed to high priest Melchizedek, a priest who existed before the priest system that was set up through the Law handed down through Moses. (How did he get the job? God gave it to him.) Melchizedek, in turn, blessed Abraham (and, by proxy, Levi, his future lineage). And since those who give blessings are greater than those receiving the blessings, we should understand that the priest in the order of Melchizedek are greater than the the priestly line that comes from Levi.

Psalm 110 promises that the future Messiah will be a priest in the order of Melchizedek, an indication even in that day that the Levite priests had a time limit. The system that was set up for and through them was not perfect (a better rendering is probably “complete”, meaning that the law and priests and sacrificial system had its purposes but was not capable of fully accounting for the sin in the world or showing the full identity that God has for his people).

So, the Jews should have been expecting, at some point, this Messiah figure who would be in the order of Melchizedek, one who is outside of and greater than the system administered by the Levite priests. And the Hebrew writer is making the case that Jesus is indeed this Messiah and High Priest. Now, the lineage of Jesus is the tribe of Judah (descendant of David), which means he certainly isn’t a Levite (something that would be quarrelsome to the Jews if there wasn’t this Melchizedek angle).

But Jesus qualifies to be High Priest, not because he is a descendant of Levi but because he was appointed by God (like Melchizedek) to fulfill the oath God made in Psalm 110 and the fact that Jesus has (and will continue to) lead a perfect life. And ultimately, this is better. In the old agreement between God and His people, the priests had to change all of the time because they died off. However, Jesus serves permanently, his intercession on our behalf never ends!

And, unlike the Levites, continuous sacrifice is not necessary because Jesus does not have his own sins to atone for. He was able to offer the perfect sacrifice (himself) by the perfect High Priest (himself) which does the deal forever.

Now, a few random notes. Melchizedek is a bit of a mysterious figure but the ESV kind of adds to this unnecessarily with its translation about him having no beginning or end. It’s probably more clearly rendered as: “No mention is made of his father or mother or genealogy, nor the beginning or end of his earthly life.” Basically, it’s not that he doesn’t have a beginning or end or a mom and dad, it’s that the Bible doesn’t mention it. This, coupled with the explanation of his name being king of righteousness, king of Jerusalem, king of peace, are all designed to help point to Jesus, who will resemble these same things in word and deed.

Also, we get an explanation of the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus where it is noted that there is a change in the law when there is a change in the priesthood. The tension here with the Law, though, is a bit difficult when the writer refers to it as “useless” and “weak”. I wonder if we are to think of the Law in this way specifically in relation to Jesus and what He accomplishes. As understood from Psalm 110, it was understood that the Levite priesthood was only temporary, which implied that it wasn’t capable of fulfilling the entirety of God’s purposes. Now that time has come, and any attempt to attribute the final, complete and perfect work that Jesus has done as if it could have been delivered from the Law are weak and useless.

Chapter 8 continues the conversation we’ve been having over the last few chapters. All of this is to put into right perspective Jesus as the final, true and inevitable High Priest. This is indeed meat over milk, even for us. This priestly order of Melchizedek argument is part of our basic understanding of why we are no longer under the Law and while Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient to pay for all that the sin we are responsible for. This is a question that most Christians shy away from, unable to answer or afraid that the Bible will not provide adequate answers and it will shake their faith. This journey is for us as all as the Hebrew readers.

Jesus as high priest is relegated to the holy of holies to be in the presence of God, He sits at the right hand of the Father. And he is in the true “tent” (think tabernacle, where God dwells) that was set up for him by God the Father. Since the Law of Moses and the sacrificial system that came with it is just a copy, a shadow of the heavenly things (think: it points us to the true things, helps us understand them), Jesus couldn’t have functioned within it, it wouldn’t make sense if he did!

Because, ultimately, what Jesus serves as High Priest under is a function that is better than what existed before; he is a better mediator and has better promises. Obviously, the first covenant was not sufficient, not able to satisfy the complete identity and full atonement necessary to reconcile the world back to its Creator.

The long scripture quote here is from Jeremiah 31. The point of that section of Jeremiah is pointing the restoration of God’s people and the creation of a new covenant, one where the laws are put into the minds and hearts of his people instead of kept through a sacrificial system and a Levitical priesthood. Not only should the Jewish people have been expecting that the Temple and the Law would be gone at some point, they should have actually been desiring it as it was coupled with the Messiah. This fulfillment of the Law wasn’t as jarring a thing as we sometimes see it. If we knew our old testament, we would know the promises that should have been guiding the Jews even in Jesus’ day. The Hebrews writer is taking pains to show that they would have known this had they not been satisfied with just milk.

I wonder, what kinds of things do we as Christians miss if we are satisfied with only milk? What big things is God up to that we don’t understand or don’t catch because our eyes are closed or our engagement with God’s story and people is lazy? Luckily, what we’re doing here, pouring through the Word of God so to be informed, encouraged, enlightened and edified – seems like the right work to find meat.

Chapter 9 continues the conversation about the expectation of the new covenant, why it was necessary, and how Jesus is involved.

The first section focuses on the setup of the sacrificial system itself, how it worked, what instruments and furniture were involved and how they were all used. Also, the distinctions between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies (Most Holy Place) Notably, the writer mentions the contents of the ark of the covenant, a box of sorts kept within the Holy of Holies that contained items reminding the people of the agreement they have with God (manna, because God provides for them; Aaron’s staff, a reminder that God will keep order, see Numbers 17; and the Ten Commandments, a reminder that God provides them identity and a clear understanding of how to live).

The point of bringing all of this up, though, is to show a connection, or an inference: the Holy Place connects and points ultimately to the Holy of Holies like the sacrificial system connects and ultimately points to Jesus. Jesus enters the greater and more perfect “tent” (dwelling place of God – in Jesus’ case, heaven) having made the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Because it was the perfect sacrifice, it need not be continually made.

A distinction that the writer makes a couple of times is the marked differences between sacrifice for purification of the flesh (which the sacrificial system could do, remember that most of the restrictions around uncleanliness were around worship) and Jesus’ sacrifice for the purification of our conscience and spirit. Ultimately, the work of Jesus not only brings us into right standing with God but calls us away from dead works and into sacrificial service of God.

Following, he posits the transition from the old covenant to the new one as something triggered as if coming from a will, happening upon the death of the one who made it. So, upon the death of Jesus, the covenant begins, which means the old covenant must be gone, it cannot remain (and you wouldn’t want it to, of course, when you have Jesus as an option.)

Ultimately, the things used in the old covenant were foreshadowing what was to come, copies of heavenly realities that Jesus would ultimately enact. The assurance at the end of this chapter is that we can be assured that what Jesus has done is sufficient for everyone and forever. It is not necessary for Jesus to return to deal with sin anymore, it has been dealt with. No, when he returns again it will be to return for those who await him. (I don’t know how many times the Bible can say it or how detailed of an argument you may need – but sin is taken care of, completely, lovingly, forever. It’s a reality we need to live in.)