Fig. 1 - Note Window

After a very long wait, Logos Bible Software has updated the popular Bible app to include highlighting and notes.  When the app was first released, the lack of highlighting and note feature was a major problem.  But Logos has not only addressed the missing feature, they have exceeded my expectations.

To create a note, select a word or phrase, and then “note” from the menu.  This will open the note dialogue (fig. 1).  You can select the color of the highlight and the icon used for the note.  The Style menu opens another dialogue box which offers a wide variety of highlighting options.  The same styles available on the desktop version are present, including the emphasis and inductive styles (fig. 2).   You can create a note file for related topics, then add notes to that topic as you read.

In my opinion, the best feature here is the fact that notes are synced with your desktop version of Logos.  Actually, the notes are kept “in the cloud” in your Logos account.  I made a note on Matthew 22:34, and it appeared on my laptop running Logos a few moments later.  I updated the note on my laptop, and the note was updated on my iPad version of Logos a few moments later. This is a very cool feature which will make the Logos app an extremely valuable study tool.  I very much appreciate a single application for taking notes, and the fact that my notes are available on my desktop make this feature indispensable. Prior to this upgrade, I was using Evernote to try and take notes while reading Logos books, but switching apps was cumbersome and usually resulted in crashing either Evernote or Logos.

I think that Logos is the best iPad Bible app, and the addition of highlighting and notes is an important improvement.  Logos is still a free app, so visit the App Store and upgrade to the new version.  Vyrso has also been upgraded to include highlighting and notes as well.

The fact that “God became Flesh” is at the heart of this passage.  This passage in Hebrews tells us that not only can we speak to God, we can do so with confidence because of the work of Jesus, who really was one of us.

Structurally, Hebrews 4:14-16 and 10:19-23 form a frame around the central section of the book.  Having shown that Jesus is superior to the angels and Moses, our writer now turns to the religious system of the Hebrew Bible, beginning with the high priest, but also including the priesthood, sacrifices, and Tabernacle / Temple.

Jesus as the Great High Priest is central to Christian faith (4:14).  The title “great high priest” is not the normal title for the High Priest. Normally the top priest was called the “great priest” in Hebrew, the Greek is “chief priest.”  This is “great chief priest”, a title that was applied to the first of the Hasmonean high priests after the Jewish war of independence in the mid second century B.C.  Simon (d. 164 B.C.) was the only High Priest to be called the Great High Priest, 1 Mac. 13:42, 14:27.

What did the title “high priest” imply at the time Hebrews was written By the first century, the high priest was as a much a political figure as he was a religious leader.  Control of the temple and the priesthood gave the office a great deal of power, and this power was usually led to great wealth.  It is unlikely, however, that the writer of Hebrews has this sort of power in mind.  He consistently looks to the idea image (“the shadow”) from the Hebrew Bible in order to describe the “substance” of Jesus.

In the Hebrew Bible, the High Priest was the representative for the people on the Day of Atonement.  He was the only person allowed to enter into the holy of holies on that day, and then only after a series of sacrifices.  The High Priest therefore is the only person in Israel who was allowed to enter the “presence of God” and he was the only one that was allowed to make atonement on behalf of the people.

Looking ahead at the argument of the next five chapters, our high priest was not only the sacrificer, but the sacrifice, offering himself for our sin.  How could he be both?  Because he was the Son of God.  He is functioning as a High Priest, but as God he is also functioning as the recipient of the sacrifice.

Why is Jesus such a great high priest?  What makes him worth “grasping firmly”?

If the unbelievers are Jews that “fall away” by returning to Judaism, how can the writer say that they are turning away from the living God?  The Jews do recognize God.  The point is that Judaism no longer presents the true revelation from God, it is inferior to the revelation that comes through Jesus in “these last days” (from 1:1-3).

A possible solution to the possibility of unbelief in the community of believers is that the “encourage each other daily.” The “daily” exhortation underscores the meaning of the word, this is an active effort on the part of the community of believers to help each other with their Christian walk.  There is a positive aspect to this word (encouragement), but also a negative aspect, a pushing toward spiritual excellence which may take the form of a shove!

In the modern church we tend to think of the pastor as a professional exhorter, as long as he doesn’t get too personal or call during dinner or the football game to exhort us.  Half an hour on Sunday is fine for most people (just don’t mention “sin”).  This text says that the community ought to encourage the community.  Mutual encouragement, but also exhortation – a sort of positive peer-pressure that encourages growth and development of a deeper relationship with God and each other.

The writer of Hebrews describes a whole church talking to each other and trying to keep each other from sin, a network of accountability that is virtually unknown in the modern church.

What are the people to encourage?  That we not be deceived by sin and harden our hearts. Sin is deceitful, it is seductive.  Satan does not appear as a slobbering evil dragon demanding your soul, he appears as an angel of light, a really nice guy with a good plan to help humanity, or maybe to help your family.  He takes the truth and twists it into a sin that looks pretty good!  Sin is a subtle deception, those are the best kind.

But if your community of believers is daily encouraging you not to harden your heart, it is much easier to do the right thing and avoid sin.  I am not sure modern Christian communities are very good at this encouragement.  On the one hand, they can become very legalistic and judgmental, even demanding of their members (to the point of being more like a cult than the Body of Christ).  On the other hand, some churches are so lax in this sort encouragement that there is no call to deal with the flesh, nor any preaching on sin in the life of the believer.  As they say these days, “it’s all good.”

It is not all good, it never was.  Believers need to return to this sort of mutual encouragement for the building up of the Body of Christ.

It is important to read this argument in a first century context.  For Jews living in the Second Temple period, Moses was the most significant person in salvation history.  There were legends developed about Moses (Assumption of Moses, for example), or Sirach 45:2, which describes Moses as equal to the “holy ones,” or even God (as the Hebrew text of Sirach can be translated, see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 194).

Sirach 45:1-2 ...and was beloved by God and people, Moses, whose memory is blessed. He made him equal in glory to the holy ones, and made him great, to the terror of his enemies.

In addition, messianic hopes in the first century sometimes focused on the coming of a prophet like Moses.  Hope for a “return of Moses” as messiah was so strong that at least one messianic pretender stopped the Jordan in a re-enactment of the crossing of the Red Sea.  Matthew’s gospel is designed to highlight Jesus as a new Moses.  Jesus goes up on the mountain and gives the people the Law, the Sermon on the Mount!

Jesus and Moses Action Figures

One might have offered a counter argument to the first two chapters of Hebrews – Jesus might be superior to the angels, but the ultimate servant of God was Moses, who gave the Law.  In the context of the first century, then, our author will argue that Jesus is a superior to even Moses as a servant of God.  Ultimately, this will lead to the conclusion that the New covenant which Jesus enacted in his death and resurrection is superior to that of the Old Covenant made by Moses.  In verse two Moses is compared to Jesus, then he is subordinated to Jesus (verse 3) and by verse 5 he is contrasted to Jesus, negatively.

This is not to say that the author of Hebrews is anti-Semitic.  He is not saying that Moses is wrong, but rather than Jesus is far superior to Moses.  In Hebrews, Moses and the law are good, but Jesus is better.  This might have been as controversial in the first century as it is today – but to argue that Jesus and the New Covenant is superior is not to imply the Old Covenant is inferior, but dated.  God is revealing himself in new ways in this present age, he has revealed himself through his Son.

Angels were very popular in Jewish mythology from the second century B.C. through the first century A.D.   A whole hierarchy of angels was developed along with some theological teachings that were not present in the Old Testament.  In the re-telling of Biblical stories writers often had angels performing acts that were acts of God in the Hebrew Bible.  Although the imagery is found in Daniel 10, the appearance of angels as glowing white, fiery, glowing, etc. was developed during this time as well.

Don't Blink

What is more, the angels are associated with the giving of the Law in early Judaism.  This tradition appears in the Hebrew Bible as early as Deut 33:2, although the “holy ones” merely accompany the Lord as he arrives at Sinai. Stephen refers to the Law as “delivered by angels” in Acts 7:53.  The book of Jubilees predates Hebrews clearly has the belief that an angel wrote a text for Moses:

Jubilees 1.27-28 And He said to the angel of the presence: ‘Write for Moses from the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity.’ (Charles)

This tradition is found in later Judaism as well:  “The presence of angels at the event of the giving of the law was a favourite bit of embroidery in rabbinic tradition, and was meant to enhance the glory of Sinai” (H. Schoeps, Paul, 182).  The emphasis in this literature is on the angels as intermediaries, delivering the Law to Moses.  When God revealed himself to Moses, he used angels.

Since the writer of Hebrews began his book by saying that God is new revealing himself through his Jesus, it is possible a Jewish reader might think of Jesus as an angel, like a Michael or Gabriel.  He must therefore begin by showing that Jesus is something other than an angel, he is “Song of God.”

One last observation:  Is this a “difference” between Jewish Christian literature and the Pauline Letters? Perhaps not.  While Paul cannot be accused of emphasizing angels, he does use the same sort of language as Stephen in Gal 3:19: The law was “put in place through angels” (ESV).

In John 8:12 Jesus makes the remarkable statement that he is the “Light of the World.”   As readers of John’s Gospel, we have know this fact since the prologue, but now Jesus declares to crowds gathered to celebrate the Feast of Dedication that he is the True Light.

Jesus makes this statement at the Feast of Dedication, or Hanukkah, a festival celebrating the rededication of the Temple after the Maccabean Revolt in 165 B.C.  After Antiochus desecrated the Temple, the Jews fought a war to re-capture Jerusalem.  When the Temple was secured, the altar was replaced so that sacrifices could begin again.  There was not enough oil consecrated to light the menorah in the Temple, so they used what they had and it lasted for the whole eight days it took to consecrate more oil.  This miracle is therefore recalled during the feast by the lighting of lamps in homes and in the Temple.

Josephus described the feast as the “festival of lights” although some scholars doubt this description as accurate.  The story of the miraculous light is not found in 1 Macc, so the origin of the “light” aspect of Hanukkah is not clear (ABD, “Dedication, Feast of,” 2:124).  Since this saying takes place in the public courts, Jesus may very well be contrasting himself with the lights of the festival.  As people are celebrating the liberation from their oppressors by the lighting of the menorah in the Temple, Jesus stands up and declares that he is the true light of the world!

By declaring that he is the Light of the World, Jesus is alluding to several texts from the Hebrew Bible as well as practices in the Temple.   There are a number of texts which describe God as light (Ps 27:1, 36:9) or the Law as light (Ps 119:105, Prov 6:23).  I think it is likely that Jesus’ allusion is to the light of the Torah in this saying.  The Torah is God’s word, and it is by God’s word that the the world came into being.  This resonates with the prologue ion John 1 as well, since the Word was with God in the beginning and through the Word all things have been created.  For a Jewish teacher to declare that they are the “light of the world” is to claim something which goes beyond what might be expected, he is claiming to be God.

Since Jesus says that everyone who follows this light has life, it is possible this is also an allusion to Israel in the Wilderness.  This was obvious in chapter 6 when Jesus provided food in the wilderness, in this case the light is the pillar of fire which led Israel when they traveled in the wilderness.

In either case, that Jesus is the light of the world is a major theme in John’s gospel.  Those who follow Jesus walk in the light, those who reject Jesus walk in the darkness. Light exposes what is hidden in the darkness.  Light is always associated with truth, lies with darkness.  By the end of this chapter Jesus makes it clear that to reject him is to willingly choose to remainin the darkness, those who follow Jesus are walking in the light.

It is possible the letter was not anonymous in the first place, but the address was lost early in the history of the letter. Perhaps the original document was intended to be delivered with a cover letter from the author which was customized for various synagogues or churches in Rome.  Since the cover letter was unique to the church, it was not copied in the same way the letter might.  But there is no evidence for this, either by manuscript or tradition. It is better to see the letter as intentionally anonymous.

It is also possible the letter was anonymous to protect the writer from any attacks from either Jews hostile to the gospel or Romans wishing to persecute the leaders of the church.  Some scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of John does not identify every disciple (there are unknown disciples throughout the book).  At least one explanation for this was to protect these still-living disciples from persecution.  But this would seem odd for the author to hide his identity given that the letter encourages the readers to face persecution with boldness!

It is more likely that the letter was likely intended to be read in a number of different contexts as a literary piece, not a letter written for a particular occasion.   Hebrews is a sermon addressed to anyone struggling with the relationship of Judaism and Christianity, although it is especially applicable in Rome in the early 60′s.  An introduction with greetings from the author may not have been appropriate, if this is the case.

He was a Jew, but undoubtedly a Hellenistic Jew.   This would account for his detailed knowledge of the Bible as well as his method of handling scripture.  He links verses together based on key words and themes to create chains of texts to support a point he wants to make.  This is a method which is found among the later rabbis and was probably the way a synagogue sermon was constructed.

He was highly educated in both the Hebrew Bible and Hellenistic philosophy.  While there are a number of similarities to the writings of Philo of Alexandria, this does not require the author to have lived in Alexandria.

He may have been in the second generation of the church.  Hebrew 2:3 implies that the writer has received tradition from others who are the witnesses of Jesus.  While this could imply an individual living in the 60′s who not from Judea, it may only mean that he was not a follower of Jesus until after the resurrection.

He has been influenced by Paul.  It is hard to imagine a writer in the first century who has not heard of Paul, so this does not require him to be a companion of Paul or even part of the Pauline circle (Barnabas or Timothy, for example).  Unlike James, there is not a conscious effort to deal with similar topics as Paul (justification by faith) nor is there a direct reference to Paul (as in 2 Peter), but undoubtedly the writer has read or heard Paul and knows his theology.  This helps explain how a tradition of Pauline authorship might have developed in the first place!

None of these points should be controversial, and there is a fairly narrow range of people mentioned in the New Testament who fit this description.  Other than Paul, the obvious candidate is Apollos since he is from Alexandria, but Barnabas, Aquilla and Priscilla, or perhaps even Timothy could be considered as potential authors of the book.

How do these four points help us to make sense of the content of Hebrews?

The earliest copies from the third century place the book within the Pauline letter, right after Romans. In Sinaticus and eight other uncials (and least 60 miniscules) the letter is placed after the letters of Paul to churches, but before those to individuals.  Many early church fathers, especially the Alexandrian fathers, believed Paul wrote the book.  Clement of Alexandria (150-215) and Origin (185-253), for example, believed Paul was the author.

By the end of the second century, Origen thought that the “weight of tradition” was behind Pauline authorship, but in the end said “only God knows” who  wrote the book. He goes on to say “This writing is inspired even though we do not know who wrote it.” (See Eusebius, HE 6.25.11-13) In the western churches (Rome), Pauline authorship was not accepted until the latter half of the fourth century, even then there were many who doubted the letter was Pauline.  Jerome and Augustine influenced the west to accept Paul as the author.

It was not until the Reformation that this teaching was doubted, first by Calvin, then by Luther.  More recently, detailed linguistic analysis has been done my Celsus Spicq, who concluded that “it is impossible from the linguistic point of view to attribute to Paul the direct paternity of Hebrews” (Cited in Ellingworth, Hebrews, 12). Since the book is anonymous and there is a mixed tradition about who the author might have been, perhaps it is better to agree with Origen as say “only God knows” who wrote the book.

I do not think that the modern church is as bothered by an anonymous letter in the New Testament, but it may matter to some people that Paul did (or did not) write the book.  What are the implications for reading the letter if Paul did write the book?

Given this context, the recipients struggle with the promises of Christian faith.  If Jesus is the true sacrifice and the fulfillment of the promises of the Hebrew Bible, why have they suffered so much?   As J. W. Thompson says in his Hebrews commentary, the book is written to “reorient a community that has been disoriented by the chasm between Christian confession of triumph and the reality of suffering it has experienced.”

This is not apologetics in the modern sense.  The author does not argue against Judaism nor does he state that Judaism was bad or wrong in any way.  Rather, the writer constructs a positive argument for Jesus’ superiority to various elements of Judaism; he is superior because he is the fulfillment of these things. (He is the substance to which the shadow pointed).

If I am right about the context of the book and the recipients have suffered for their faith already (and are about to suffer even more so under Nero), then the readers may very well have struggled with the shame of suffering in a culture which did not see suffering as a virtue. Within a Jewish context, suffering is sometimes seen as a result of sin, or at the very least, a lack of blessing from God.  We only need to look at the discussion in the book of Job to see that there was a lively discussion of why humans suffer.  If Christians are right and Jesus has triumphed, then why are his followers not blessed?  Why are they suffering?

Within a Greco-Roman context, Christians were not seen as successful because they suffered.  Roman thinking was very much based on honor and shame, of one suffered shame and humiliation in public, one cannot be described as successful!

The book therefore addresses a very real problem.  If Jesus is already seated at the right hand of the Father, why is it that Christians suffer shame and persecution?  Christians are not “of this world,” they are part of the real, unshakeable reality which is not of this world at all.

The theological dissonance which the book of Hebrews addresses is certainly applicable to the church today, especially in America.   Evangelical American Christian can be described as “triumphant,” especially in the last half of the 20th century.  Evangelical churches expanded greatly and had a greater impact on culture than at any time in history.

We very well may be past that now.  Studies indicate that the church is still growing, but at a pace which is slower than the general population.  We are beginning to lose ground and we have in many ways lost our voice in the public square.   Perhaps this is due to Christians who have humiliated themselves and brought shame to the cause of Christ, or because some very bad people chose to use evangelical Christianity as a way to advance political careers or other agendas.