Let us consider what the new covenant is. It is, as expressed above, grounded in Judaism (8:10). Consequently, any adequate understanding of Christianity must grasp its Jewish roots and the implication of those roots for Christian belief. It is about the internalization of religion, not merely the external practice of religion (8:10). God’s laws are written on the minds and hearts of true Christians. As such, transformation and intrinsic motivation form powerful, foundational elements of Christian life and living. The new covenant is about relationship with God (8:10 – 11), not merely service for God. Finally, the forgiveness of sins forms the basis for this new covenant relationship (8:12).

Any conception of Christianity, therefore, that neglects the idea of sin and forgiveness has departed from the understanding of covenant expressed in Hebrews 8 via the prophet Jeremiah. So the new covenant, in essence, has to do with a relationship with God established by the forgiveness of sins, lived out by the internalization of God’s laws, and conceptually set against the backdrop of God’s working through the people of Israel.

We should also pause to reflect on misconceptions about Christianity that could flow from a misuse of this passage.

The new covenant does not mean that Christians need not give attention to external practices such as morality, kindness, and church attendance. Hebrews 8 cannot be used to suggest that believers should just “follow their hearts” in attempting to discern proper behavior. For example, the author of Hebrews later challenges his hearers to love fellow believers in tangible terms, to be sexually pure, and to reject greed (13:1 – 6). Believers are encouraged to perform “good deeds” (10:24; 13:16), with which God is well pleased.

[…] when Jeremiah proclaims that God forgives the wickedness of those under the new covenant and remembers their sins no more, this neither implies that true Christians cease from sin completely nor provides us with a license to sin. Elsewhere the author encourage us to “throw off … the sin that so easily entangles us” (12:1) and warns that a flippant attitude toward sin brings about imminent judgment (10:26 – 27). Moreover, that those under the new covenant “know the Lord” does not remove our need to grow in our relationship with God, since growth is a hallmark of true Christian faith (e.g., 5:11 – 6:3).

*Commentary from: Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews 8:1 – 13” In The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews. By George H. Guthrie, 277-296. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, © 1998.

[…] Since the Genesis text says nothing of this priest’s genealogy, birth, or death, his priesthood has neither the qualifications nor the parameters one finds concerning the Levitical priesthood in the law of Moses. The Levites were priests by virtue of heritage and ceased from the office upon death. Scripture places no such limitations on Melchizedek’s priesthood. For the author of Hebrews, therefore, the Genesis narrative confirms what is clearly stated in Psalm 110:4 — a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek lasts forever.

vv.4-10 By virtue of his greater position, Melchizedek in turn blessed Abraham. When the author states, “And without a doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater,” he is not giving a maxim that assumes only superiors give blessings. […] Our author, based on his broader argument concerning the tithe and the eternality of Melchizedek’s priesthood, parenthetically proclaims (rather than argues for) the superiority of Melchizedek in connection with the blessing offered by him. Melchizedek’s superiority to the Levites primarily rests on his having received a tenth of the spoils from Abraham and the fact that Scripture gives no indication of his death.

vv.11-19 As a rhetorical question the second half of verse 11 in reality makes a strong assertion concerning the need for a new order of priesthood. This assertion in the form of a question proclaims, “Since God’s ultimate goal of establishing an eternal relationship between himself and people could not be attained through the Levitical priesthood, there was still a need for a priesthood to arrive that could bring that perfection.” He takes this idea from Psalm 110:4, a text written years after the law was given. Since God gave an oath concerning a new order of priesthood, the old order must have fallen short of his final aim. This does not mean the Levitical system was completely ineffective, but that it was intended to foreshadow something better.

In Hebrews 7 God has given us powerful words meant for a relational end. This discourse detailing the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood is far more than a theoretical treatise. It expresses relational theology, as all true theology is in essence. (1) Notice that God has brought about the means for establishing a lasting relationship with us — the “perfection” of verse 11, the “better hope … by which we draw near to God” of verse 19, and the “better covenant” of verse 22. Thus he is the initiator in the relationship.

(2) God has paid a price to give us security in that relationship, Jesus being the “guarantor,” who assures us of the covenant promises of God as the high priest who has been appointed to office “forever.”

(3) God has expressed his commitment to meet our deepest needs for forgiveness, holiness, and future deliverance, Jesus being the Savior who is able to “save completely those who come to God through him” (v. 25).

(4) Finally, God maintains his relationship with us by the work of his Son as intercessor, a ministry he started in his incarnation and continues in his exaltation. God has gone and continues to go to great lengths to relate to us his love in words and actions. His aim has always been nothing less than a healthy relationship. May we relate to him in a healthy manner this day.

*All commentary from: Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews 7:1 – 10” In The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews. By George H. Guthrie, 252-264. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, © 1998.

vv.5-6 “In reverse order, the qualifications for priesthood mentioned in vs 1–4 are now applied to Jesus. Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest but was appointed by God to this role, as indicated in Ps. 110:4. However, before Hebrews quotes that verse, the words of Ps. 2:7 are cited. This recalls the argument of ch. 1, where Ps. 2:7 is taken to affirm the absolute supremacy of the Son of God over the whole creation, including the angels (1:5). Ps. 110:1–3 similarly asserts the triumphant rule of the Messianic king who sits at God’s right hand. However, Ps. 110:4 adds the unusual perspective that the Messiah will be a priest for ever, in the order of Melchizedek. Joining these psalm citations together, Hebrews again links the idea of Jesus as Son and high priest (cf. 4:14), but makes it quite clear that his priesthood belongs to a different order from that of Aaron and the levitical priests. Jesus fulfils the role and function of the Jewish priesthood as high priest in the order of Melchizedek. The application of Ps. 110:4 to Jesus is explored more fully in Hebrews 7.”^[2]

v.6 “Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest-king (Gen 14:18); to speak of a ‘priest like Melchizedek’ was thus to speak first of all of a priest who was also king.”^[3]

vv.7-8 “In reverse order, the qualifications for priesthood mentioned in vs 1–4 are now applied to Jesus. Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest but was appointed by God to this role, as indicated in Ps. 110:4. However, before Hebrews quotes that verse, the words of Ps. 2:7 are cited. This recalls the argument of ch. 1, where Ps. 2:7 is taken to affirm the absolute supremacy of the Son of God over the whole creation, including the angels (1:5). Ps. 110:1–3 similarly asserts the triumphant rule of the Messianic king who sits at God’s right hand. However, Ps. 110:4 adds the unusual perspective that the Messiah will be a priest for ever, in the order of Melchizedek. Joining these psalm citations together, Hebrews again links the idea of Jesus as Son and high priest (cf. 4:14), but makes it quite clear that his priesthood belongs to a different order from that of Aaron and the levitical priests. Jesus fulfils the role and function of the Jewish priesthood as high priest in the order of Melchizedek. The application of Ps. 110:4 to Jesus is explored more fully in Hebrews 7.”^[4]

vv.8-10 “Discipline, including beatings, was an essential part of most Greek education. Classical Greek writers stressed learning through suffering, and the Old Testament and later Jewish wisdom traditions portray divine chastisement as a sign of God’s love. The Greek paronomasia here, emathen aph? h?n epathen, ‘learned from the things he suffered,’ was already a common play on words in ancient literature. But the writer here challenges the Greek idea that the supreme God (with whom the writer in some sense identifies the Son—1:9; 3:3–4) was incapable of feeling, pain or true sympathy. Jesus’ participation in human suffering qualified him to be the ultimate high priest; the Septuagint applies the word used here for ‘made perfect’ to the consecration of priests (v. 9).”^[5]

vv.9-10 “Learning obedience from what he suffered, Jesus was made perfect (‘perfected’) i.e. ‘qualified’ or ‘made completely adequate’ as the saviour of his people (cf. 2:10). More specifically, he was perfected as the source of eternal salvation. Every experience of testing prepared him for a final act of obedience to the Father in his sacrificial death (cf. 10:5–10). By this means he achieved a salvation from sin, death and the devil, enabling those who trust in him to share with him in the life of the world to come. The idea that Christ establishes a pattern of obedience for others to follow is suggested by the words for all who obey him. However, this expression does not indicate that salvation is to be earned by obedience. Salvation is God’s gift to us in Christ, but those who look to him as the unique source of eternal salvation will want to express their faith in ongoing obedience as he did (cf. 12:1–4). Faith in Christ commits us to share in his struggle against sin.”^[6]

vv.11-14 “The readers have become slow to learn or more literally ‘dull with respect to what is heard’. Despite their initial enthusiasm as Christians, a certain sluggishness has crept in and the writer fears they may now be unwilling to work out the deeper implications of the gospel and respond with faith and obedience (cf. 2:1–4; 3:1–4:2, where the key issue is responding to what is heard). One sign of this developing slackness is their unwillingness or inability to be teachers. After a certain time, anyone instructed in the faith ought to be able to explain it to others (cf. 3:13; 10:24–25; 1 Thes. 5:11, 1 Pet. 3:15). If people want to be taught the elementary truths of God’s word all over again, when they should be communicating basic Christian teaching to others and desiring solid food for themselves, a serious case of arrested spiritual growth has developed. As in the physical realm, milk is the appropriate food for an infant but solid food is for the mature. The writer equates spiritual milk with what he describes as (lit.) ‘the first principles of the oracles of God’ (Gk. ta stoicheia t?s arch?s t?n logi?n tou Theou). This could mean that the readers needed some guidelines for interpreting the OT (‘the oracles of God’) from a Christian point of view. More specifically, the expression may be a parallel to what 6:1 describes as the elementary teachings about Christ (Gk. ton t?s arch?s tou Christou logon). Solid food will involve a deeper understanding of fundamental biblical truth (as in chs. 7–10). A spiritual infant is virtually defined as someone not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness, that is, teaching which can motivate them to righteousness (cf. 12:11). Furthermore, immature Christians have not trained themselves to distinguish good from evil by the constant practice of responding to God’s revelation.”^[7]

^[2] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Heb 4:14–5:10). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

^[3] Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Heb 5:6). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

^[4] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Heb 4:14–5:10). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

^[5] Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Heb 5:8). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

^[6] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Heb 4:14–5:10). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

^[7] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Heb 5:11–6:20). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

v.2 “The parallel between those Israelites and the people of God in the new age is impressive enough for the disaster which befell the former to serve as a warning to the latter. The Israelites of those earlier days had good news proclaimed to them, just as the readers of this epistle had good news proclaimed to them. (cf. 2:3f.). But the hearing of the good news brought no lasting benefit to those earlier Israelites; it did not ensure their attainment of the goal for which they set out. Why? Because they did not appropriate the good news by faith when they heard it. The good news which was proclaimed to them, summarized in such Old Testament passages as Ex. 19:3-6; 23;20-33, told them how the God of their fathers, who had delivered them from Egypt, would bring them safely to the promised land and give them possession of it, and would make them ‘a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation’ to himself, if only they would obey his voice and keep his covenant. The reason why this message did not do them as much good it was designed to do was that, in spite of their serious undertaking, they did not obey his voice or keep his covenant: ‘they brought no admixture of faith to the hearing of it’ (NEB). The practical implication is clear: it is not the hearing of the gospel by itself that brings final salvation, but its appropriation by faith; and if that faith is a genuine faith, it will be a persistent faith.”[2]

vv.6-7 “It was disobedience, as we have seen, that kept the generation of the Exodus out of God’s promised rest, in spite of the good news which was announced to them. But that same promised rest was still open for the people of God centuries after the wilderness period, for the writer of Ps.95 urges his contemporaries to listen to the voice of God ‘today,’ instead of hardening their hearts in obstinacy like their ancestors and being debarred from entering into the rest of God as they had been.”[3]

vv.7-9 “in Psalm 95:7–11 David hears God’s voice saying to the people that if they do not harden their hearts they can enter into his rest. That is to say, hundreds of years after Joshua had led the people into the rest of the Promised Land God is still appealing to them to enter into his rest. There is more to this rest than merely entry into the Promised Land.^”[4]

v.8 “It is plain (our author implies) that the ‘rest’ spoken of in Ps. 95:11 is not the earthly Canaan. For that land of rest was occupied by the Israelites of the second generation, who entered it under the command of Joshua. The people addressed in the ninety-fifth psalm were already living in the land of Canaan, as their ancestors had been for generations now. Likewise, the ‘rest’ which they were in danger of forfeiting through stubbornness of heart must have been something different from the ‘rest …from all their enemies round about’ which God had given to Israel in Joshua’s day (Josh. 23:1; cf.21:44).”[5]

vv.9-10 “This rest which is reserved for the people of God is properly called a ‘sabbath rest’ – a sabbatismos or ‘sabbath keeping’ — because it is their participation in God’s own rest. When God completed his work of creation, he ‘rested’; so his people, having completed their service on earth, will enter into his rest.”[6]

v.10 “There is a sense in which to enter Christian salvation means to cease from one’s works and rest securely on what Christ has done. And there is a sense in which the works of the believer, works done in Christ, have about them that completeness and sense of fulfillment that may fitly be classed with the rest in question.”[7]

v.12 “‘Living and active’ shows that there is a dynamic quality about God’s revelation. It does things. Specifically it penetrates and, in this capacity, is likened to a ‘double-edged sword’ (for the sword, cf. Isa 49:2; Eph 6:17; Rev 19:15; and for the double-edged idea, cf. Rev 1:16; 2:12).

The Word of God is unique. No sword can penetrate as it can.”[8]

“What the author is saying is that God’s Word can reach to the innermost recesses of our being. We must not think that we can bluff our way out of anything, for there are no secrets hidden from God. We cannot keep our thoughts to ourselves. There may also be the thought that the whole of man’s nature, however we divide it, physical as well as nonmaterial, is open to God. With ‘judges’ we move to legal terminology. The Word of God passes judgment on men’s feelings (enthymeseon) and on their thoughts (ennoion). Nothing evades the scope of this Word. What man holds as most secret he finds subject to its scrutiny and judgment.”[9]

v.13 “Here the same truth is expressed in different imagery. This time the impossibility of hiding anything from God is illustrated by the thought of nakedness. ‘Nothing in all creation,’ or ‘no created being’ (ktisis means ‘the act of creating’ and then ‘a created being,’ ‘a creature’), remains invisible to God. ‘Uncovered’ renders gymna, a word used of the soul being without the body (2Cor 5:3), of a bare kernel of grain (1Cor 15:37), or of a body without clothing (Acts 19:16). Here it means that all things are truly uncovered before God.”[10]

v.15 “He went through everything that a man has to go through and is like us in all things—except that he emerged from it all completely sinless. […] The fact that Jesus was without sin means that he knew depths and tensions and assaults of temptation which we never can know. So far from his battle being easier it was immeasurably harder. Why? For this reason—we fall to temptation long before the tempter has put out the whole of his power. We never know temptation at its fiercest because we fall long before that stage is reached. But Jesus was tempted far beyond what we are; for in his case the tempter put everything he possessed into the assault. Think of this in terms of pain. There is a degree of pain which the human frame can stand—and when that degree is passed a person loses consciousness so that there are agonies of pain he can not know. It is so with temptation. We collapse in face of temptation; but Jesus went to our limit of temptation and far beyond it and still did not collapse. It is true to say that he was tempted in all things as we are; but it is also true to say that no one was tempted as he was.”[11]

v.16 “The Christian idea of God as a loving Father is interwoven into the very fabric of our mind and heart; but it was a new idea. To the Jew the basic idea of God was that he was holy in the sense of being different. In no sense did he share our human experience and was in fact incapable of sharing it just because he was God.

“It was even more so with the Greeks. The Stoics, the highest Greek thinkers, said the primary attribute of God was apatheia, by which they meant essential inability to feel anything at all. They argued that if a person could feel sorrow or joy it means that some other person was able to influence him. If so, that other person must, at least for that moment, be greater than he. No one, therefore, must be able in any sense to affect God for that would be to make him greater than God; and so God had to be completely beyond all feeling. The other Greek school was the Epicureans. They held that the gods lived in perfect happiness and blessedness. They lived in what they called the intermundia, the spaces between the worlds; and they were not even aware of the world.

“The Jews had their different God; the Stoics, their feelingless gods; the Epicureans, their completely detached gods. Into that world of thought came the Christian religion with its incredible conception of a God who had deliberately undergone every human experience. Plutarch, one of the most religious of the Greeks, declared that it was blasphemous to involve God in the affairs of this world. Christianity depicted God not so much involved as identified with the suffering of this world. It is almost impossible for us to realize the revolution that Christianity brought about in men’s relationship to God. For century after century they had been confronted with the idea of the untouchable God; and now they discovered one who had gone through all that man must go through.^”[12]

[2] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 105-106.

[3] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 106.

[4] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

[5] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 108.

[6] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 109.

[7] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[8] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[9] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[10] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[11] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

[12] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

v.1 “He bids his hearers fix their attention on Jesus. The word he uses (katanoein) is suggestive. It does not mean simply to look at or to notice a thing. Anyone can look at a thing or even notice it without really seeing it. The word means to fix the attention on something in such a way that its inner meaning, the lesson that it is designed to teach, may be learned. In Luke 12:24 Jesus uses the same word when he says: ‘Consider the ravens.’ He does not merely mean, ‘Look at the ravens.’ He means, ‘Look at the ravens and understand and learn the lesson that God is seeking to teach you through them.’ If we are ever to learn Christian truth, a detached glance is never enough; there must be a concentrated gaze […] a determined effort to see its meaning for us.”[2]

“No one else in the New Testament ever calls Jesus an apostle. That the writer to the Hebrews does so deliberately is quite clear, because apostle is a title he never gives to any man. He keeps it for Christ.

“What does he mean when he so uses it? The word apostolos literally means one who is sent forth. In Jewish terminology it was used to describe the envoys of the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the Jews. The Sanhedrin sent out apostoloi who were clothed with its authority and the bearers of its commands. In the Greek world it frequently meant ambassador. So then Jesus is the supreme ambassador of God^”[3]

“Jesus is the great High Priest. What does that mean? This is an idea to which the writer to the Hebrews returns again and again. Just now we only set down the fundamental basis of what he means. The Latin for a priest is pontifex, which means a bridge-builder. The priest is the person who builds a bridge between man and God. To do that he must know both man and God. He must be able to speak to God for men and to speak to men for God. Jesus is the perfect High Priest because he is perfectly man and perfectly God; He can represent man to God and God to man. He is the one person through whom man comes to God and God comes to man.^”[4]

v.3 “Moreover, in this passage we may also discern a further aspect of his work as God’s apostle. He is also sent to form or establish a house, or household, a redeemed community (3:6). The preceding chapters of the letter have already hinted at the writer’s doctrine of the church; in Christ we are sons, brothers, children and partners. But here we begin to realize the importance of the Christian family in the in thinking of the author. Christ came not only to save fallen individuals but to gather a vast company of his followers, the redeemed people of God. This epistle has little time for the spiritual individualist. Believers are to recognize the immensely important ministry that they can exercise towards other Christians and to take such responsibility seriously: ‘Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.’ The regular meeting for worship and fellowship must not be neglected and Christian people must give all the encouragement they can to other believers. Christians are here described as those who belong to God’s house, and Christ was sent into the world to save them and bring them into this enriching, secure and eternal company.”[5]

v.6 “It is important to recognize the seriousness of this letter when it rightly insists on perseverance. F.F. Bruce describes this persistent endurance as ‘the test of reality’. There is no casual easy-going presentation of Christianity in these chapters. William Manson is perfectly right when he insists that to the author of this epistle, Christianity is ‘not a matter only of repenting and obtaining forgiveness, but of irrevocable commitment of life to a supernatural end.’ We are certainly in God’s house by faith in Christ but, to be real, that belief must be something more than the occasionally faltering faith which initially takes hold of Christ, or that excited faith which, with adoring gratitude, first renounces sin and comes to Christ for liberating pardon. It is hardly that vacillating faith which calls out in moments of bewildered dejection: ‘I believe; help my unbelief!’ It is a persistent faith which holds fast to its boldness and rejoices in the certain hope of better things. True Christian confidence is unwavering faith in a trustworthy God. He who has promised to keep us is eternally faithful and will not disappoint his people, but that truth is not meant to encourage careless complacency.”[6]

v.12 “He exhorts them to beware lest any one of them fall away. The ‘sinful, unbelieving heart’ stands in marked contrast to the faithfulness ascribed to both Jesus and Moses (v. 2). It is an unusual and emphatic expression. The author stresses the heinousness of this by speaking of turning away from the living God. ‘Turn away’ is perhaps not strong enough; the meaning is rather ‘rebel against.’ The author is fond of the expression ‘the living God’ (cf. 9:14; 10:31; 12:22). The rebellion he warns against consists of departing from a living, dynamic person, not from some dead doctrine. Jews might retort that they served the same God as the Christians so that they would not be departing from God if they went back to Judaism. But to reject God’s highest revelation is to depart from God, no matter how many preliminary revelations are retained. A true faith is impossible with such a rejection.”[7]

v.13 “Contrariwise, they must encourage one another constantly and urgently. The author sees Christian fellowship as very important. It can build people up in the faith and form a strong bulwark against sin and apostasy (cf. 10:25; Matt 18:15-17). ‘Daily’ means that encouragement should be habitual. ‘As long as it is called Today’ adds a touch of urgency, for ‘Today’ does not last forever.”[8]

“The readers were tempted to go back to Judaism in the belief that by doing so they would be better off. But sin deceived those who thought like this. Temporal and physical safety would be bought only at the price of spiritual disaster.”[9]

v.19 “The depressing conclusion sums up what has gone before. The author does not say that they did not enter but that they ‘were not able to enter.’ Sin is self-defeating and unbelief […] itself prevents us from entering God’s rest. This is not an arbitrary penalty imposed by a despotic God. It is the inevitable outcome of unbelief. In the Greek the final word in this section of the argument, thrown to the end of the sentence for greater emphasis, is apistia (‘unbelief’). That is what robbed the wilderness generation of the rest they had every reason to expect when they came out of Egypt. The warning to the people of the writer’s day is clear. To slip back from their Christian profession into unbelief would be fatal.”[10]

[2] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

[3] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

[4] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

[5] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982)76-77.

[6] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982)81.

[7] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[8] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[9] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[10] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

“For most of us the threat of life is not so much that we should plunge into disaster, but that we should drift into sin. There are few people who deliberately and in a moment turn their backs on God; there are many who day by day drift farther and farther away from him. There are not many who in one moment of time commit some disastrous sin; there are many who almost imperceptibly involve themselves in some situation and suddenly awake to find that they have ruined life for themselves and broken someone else’s heart. We must be continually on the alert against the peril of the drifting life.”[2]

vv.2-3 “The important revelation of God’s mind in the Old Testament was declared by angels. The reference follows naturally after the series of Old Testament quotations demonstrating the superiority of Christ over the angelic host. The part played by the angels in the communication of the law was often discussed by Jewish teachers in the pre-Christian era. It appears in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) at Deuteronomy 33:2 where the text says that when the Lord came from Sinai ‘at his right hand were angels with him’, and the theme is also mentioned in two different New Testament contexts. When Paul wrote to the Galatians he explained that the law ‘was ordained by angels’ and in what proved to be his last sermon Stephen describes his hostile congregation as those ‘who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it’. If the angels’ message had to be obeyed, how much more the Son’s word with its good news of such a great salvation. Hughes express the warning in these terms: ‘If the breakers of the law did not go unpunished, certainly despisers of the gospel cannot expect to do so.’”[3]

v.9 “‘Suffering’ is an important idea in this letter and is specially significant in view of the readers’ earlier troubles and future prospects. The word is used here for the first time in the letter (2:9), but it is to recur later both in its description of Christ’s anguish throughout life and in death, and of the tribulations of God’s people. When Christ assumed our humanity he became like us, exposed to all the hazardous perils of our life and death. He was not protected from trouble and adversity. When we find ourselves immersed in the harsh realities of human experience, he knows exactly how we feel.”[4]

v.10 “In what sense has he been made ‘perfect’ through his suffering of death? As in 5:9, the author does not mean that Christ had been ‘imperfect,’ in the sense of being flawed or errant. Generally the word means ‘complete, whole, or adequate.’ […]  Perfection in Hebrews has to do with fully completing a course, making it to the end of God’s plan. That Jesus was made ‘perfect through suffering,’ therefore, connotes his full obedience to his mission of death on the cross and, perhaps, the adequacy of that act for bringing the children of God to glory.”[5]

v.11“If we are sanctified [‘made holy’ in NIV], then we must be what we are. It is possible only by his grace and in his strength, but it is certainly possible. All too often sin, ignorance or apathy keeps us from what we ought to be and can be with his help. We live well below our spiritual potential. If, through his work for us, we are sanctified, then let us see that our daily lives are ‘set apart’ so that what he achieved may not be only an item of theology, but a fact of experience.

“What does this mean in practical terms? It means that those who are ‘set apart’ for him recognize that he has the first claim on their lives. They recognize that such gifts that they have are set apart of God’s use in the world. Their possessions are set apart, clearly acknowledging that they too belong to God.  The sanctified man or woman does not spend enormous sums of money on items for self-satisfaction and then casually give a mere pittance to Christ’s work. Moreover, time is set apart for the service of Christ.  The Christian who has hours of time for leisure but no time for some practical work for Christ in church, college or community, is hardly sanctified in any practical sense. What is potentially there needs to be practically implemented.”[6]

v.12 “He will declare his name to his brothers. In antiquity ‘name’ generally signified more than an identifying label. It stood for the whole character, the whole person. So in this psalm the writer sees Jesus as saying that he will proclaim God’s character as he has revealed himself, not simply that he will declare the name of God.”[7]

vv.14-15 “It calls for an exceptional effort of mind on our part to appreciate how paradoxical was the attitude of those early Christians to the death of Christ. If ever death had appeared to be triumphant, it was when Jesus of Nazareth, disowned by the leaders of his nation, abandoned by his disciples, executed by the might of imperial Rome, breathed his last on the cross. Why, some had actually recognized in his cry of pain and desolation the complaint that even God had forsaken him. His faithful followers had confidently expected him to be the destined liberator of Israel; but he had died — not  […]  in the forefront of the struggle against the Gentile oppressors of Israel, but in evident  weakness and disgrace – and their hopes died with him. If ever a cause was lost, it was his; if ever the power of evil were victorious, it was then. And yet—within a generation his followers were exultingly proclaiming the crucified Jesus to be the conqueror of death and asserting, like our author here, that by dying he had reduced the erstwhile lord of death to impotence. The keys of death and Hades were henceforth held firmly in Jesus’ powerful hand, or he, in the language of his own parable, had invaded the strong man’s fortress, disarmed him, bound him fast, and robbed him of his spoil (Luke 11:21f.). This the unanimous witness of the New Testament writers; this was the assurance which nerved martyrs to face death boldly in his name. This sudden change from disillusionment to triumph can only be explained by the account which the apostles gave—that their Master rose from the dead and imparted to them the power of his risen life.”[8]

[2] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

[3] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 47-48.

[4] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 56.

[5] George H Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIV Application Commentary series CD (Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan,1998).

[6] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982)63-64.

[7] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[8] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990)  85.

v.2 “The letter to the Hebrews begins by asserting the greatest single fact of the Christian revelation: God has spoken to man through his word in the Bible and through his Son, Jesus. In Christ, God has closed the greatest communication gap of all time, that which exists between a holy God and sinful mankind.”[2]

“The writer begins by contrasting Jesus with the prophets who had gone before. He talks about him coming in the end of these days. The Jews divided all time into two ages—the present age and the age to come. In between they set The Day of the Lord. The present age was wholly bad; the age to come was to be the golden age of God. The Day of the Lord was to be like the birth pangs of the new age. So the writer to the Hebrews says, “The old time is passing away; the age of incompleteness is gone; the time of human guessing and groping is at an end; the new age, the age of God, has dawned in Christ.” He sees the world and the thought of men enter, as it were, into a new beginning with Christ. In Jesus God has entered humanity, eternity has invaded time, and things can never be the same again.”[3]

vv.2-3 “Some first-century Jewish Christians had abandoned their faith because they no longer recognized Christ’s deity and equality with God. The author’s first task is to expound and exalt God’s Son. He reminds them of eight things about Jesus [in vv.1-3].”[4]

“Possibly our vision of Christ is limited. We are in danger of confining him to our restricted experience or limited knowledge. We need a vision of Christ with these immense cosmic dimensions, a Christ who transcends all our noblest thoughts about him and all our best experience of him. These first-century readers would be less likely to turn from him in adversity if they had looked to him in adoration.  The opening sentences of the letter are designed to bring them and us to our knees; only then can we hope to stand firmly on our feet.”[5]

v.3 “He says that he was the charact?r of God’s very essence. In Greek charact?r means two things, first, a seal, and, second, the impression that the seal leaves on the wax. The impression has the exact form of the seal. So, when the writer to the Hebrews said that Jesus was the charact?r of the being of God, He meant that he was the exact image of God. Just as when you look at the impression, you see exactly what the seal which made it is like, so when you look at Jesus you see exactly what God is like.”[6]

“‘Sustaining’ translates pheron, which has a meaning like ‘carrying along.’ The author does not see Christ’s work in sustaining creation as holding up the universe like a dead weight (as Atlas was supposed to do!). Rather his thought is that of carrying it along, of bearing it toward a goal. The concept is dynamic, not static. ‘All things’ is ta panta, the totality, the universe considered as one whole. Nothing is excluded from the scope of the Son’s sustaining activity. The author pictures the Son as in the first instance active in creation and then as continuing his interest in the world he loves and bearing it onward towards the fulfillment of the divine plan.” [7]

“The word for sin (hamartia) occurs in this epistle twenty-five times, a total exceeded only by Romans with forty-eight. The author sees hamartia (‘sin’) as a great problem; and in this epistle ‘sin appears as the power that deceives men and leads them to destruction, whose influence and activity can be ended only by sacrifices’ […] But the usual sacrifices could not remove sin, and it is the author’s conviction that Jesus Christ was needed to remove it. In him and him alone are sins really dealt with.” [8]

“With the statement about the Son’s having effected purification of sins, the author comes to what is for him the heart of the matter. His whole epistle shows that the thing that had gripped him was that the very Son of God had come to deal with the problem of man’s sin. He sees him as a priest and the essence of his priestly work as the offering of the sacrifice that really put sin away. The author has an unusual number of ways of referring to what Christ has done for man: The Savior made a propitiation for sins (2:17). He put sins away so that God remembers them no more (8:12; 10:17). He bore sin (9:28), he offered a sacrifice (thysia) for sins (10:12), he made an offering (prosphora) for sin (10:18), and brought about remission of sin (10:18). He annulled sin by his sacrifice (9:26). He brought about redemption from transgressions (9:15). In other passages the author speaks of a variety of things the former covenant could not do with respect to sin, the implication in each case being that Christ has now done it (e.g., 10:2, 4, 6, 11). It is clear from all this that the author sees Jesus as having accomplished a many-sided salvation. Whatever had to be done about sin he has done.” [9]

“When this eternal work of purification was brought to its triumphant conclusion in the death and resurrection of Christ, our Lord sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (1:3). The first readers of this letter were not likely to miss the implication of this statement and, if they did, its author was to press home its meaning in a later passage (10:11-12). The Old Testament priest’s cultic work had constantly to be repeated because it was only temporarily beneficial. But Christ ‘offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins’. The priest stood because his task was never complete. He could never hope to bring it to the moment of final achievement. Only Christ’s sacrifice could be eternally effective. He sat down to indicate that the work was finished. On that day when he bore our sins in his own body, he cried, ‘It is finished.’”[10]

v.4 “‘Superior’ is the translation of kreitton, which is more usually rendered ‘better.’ This is one of the author’s favorite words. He uses it thirteen out of the nineteen times it appears in the NT (1 Cor, with three occurrences, is the only other book that has the word more than once). So we read in Hebrews that there are better things (6:9) and that the less is blessed of the better (7:7); there is a better hope (7:19) and a better covenant (7:22; 8:6); there are better promises (8:6) and better sacrifices (9:23); there are a better possession (10:34), a better country (11:16), a better resurrection (11:35), something better (11:40), and blood that speaks better (12:24). This strong emphasis on what is ‘better’ arises from the author’s deep conviction that Jesus Christ is ‘better’ and that he has accomplished something ‘better’ than anyone else.” [11]

vv.5-13 “The author opened this letter by affirming the variety and validity of the Old Testament revelation. Now he demonstrates the depth of his conviction by citing a series of Old Testament texts to assert the superiority of Christ. Deeply aware of the infinite distance between man and God, the Jewish people had placed their hope in mediators. At critical times in their history God had sent angels to reveal his will. These first-century readers knew only too well that Jesus was more than a good man, yet their Jewish contemporaries would not acknowledge his deity. Under religious pressure and social ostracism, some of these Jewish Christians were in danger of compromising their faith. Possibly they said, ‘He was something other than man, but not quite God.’ Perhaps they might argue, ‘He was the greatest of the angels, and even created by God as a perfect angel for a special assignment among men.’ The writer of the epistle uses a number of verses from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, to show the untenable nature of such a view. Christ is the Son of God and as such he is infinitely superior to the most dignified member of the angelic host.”[12]

“The preacher marshals these Old Testament quotations to provide a clear picture of the status of the angels relative to the Son. The Son sits at the preeminent position in the universe, with the angels in an inferior position as the servants who worship him. The Son has an eternal throne, from which the angels are sent out to minister. God has never spoken such proclamations as found in 1:5, 8 – 13 to the angels. Rather, his proclamations concerning them (1:6 – 7) show the angels’ inferiority. The Son alone is the favored object of divine decrees expressing royalty. By the end of this string of texts, no one in the author’s audience can doubt the superiority of the Son over the angels.”[13]

[2] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982)  27.

[3] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

[4] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 27-28.

[5] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 32.

[6] William Barclay, The letter to the Hebrews, The Daily study Bible series CD (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 2000).

[7]Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[8] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[9] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[10] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 33.

[11] Leon Morris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 12 CD (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

[12] Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews, The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove, Il:Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 38.

[13] George H Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIV Application Commentary series CD (Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan,1998).

vv.8-10 “The situation of both Paul and Onesimus is all-important to the understanding of this section of the Epistle. Paul’s circumstances are just as significant as those of Onesimus–a fact often overlooked by commentators. Because he is in prison, he cannot do the things a free man might do to help the slave. He can do little more than write a letter asking for clemency for his new-found brother and he can suggest that he hopes to visit the Lycus Valley soon to put additional pressure on Philemon. Under more usual circumstances, a free man could have assumed custody of a runaway slave after he had given guarantees of his return to the public officials, and he could have suggested that the slave be formally assigned to him for a time. This was not uncommon. […]

“Onesimus’s status was the lowest that one could reach in the ancient world. Because he was a runaway slave, he was protected by no laws and he was subject to all manner of abuse. Fugitive slaves usually went to large cities, remote parts of the Roman state, or into unsettled areas. At this time, their capture and return was largely an informal arrangement between the owner and a provincial administrator. They were frequently beaten unmercifully or put to tasks in which their life expectancy was very short. […]

“Paul must have put Philemon in a precarious position indeed. In pleading for forgiveness and restitution for Onesimus without a punishment that was obvious to all, he was confronting the social and economic order head on. While he does not ask for manumission, even his request for clemency for Onesimus and hint of his assignment to Paul defied Roman tradition. By this plea Paul is also giving new dignity to the slave class. [2]

v.11: “Paul then eases the tense situation further with a play on the name of Onesimus, which means ‘useful’ in Greek. Slaves bore the names that either slave dealers gave them to extol their wares or that their masters gave them to express their hopes. ‘Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me’ (v. 11) contains a wordplay that can be found in other writers, but it becomes more poignant and memorable in this situation.

Paul takes the wordplay to still another level. The word achrestos (‘useless’) and achristos (‘Christless’) would have been pronounced exactly the same. Onesimus was not useful before because he was without Christ! When he became a Christian, however, he became useful, euchrestos. Onesimus was not useful before because he was without Christ. But now that he is in Christ, he has become truly Onesimus, useful. Philemon’s slave returns as the slave of Christ, having found his true identity.”[3]

vv.12-16 “Paul would have liked to keep Onesimus but he sends him back to Philemon, for he will do nothing without his consent. Here again is a significant thing. Christianity is not out to help a man escape his past and run away from it; it is out to enable him face his past and rise above it. Onesimus had run away. Well, then, he must go back, face up to the consequences of what he did, accept them and rise above them. Christianity is never escape; it is always conquest.

“But Onesimus comes back with a difference. He went away as a heathen slave; he comes back as a brother in Christ. It is going to be hard for Philemon to regard a runaway slave as a brother; but that is exactly what Paul demands. ‘If you agree,’ says Paul, ‘that I am your partner in the work of Christ and that Onesimus is my son in the faith, you must receive him as you would receive myself.’

“Here again is something very significant. The Christian must always welcome back the man who has made a mistake. Too often we regard the man who has taken the wrong turning with suspicion and show that we are never prepared to trust him again. We believe that God can forgive him but we, ourselves, find it too difficult. It has been said that the most uplifting thing about Jesus Christ is that he trust us on the very field of our defeat. When a man has made a mistake, the way back can be very hard, and God cannot readily forgive the man who, in his self-righteousness or lack of sympathy, makes it harder.”^[4]

v.18 “It is one of the laws of life that someone has to pay the price of sin. God can and does forgive, but not even he can free a man from the consequences of what he has done. It is the glory of the Christian faith that, just as Jesus Christ shouldered the sins of all men, so there are those who in love are prepared to help pay for the consequences of the sins of those who are dear to them. Christianity never entitled a man to default on his debts. Onesimus must have stolen from Philemon, as well as run away from him. If he had not helped himself to Philemon’s money, it is difficult to see how he could ever have covered the long road to Rome. Paul writes with his own hand that he will be responsible and will repay in full.”^[5]

^[1] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Phm 4–7). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

[2] Frank E. Gaebelein, Gen. Ed. Expositors Bible Commentary CD, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992) notes for Philemon

[3] David E. Garland, The NIV Application Commentary. Colossians and Philemon, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998)

^[4]The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000, c1975 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily Study Bible series, Rev. ed. (Phm 18). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[5]The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000, c1975 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily Study Bible series, Rev. ed. (Phm 25). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

vv.1-2: “Paul said, ‘Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities.’ The Greek terms for ‘rulers and authorities’ (archais and exousiais) refer in this context to the secular, governmental authorities (cf. Luke 12:11). However, elsewhere in the New Testament, the meaning is expanded to include spiritual, supernatural powers (e.g., Eph 6:12). The instruction that Christians ‘be subject to’ (hypotassesthai) the civil government indicates that such authorities are part of God’s overall order for human society. Christians are not exempt from reasonable and appropriate obligations toward the governmental authorities (Rom 13:1–7; 1 Pet 2:13–17). Paul’s apparent concern for the Christian’s attitude toward the state may reflect the possibility that some Christians wrongly interpreted their allegiance to Christ as being contrary to any allegiance to the state. A proper Christian attitude toward the state requires the Christians ‘to be obedient’ (peitharchein). It is not likely that the Roman state was promoting emperor worship at this time; otherwise Paul surely would not have added this requirement. Biblical teaching is clear that blind, unquestioning obedience to the state in opposition to God’s law is not required (cf. Acts 5:29). Yet not only are Christians ‘to be subject’ (in attitude) and ‘to be obedient’ (in actions), but they are also ‘to be ready to do whatever is good.’ Literally, Christians are ‘to be ready for [or to do] every good work’ (pros pan ergon agathon etoimous einai). This extends the Christian’s responsibilities from a mere passive posture (obeying laws) to an active, positive involvement in society. This idea is a practical outworking of Jesus’ teaching concerning being ‘the salt of the earth … and the light of the world … that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven’ (Matt 5:13–16).”^[1]

vv.3-5: “The dynamic of the Christian life is twofold.  It comes first from the realization that converts to Christianity were once no better than their heathen neighbours. Christian goodness does not make a man proud; it makes him supremely grateful. When he looks at others, living the pagan life, he does not regard them with contempt; he says, as Whitefield said when he saw the criminal on the way to the gallows: ‘There but for the grace of God go I.’  It comes from the realization of what God has done for men in Jesus Christ. Perhaps no passage in the New Testament more summarily, and yet more fully, sets out the work of Christ for men than this. There are seven outstanding facts about that work here.

“(i) Jesus put us into a new relationship with God. Till he came, God was the King before whom men stood in awe, the Judge before whom men cringed in terror, the Potentate whom they could regard only with fear. Jesus came to tell men of the Father whose heart was open and whose hands were stretched out in love. He came to tell them not of the justice which would pursue them for ever but of the love which would never let them go.

“(ii) The love and grace of God are gifts which no man could ever earn; they can only be accepted in perfect trust and in awakened love. God offers his love to men simply out of the great goodness of his heart and the Christian thinks never of what he has earned but only of what God has given. The keynote of the Christian life must always be wondering and humble gratitude, never proud self-satisfaction. The whole process is due to two great qualities of God.

“It is due to his goodness. The word is chr?stot?s and means benignity. It means that spirit which is so kind that it is always eager to give whatever gift may be necessary Chr?stot?s is an all-embracing kindliness, which issues not only in warm feeling but also in generous action at all times.

“It is due to God’s love to men. The word is philanthr?pia, and it is defined as love of man as man. The Greeks thought much of this beautiful word. They used it for the good man’s kindliness to his equals, for a good king’s graciousness to his subjects, for a generous man’s active pity for those in any kind of distress, and specially for the compassion which made a man ransom a fellow-man when he had fallen into captivity.

“At the back of all this is no merit of man but only the benign kindliness and the universal love which are in the heart of God.”^[2]

vv.8-11: “The second part of the passage warns against useless discussions. The Greek philosophers spent their time on their fine-spun problems. The Jewish Rabbis spent their time building up imaginary genealogies for the characters of the Old Testament. The Jewish scribes spent endless hours discussing what could and could not be done on the Sabbath, and what was and was not unclean. It has been said that there is a danger that a man may think himself religious because he discusses religious questions. It is much easier to discuss theological questions than to be kind and considerate and helpful at home, or efficient and diligent and honest at work. There is no virtue in sitting discussing deep theological questions when the simple tasks of the Christian life are waiting to be done. Such discussion can be nothing other than an evasion of Christian duties.

“Paul was certain that the real task of the Christian lay in Christian action. That is not to say that there is no place for Christian discussion; but the discussion which does not end in action is very largely wasted time.”^[3]

vv.10-11: “Jewish law required several private rebukes before bringing a person before the religious assembly for discipline; this procedure gave the offender ample opportunity to repent. One severe form of punishment against an unrepentant offender was exclusion from the religious community for a set time or until repentance ensued. Because Paul uses this penalty only in the most extreme circumstances, the divisiveness in view here must be serious; the person has already excluded himself from the life of the community.”^[4]

v.14: “Paul’s last piece of advice is that the Christian people should practise good deeds, so that they themselves should be independent and also able to help others who are in need. The Christian workman works not only to have enough for himself but also to have something to give away.”^[5]

^[2] The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (Tt 3:7). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[3] The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Repentance. In the New Testament, this term does not merely mean “change of mind” (as some have gathered from the Greek term); it reflects the Old Testament and Jewish concept of “turning around” or “turning away” from sin. Jewish people were to repent whenever they sinned; the New Testament uses the term especially for the once-for-all turning a Gentile would undergo when converting to Judaism or any sinner would undergo when becoming a follower of Jesus.

^[4] Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Tt 3:10). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

^[5] The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

vv.3-5: “It is clear that in the early Church a most honoured and responsible position was given to the older women. […]The older women to whom the years have brought serenity and sympathy and understanding have a part to play in the life of the Church and of the community which is peculiarly their own.

“Here the qualities which characterize them are laid down. Their demeanour must be such as befits those who are engaged in sacred things. […] As Clement of Alexandria had it: The Christian must live as if all life was a sacred assembly. It is easy to see what a difference it would make to the peace and fellowship of the Church, if it was always remembered that we are engaged in sacred things. Much of the embittered argument and the touchiness and the intolerance which all too frequently characterize church activities would vanish overnight.

“They must not spread slanderous stories. It is a curious trait of human nature that most people would rather repeat and hear a malicious tale than one to someone’s credit. It is no bad resolution to make up our minds to say nothing at all about people if we cannot find anything good to say.

“The older women must teach and train the younger. Sometimes it would seem that the only gift experience gives to some is that of pouring cold water on the plans and dreams of others. It is a Christian duty ever to use experience to guide and encourage, and not to daunt and discourage.”^[2]

vv.3-5: “In the ancient Greek world the respectable woman lived a completely secluded life. In the house she had her own quarters and seldom left them, not even to sit at meals with the menfolk of the family; and into them came no man except her husband. She never attended any public assemblies or meetings; she seldom appeared on the streets, and, when she did, she never did so alone. In fact it has been said that there was no honourable way in which a Greek woman could make a living. No trade or profession was open to her; and if she tried to earn a living, she was driven to prostitution. If the women of the ancient Church had suddenly burst every limitation which the centuries had imposed upon them, the only result would have been to bring discredit on the Church and cause people to say that Christianity corrupted womanhood. The life laid down here seems narrow and circumscribed, but it is to be read against its background. In that sense this passage is temporary.”^[3]

v.6: “The duty of the younger men is summed up in one sentence, but it is a pregnant one. They are bidden remember the duty of prudence. As we have already see, the man who is prudent, s?phr?n, has that quality of mind which keeps life safe. He has the security which comes from having all things under control.

“The time of youth is necessarily a time of danger.

“(i) In youth the blood runs hotter and the passions speak more commandingly. The tide of life runs strongest in youth and it sometimes threatens to sweep a young person away.

“(ii) In youth there are more opportunities for going wrong. Young people are thrown into company where temptation can speak with a most compelling voice. Often they have to study or to work away from home and from the influences which would keep them right. He has not yet taken upon himself the responsibility of a home and a family; he has not yet given hostages to fortune; and he does not yet possess the anchors which hold an older person in the right way through a sheer sense of obligation. In youth there are far more opportunities to make shipwreck of life.

“(iii) In youth there is often that confidence which comes from lack of experience. In almost every sphere of life a younger person will be more reckless than his elders, for the simple reason that he has not yet discovered all the things which can go wrong. To take a simple example, he will often drive a motor car much faster simply because he has not yet discovered how easily an accident can take place or on how slender a piece of metal the safety of a car depends. He will often shoulder a responsibility in a much more carefree spirit than an older person, because he has not known the difficulties and has not experienced how easily shipwreck may be made. No one can buy experience; that is something for which only the years can pay. There is a risk, as there is a glory, in being young.

“For that very reason, the first thing at which any young person must aim is self-mastery. No one can ever serve others until he has mastered himself. He who rules his spirit is greater than he who takes a city (Proverbs 16:32).

“Self-discipline is not among the more glamorous of the virtues, but it is the very stuff of life. When the eagerness of youth is buttressed by the solidity of self-mastery, something really great comes into life.^[4]

vv.11-14: “There are few passages in the New Testament which so vividly set out the moral power of the Incarnation as this does. Its whole stress is the miracle of moral change which Jesus Christ can work.

“This miracle is repeatedly here expressed in the most interesting and significant way. Isaiah once exhorted his people: ‘Cease to do evil; learn to do good’ (Isaiah 1:16, 17). First, there is the negative side of goodness, the giving up of that which is evil and the liberation from that which is low; second, there is its positive side, the acquisition of the shining virtues which mark the Christian life.

“First, there is the renunciation of all godlessness and worldly desires. What did Paul mean by worldly desires? Chrysostom said that worldly things are things which do not pass over with us into heaven but are dissolved together with this present world. A man is very short-sighted if he sets all his heart and expends all his labour on things which he must leave behind when he quits this world. But an even simpler interpretation of worldly desires is that they are for things we could not show to God. It is only Christ who can make not only our outward life but also our inward heart fit for God to see.

“That was the negative side of the moral power of the Incarnation; now comes the positive side. Jesus Christ makes us able to live with the prudence which has everything under perfect control, and which allows no passion or desire more than its proper place; with the justice which enables us to give both to God and to men that which is their due; with the reverence which makes us live in the awareness that this world is nothing other than the temple of God.

“The dynamic of this new life is the expectation of the coming of Jesus Christ. When a royal visit is expected, everything is cleansed and decorated, and made fit for the roval eye to see. The Christian is the man who is always prepared for the coming of the King of kings.

“Finally Paul goes on to sum up what Jesus Christ has done, and once again he does it first negatively and then positively.

“Jesus has redeemed us from the power of lawlessness, that power which makes us sin.

“Jesus can purify us until we are fit to be the special people of God. The word we have translated special (periousios) is interesting. It means reserved for; and it was specially used for that part of the spoils of a battle or a campaign which the king who had conquered set apart specially for himself. Through the work of Jesus Christ, the Christian becomes fit to be the special possession of God.

“The moral power of the Incarnation is a tremendous thought. Christ not only liberated us from the penalty of past sin; he can enable us to live the perfect life within this world of space and time; and he can so cleanse us that we become fit in the life to come to be the special possession of God.”^[5]

^[2] The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[3] The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[4] The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (Tt 2:6). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[5] The letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (Tt 2:14). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.