The Canonical Texts on Bad Guys

 

Schottenstein Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli).

All my enemies whisper together against me; they imagine the worst for me, saying, “A vile disease has afflicted him; he will never get up from the place where he lies.” Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me. (Psalm 41:7-9)

Gossip and rumors are the work of people who invest in "who's worse than me" thinking. Making someone out as the bad guy gives perverse pleasure to some people. It happens in Bible interpretation also. The Israelites are posed as righteous though they regularly disobeyed and committed evil acts. The Deuteronomist's advocacy of genocide against non-Israelites is reprehensible, yet many attempt to justify it on the basis of the good guy-bad guy fallacy. In reality, both righteous and evil persons are found in every society, community, and population. God's covenant with the Israelites does not permit them to destroy places and images sacred to their Hebrew ancestors, to level settlements of Hebrew clans other than Jacob's, or to commit genocide. 

Some biblical figures are posed as evil though the biblical data does not support that view. Cain is labeled bad and Abel good. Noah is described as righteous, yet he curses his descendants after falling into a drunken stupor. Ham is labeled bad and Shem good, yet their descendants intermarried (caste endogamy). Esau is the bad guy and Jacob the good guy. The pattern reveals the influence of the rabbis who contributed to the Talmud. Midrash often imposes an interpretation contrary to the data found in the canonical Scriptures.

The Talmud is the source of many "bad guy" portrayals, some of which enter the New Testament writings. We note that the author of Hebrews cast Esau as "immoral" and "irreligious" in Hebrews 12:16, yet Esau, Isaac's proper heir, is said to be the recipient of blessings in Hebrews 11:20.

A comment posted at the Facebook group The Bible and Anthropology is instructive. Dave Anderson wrote: "Jacob acted horribly in this story. Esau has been out hunting for food for the benefit of his family, his brother has food but refuses to give it to him unless he makes an unconscionable contract. A proposal Esau must have taken for a joke. And defrauding his father with a cheap trick to steal the birthright? And after all that Esau forgave his brother. It's clear to me who the good guy in this story was."

Some New Testament writers were influenced by the Talmud in the way they present certain Old Testament characters: Cain, Esau, Korah, and Balaam are examples. Cain is remembered as a murderer, but Moses and David are not. Esau is posed as wicked though he forgives the deception of Jacob and welcomes him back to Edom. Moses’ half-brother Korah is remembered only for his challenge to Moses’ authority and not for his ritual purity, and Balaam becomes the archetype of a foolish false prophet.

Much of the argument developed by the writer of the book of Hebrews relies on rabbinic thought, not on historical realities. In Hebrew 7:14, the writer recognizes that the Messiah is from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David, but he seems unaware that both Judah and David are descendants of an ancient caste of ruler-priests. He states that the former priests did not take oaths (Heb. 7:20-28) and yet there are historical documents that attest to oaths of office among the Horite and Sethite Hebrew priests. These oaths of office declared their loyalty to the High King who they served, and such oaths were declared before the high priests of the various royal temple complexes. Temples played an important role in resolving legal and personal disputes. 

In an oath taken before a priest of the Temple of Hathor on Dec. 6, 127 BC, a royal servant Petasatet declared his innocence in the case of cloth theft. An oath was taken as a solemn appeal to divine authority represented by the high king. One type asserts a truth and is by nature a declaration such as that of Petasatet. A second type makes a promise pertaining to future actions. (See John A. Widson, “The Oath in Ancient Egypt”.)

 
The writer of Hebrews admits that many of the religious practices of the early priests are not familiar to him. Of the Ark of the Covenant, the mysterious manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, he explains, “Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.” (Heb. 9:5) The primary influence on his thought appears to be the Talmud, the texts that defined Jewish identity by the time of Jesus. The Talmud encourages Jews to place it above the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. Consider this: “My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah." (Talmud Erubin 21b) "He who transgresses the words of the scribes sins more gravely than the transgressors of the words of the law." (Sanhedrin X, 3, f.88b)

Even Jesus' closest disciples had to be shown that Abraham and their Hebrew ancestors believed in God Father and God Son. John explains, “At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him.” (John 12:16, cf. Luke 18:34) 

The same illumination took place on the road to Emmaus. The disciples said to each other, "Didn't our hearts burn within us as He talked with us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us?" (Luke 24:32)

The Messianic Faith of Abraham is not Judaism

Judaism and the religion of the ancient Hebrews should not be regarded as equivalent since they have different historical contexts. Judaism does not represent the faith of Abraham the Hebrew. Jews recognize that what Abraham believed and what is believed by Jews today are not the same. Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, former Chief Rabbi of the United States, explains: "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism.”

Rabbi Morris Kertzer (American Jewish Committee) has written, “The Talmud is the very foundation of Jewish life. It is taught to Jewish children as soon as they are old enough to read.”

SUNY history professor, Robert Goldberg, writes; “The traditional Jew studies Talmud because it communicates ultimate truth—truth about God, truth about the world, and most important, truth about how God wants the holy community of Israel to live.”

When we set aside the disputations of the rabbis and read the canonical texts objectively, we recognize that all these biblical persons are sinners in need of redemption and forgiveness. In I Samuel 24:4-12 we read that David refused to kill King Saul when he had the opportunity to do so because he would not raise his hand against God's anointed. Yet later, David arranged the death of Uriah, one of his own leading warriors.

David was angry with Saul for hunting him like a criminal because David had served Saul with respect. Though David refused to lay his hand on God's anointed, he saw Saul as his enemy and sought God's aid in bringing about Saul's destruction. David expressed his hatred in Psalm 109. 

C.S. Lewis wrote: "Psalm 109 is as unabashed a hymn of hate as was ever written. The poet has a detailed programme for his enemy which he hopes God will carry out. The enemy is to be placed under a wicked ruler. He is to have 'an accuser' perpetually at his side: whether an evil spirit, a 'Satan', as our Prayer Book version renders it, or merely a human accuser - a spy, an agent provocateur, a member of the secret police (v. 5). If the enemy attempts to have any religious life, this, far from improving his position, must make him even worse: 'let his prayer be turned into sin' (v. 6). And after his death - which had better, please, be early (v. 7) - his widow and children and descendants are to live in unrelieved misery (vv. 8-12).

What makes our blood run cold, even more than the unrestrained vindictiveness, is the writer's untroubled conscience. He has no qualms, scruples, or reservations; no shame. He gives hatred free rein - encourages and spurs it on - in a sort of ghastly innocence. He offers these feelings, just as they are, to God, never doubting that they will be acceptable: turning straight from the maledictions to 'Deal thou with me, O Lord God, according unto thy Name: for sweet is thy mercy' (v. 20)." (C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections)

When we focus on the canonical texts alone, the good guys do not always seem righteous, and the bad guys often appear righteous. There is no cause for spiritual pride, and no justified claim to moral superiority. Before God's righteousness all are filthy beggars. Two days before he died, Martin Luther wrote, “We are beggars, it is true.”

Related reading: War in the Old Testament; Abraham's Faith Lives in Christianity; The Talmud Versus the Doctrine of the Lord

Why Hebrew Rulers Denied Marriage to Royal women

Denying Marriage: A cunning royal strategy

Agata Agnieszka Pasieczna and Alice C. Linsley


ABSTRACT           

Cultural anthropology assists in gaining a clearer understanding of the marriage patterns of the biblical rulers known as Hebrew (Habiru, ‘Apiru). This paper explores the various reasons why a biblical ruler might deny marriage to royal women of his household and clan. As with rulers throughout the ages, royal marriages required consideration of the lines of descent, the ancestral marriage and ascendancy pattern, rights of inheritance, rights of ascension, political alliances, and avoidance of war and potential bloodshed.

The denial of marriage to daughters and nieces in the Bible is cited by feminists as an example of patriarchal oppression of women, but there is more to the story. The biblical accounts of marriage being denied to a woman reveal a great deal about the political, social, and religious concerns of biblical rulers. Some Bible scholars believe that Jephthah dedicated his daughter to the service of God to avoid having to give her in marriage to the son of one of his brothers. Jephthah does not seem to be impulsive, but rather a rational person and a capable leader; not the kind of person to make a foolish vow. This vow to dedicate the first living thing that he saw to God helped him avoid giving his daughter's hand in marriage. We do not know the exact reasons, but as the clan ruler, Jephthah had social and political reasons to deny her marriage. Possibly, the daughter was privy to the plan and played her part perfectly.

In the story of Ruth, the proper levir refused to redeem Ruth because marrying her compromised his son’s inheritance. Ruth’s adviser, Naomi, may have anticipated this when she advised her daughter-in-law to seek Boaz are her levir. As with Jephthah’s daughter, Naomi understood the rules of marriage and was aware of the options.

It is clear that in some cases inheritance concerns motivated the denial of marriage. In Greek accounts, the Delphic oracle warned Aleus of Tegea that if his daughter Auge had a son, the grandson would kill Aleus' sons. To prevent this, Aleus made Auge a priestess of Athena, requiring her to remain a virgin.

A Roman narrative tells of how the daughter of Numitor Silvius was forced to become a Vestal Virgin after Numitor's younger brother Amulius seized the throne and killed Numitor's son. Amulius then forced Rhea Silvia to become a Vestal Virgin who was sworn to celibacy, thus ensuring that the line of Numitor had no heirs.

Royal virgins posed both potential trouble and opportunity for rulers. In some cases the virgins themselves appear to have sought the ruler’s protection from marriages they found displeasing. C.S. Lewis presents a fictional example involving Queen Susan who is pursued by the despicable Prince Rabadash in The Horse and His Boy. The marriage would have put Narnia at a great political disadvantage, and Susan would have been treated as a hostage and slave in Rabadash’s household.

Rulers were wary of fortune seeking men who sought marriage with a royal daughter to advance their careers and raise their social status. These ambition suitors posed a threat to royal stability. For the sake of stability, some women were released from the monastery to marry. Matilda, the sister of Otto III, was permitted to marry Ezzo. The huge territorial concessions made to Ezzo after his marriage made him one of the most powerful princes in the Ottonian Empire.

At a young age, Matilda had been sent to Essen Abbey, where her older cousin Mathilde was abbess. It was presumed that Matilda would remain in the Abbey, but she was married to Ezzo, Count Palatine of Lotharingia, against the wishes of the Abbess Mathilde.

The first Polish king, Boleslaw I, called “the Brave,” won the crown thanks to the fact that his son, Mieszko II Lambert, married the emperor’s niece, Richeza of Lotharingia. She was the daughter of Matilda, Emperor Otto III’s sister. After her husband was deposed, Richeza entered the monastery in 1031 AD.

The aspiring men who managed to connect themselves with the ruling house, made every effort to see that the marriages of their daughters insured advantageous alliances. If this were not possible, daughters could influence others by placement in one of the prestigious royal nunneries. Many of these royal women attained high rank as abbesses in charge of monastic communities.

Political, social, and religious concerns led the German emperors to place their daughters, granddaughters, and nieces in convents. In the 10th century, over thirty convents were built in Germany for imperial kinswomen. These women would remain unmarried. Doubtless, this was the choice of some of the women. The convents provided opportunities they would not have as wives and mothers. Hildegard of Bingen became known as the “Sibyl of the Rhine” because of her accomplishments in the monastic life. In Germany, she is considered to be the founder of scientific natural history.

Barbara Yorke (King Alfred’s College, Winchester) has written, “All the Anglo-Saxon nunneries in southern England for which we have the relevant evidence were founded by members of a royal house, usually by either the reigning monarch or one of his close female relatives; it is not always clear which should be described as the founder. Not only were the nunneries founded by one of the ruling house, but they continued to be regarded as possessions of the royal house throughout their existence.”

In the Middle Ages, many royal daughters were destined for the monastic life. Only in circumstances of political advantage were their marriages allowed. Not surprisingly, female convents sprung up in all the regions were monarchs had residences. Some royal women lived saintly lives in the monasteries and others lived much as they had in their father’s palaces. The rich and powerful royal abbeys of Europe provided a luxurious lifestyle for the women who resided there.

However, this custom has a much more ancient tradition. Sargon (reigned from c. 2334–2284 BC) appointed his daughter Heduanna as the En of the shrine at Ur. This was a shrewd political move to secure power in the south of his kingdom. The Akkadian term En means lord, master, royal official, and priest or priestess. The Creator’s son was called En-ki, meaning “Lord of the Earth.” En-Heduanna served the Creator God Anu, at the House (pr) of Anu (Iannu). As with Roman Catholic nuns, she would have been considered “married” to the deity she served. En-Heduanna is credited with a large body of cuneiform poetry.

In ancient Egypt, some royal daughters were appointed to the two highest ranks a woman could hold: the positions of the God’s Wife (Hemet Netjer) and the Divine Adoratrice (Duat Netjer). These offices were held by women of high status, like the queen’s mother, or the wife of the high priest of the most favored royal temple. Pharaoh Ahmose I married his (half?) sister, Ahmose-Nefertiri, who became the God's Wife of Amun.

Ahmose I (reigned from c. 1550-1525 BC) controlled access to the throne by prohibiting princesses from marrying anyone except their royal brothers. This custom did not begin with him, however. Royal priests of the Nile had been marrying their half-sisters for at least 1000 years before the time of Ahmose I.

Ahmose’s principal wife was appointed to the office of the God’s Wife of Amun, and Ahmose endowed the office with more than adequate means, providing financial income, servants, real estate, and her own royal retinue. Many royal women attained high rank as priestesses in charge of Hathor shrines.

The celibacy requirement for royal daughters dedicated to the temples and shrines certainly had religious significance, but it also served the ruler’s political purposes. Were some political advantage to be gained, the holders of the offices might be granted permission to marry.

Daughters dedicated to the temple

Royal daughters presented a challenge to their ruling fathers. Rarely did more than one daughter find a suitable royal spouse. Many without marriage opportunities were dedicated to a religious establishment. Some women may have chosen this option over marrying a man to whom they had been promised as a child. Being dedicated to the temple or entering the monastery provided an escape from an unwelcome marriage and allowed them to stay closer to home, rather than being sent to a distant kingdom. Not all noble women wished to marry.

The story of Jephthah’s daughter is an example. This story is usually cited as an example of child sacrifice, yet the biblical text implies that she was dedicated to God’s service. Jephthah was a ruler who led his men in a successful battle against the Ammonites (the descendants of Lot). Jephthah vowed to offer to God “whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me” (Judges 11:30). He does not appear to be an impulsive leader, but rather a capable and rational person. Had he seen a sheep, goat, or a cow, he would have sacrificed that to God. Strangely, no livestock were in sight upon his return. Instead, his daughter of marriage age came running out of the door to meet him, just as Jephthah had described. By dedicating her to God Jephthah saved face among this men and avoided open refusal of his daughter's hand to the son of one of his brothers.

His daughter was privy to the scheme because it is she who insisted that he fulfill his vow to God (Judges 11:36). Jephthah’s daughter may have wished to follow the career of her paternal grandmother who served at a shrine and is described (misleadingly) as a “prostitute” in Judges 11:1. Perhaps Jephthah’s daughter hoped that by giving up worldly aspirations to become the mother of kings, she might be chosen to bring forth the promised Messiah. It was long believed that the mother of the Messiah would be a temple or shrine woman who would conceive by divine overshadowing. This is why Sargon claimed that he did not have an earthly father and that his mother conceived him while in the temple at Azu-pir-Anu. It should be noted that the Virgin Mary was the daughter of the priest Joachim and she was said to conceive Jesus by the “overshadowing of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1).

In parts of Africa, virgins are dedicated to the shrines even today. Often these are girls whose mothers were not able to conceive. The barren women came to the water shrines to pray and if they conceived a female child, the girl was pledged to the shrine as a “trokosi.” This is similar to the story of Hannah, who pledged Samuel to service in the Temple in return for blessing her with a child (1 Samuel 1:21-28).

The Ghanaian apologist for Traditional African Religion, Ofoso Kofitse Ahadzi, says that a man may not marry a trokosi without permission from the shrine because the girl is regarded as the wife of the shrine deity. He believes that marrying a trokosi without going through the proper procedure leads to supernatural punishment.

He explains, “When you go against any of the regulations, it is not human beings that will punish you. The deity will punish you because all the girls who go in there for training are the daughters and princesses of the divinity. So if you take liberties with them you will be punished.”

Temple virgins are described in the Old Testament as women who "watch [or wait] (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle.” In Exodus 38:8, we read that the laver of copper and its stand of copper were made “from the mirrors of the women who performed tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Hebrew Study Bible, p. 197). These women were consecrated to God, but this did not stop corrupt men of the temple from taking advantage of them.

“Now Heli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all Israel: and how they lay with the women that waited (צָבָא) at the door of the tabernacle:” (1 Samuel 2:22)

In this context, the sexual "spoiling" of temple virgins by the sons of Heli is a very grave and heinous violation which would bring divine judgement upon the offenders.

Dancing Virgins

In India, girls as young 8 years were given to the service of the temples. A devadasi or jogini girl was dedicated to worship and serve the temple deity for the rest of her life. The dedication is similar to a Hindu marriage ceremony.

The devadasi was trained to dance and sing, and in some temples she was initiated into tantric sex. In Tantric ritual, wine is called shakti or sakti. This is consumed at the time of the Hindu harvest moon festival. The word sakti is related to the Falasha word sarki, which also refers to the harvest moon festival overseen by the priests.

The role of devadasi was passed from mother to daughter. Temple women inherited gold, jewelry, and status from their mothers who also had been dedicated to the temple. The princes of India devoted some of their daughters to the service of the temples. The daughters were given with royal endowments to the temple.

It is likely that Miriam was among the women who held sacred duties in the Nilotic temples and at the Tent of Meeting. She led the people in singing and dancing. Being of Kushite extraction, Miriam likely represents the older custom of Nubian dancing girls. They were dancers at the Nile River inns. That suggests that Rahab of Jericho was an inn keeper, not a prostitute.

Widows also found refuge in the temples, shrines and monasteries. Anna, a prophetess of the clan of Asher, lived most of her adult life in the Temple precincts. According to Luke 2, she “never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying.”

Preserving royal bloodlines

Another motive for denying marriage to a female relative was the concern to preserve the royal bloodline. Royal intermarriage among ruling families went beyond strategic diplomacy and national interests. Persons of royal birth were expected to honor the traditions of their ancestors. The marriage and ascendancy traditions of their royal ancestors, their wealth, and their personal attributes, especially bravery on the battlefield, strengthened their right to rule, but most important was proof of royal blood.

As Kamil Janicki explains in “History, Genealogy and Heraldry” (1994), “Among German elites there was a conviction that a king can only be a person in which veins runs the emperor’s blood. And this in a very narrow sense: the emperor’s blood meant - the blood of Charlemagne.”

The concern for preserving the royal bloodline is especially evident among the Ottonian dynasty of monarchs (AD 919–1024), beginning with Emperor Otto I, who made the city of Aachen, in North Rhine-Westphalia, the site of future coronations.

The Ottonian rulers were Saxon or Sacae. Their royal lines can be traced to the ancient Saka. It is likely, though still unproven, that they are related to the Sacae ruler Constantine. Constantine who was born in Niš on 27 February 273 AD. Nis is a very ancient city in southern Serbia that was populated by Saka in ancient times. The Hindu text Matsya Purana claims that the Saka (called “Scythians” by the Greeks) ruled the ancient world for 7000 years. Another text, the Mahabharata, designates “Sakadvipa” as the “land of the Sakas” in northern India. Assyrian documents speak of the Saka presence between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in the time of Sargon (BC 722-705).

Avoiding bloodshed

For the royal elite of Medieval Europe real and alleged connections to the royals of Charlemagne’s court led to marriage alliances between ruling families. However, marriage was not the best option to prevent political chaos. It often posed threats to the established royal order. Rulers had good reasons to try to prevent the shedding of royal blood.

Ruling fathers dedicated their daughters to the shrine/temple to prevent marriage in cases that compromised inheritance, threatened the right of ascension, or presented the potential for bloodshed. In the ancient world royal wedding feasts sometimes became places of slaughter or assassination.

In BC 336, Philip II of Macedonia threw a lavish wedding for one of his daughters and invited members other royals to attend the occasion. As part of the festivities, Philip staged public games at the theater at Aigai. He strode into the stadium, with Alexander on one side and his new son-in-law on the other. Philip stood at the center of the theater, the large crowd began to roar with approval. Then an assassin rushed at Philip and stabbed him to death as the wedding guests watched in disbelief.

In 1572, the wedding of Margaret, the daughter of King Henry II, to Henry III of Navarre, became the occasion of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. It is thought that Margaret’s mother, Catherine de' Medici, was partially responsible for the killings of thousands of French Protestants.

The anthropologist, Goran Pavlovic, reports, “In Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Croatia, there are many places, usually with ancient stone slabs or standing stones, which local population calls svatovska groblja or wedding party graveyards." These places are found in remote areas with ancient necropolises dating from the beginning of the fourth millennium BC. Many ancient necropolises were royal burial grounds where ancestors were called upon to witness the marriage bond.

On the other hand, should a ruler seek to incite war with an enemy, he could deny marriage or take back a daughter who had been given in marriage. This may be what motivated King Saul to take back Michal who he had given as a wife to David. Saul sought provocation to eliminate David who, by that time, had been anointed by the prophet Samuel to be the next king.

When Shechem fell in love with Jacob’s daughter, his father Hamor met with Jacob to arrange for his son to marry Dinah. Apparently, this marriage was approved by Jacob. However, Jacob’s sons, Levi and Simeon, did not approve of the marriage and used this as an excuse to massacre Hamor’s men and loot the city. In Genesis 34:13, there is an admission that the sons of Jacob “answered Shechem and his father Hamor in a deceitful way.” The violence against the Shechemite community put Jacob’s clan in jeopardy by making subsequent peaceful coexistence and marriage alliances in that region impossible. That is why Jacob reprimanded his sons for the bloodshed.

Preserving the ancestral marriage pattern

The biblical Hebrew rulers maintained a marriage and ascendancy pattern that they received from their archaic ancestors. Using kinship analysis, this pattern has been identified and traced from the rulers of Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36 to the Jerusalem elite of the New Testament. Obviously, the preservation of the marriage and ascendancy pattern was important to the biblical rulers, and would have been a reason to deny marriage arrangements that were not consistent with the ancestral pattern.

Proper marriage arrangements were especially important in the cases of the ruler’s first born son. This was the first born son of the ruler’s half-sister wife, the bride of the man’s youth. This son was the heir to the throne. The first born son of the second wife became a high official in the territory of his maternal grandfather. In the Genesis king lists, the son of the cousin bride is usually named after his material grandfather. Thus there are two persons named Enoch, two named Lamech, two named Joktan, two named Esau, etc.

©1988 Alice C. Linsley

The identical marriage pattern was preserved by Amram, the father of Moses, Aaron, Korah and the dancing daughter Miriam. The diagram below shows that the cousin bride’s naming prerogative. Ishar, the daughter of Korah, called her first born son Korah. These are the descendant of Seir the Horite Hebrew ruler of Edom (Genesis 36).

Denial of marriage by maternal uncles

The Hebrew rulers practice avunculocal residence, in which young men left their natal homes and joined the household of a maternal uncle. In the cases of avunculocal residence, royal uncles sometimes denied marriage to their nieces. This happened when the niece and her brother came under the care of a maternal uncle.

Examples of avunculocal residence are found in the stories of Abraham and Jacob. When the patriarch Terah died, Abraham's older brother Nahor ruled over Terah's holdings in Mesopotamia. Abraham went to live near Sarah’s maternal uncle in the land of Canaan. According to the Talmud, Sarah was the daughter of a ruler named Karnevo. Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister. They had the same father, but different mothers (Genesis 20:12). So Sarah’s father was Terah, not Karnevo. However, Kar-nevo/nebo is also a place name. Kar-Nebo refers to Mount Nebo, near Jericho. This appears to be where Sarah’s maternal uncle ruled.

Likewise, Jacob was sent to live with his maternal uncle Laban. There he gained the wealth, herds, and wives needed to establish himself in another place (neolocal residence). He set out for his natal home in Edom, and after making peace with his estranged brother Esau, he settled in the area of Shechem. Shechem later became the first capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Laban is another example of a father who used the marriages of his daughters for personal gain. He forced Jacob to work for him for an additional seven years by promising him Rachel’s hand in marriage. When Jacob left, the daughters’ marriages to Jacob led Laban to formalize a treaty (Genesis 31:43-55) that required Jacob not to marry other women.

Selected bibliography

Eckenstein, Lina, Woman under Monasticism. Chapters on Saint-Lore and Convent Life between AD 500 and AD 1500, Cambridge (1896).

Jasiński K., Rycheza, żona króla polskiego Mieszka II, “Herald. Historia, Genealogia, Heraldyka”, nr 8 (1994).

Leyser K., Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society. Ottonian Saxony, London (1979).

Linsley, Alice, “The Ancient Tumuli of Nobles” http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-tumuli-of-ancient-nobles.html

Linsley, Alice, “The Marriage and Ascendancy Pattern of the Hebrew Rulers”

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/06/biblical-kinship-symmetrical-pattern.html

Linsley, Alice, “The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew” (Part 5)

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-social-structure-of-biblical-hebrew.html

Magonet, Jonathan, “Did Jephthah Actually Kill his Daughter?

http://thetorah.com/did-jephthah-actually-kill-his-daughter/

Parson, Marie, “Women in Ancient Egyptian Religion, Part II”, The Divine Adoratrice and God's Wife of Amun in the Third Intermediate Period. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/women2.htm

Pavlovic, Goran, “Svatovsko groblje - Wedding party graveyard” http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.ie/2015/08/svatovska-groblja-wedding-guests.html

Orr, Leslie C., Donors, Devotees, Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu, Oxford University Press (2000).

Teeter, Emily, “Celibacy and Adoption Among God’s Wives of Amun and Singers in theTemple of Amun: A Re-Examination of the Evidence,” in Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (1999).

Yorke, Barbara, “Sisters Under the Skin?” Anglo Saxon Nuns and Nunneries in Southern England,” p. 99 (1989).

Hebrews 10: Christ’s All Sufficient Sacrifice

Alice C. Linsley


Part 1: Paul’s use of Plato

The Law is only a shadow (skian) of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshippers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. (Hebrew 10:1,2)

Paul draws on an ancient conception that we associate with Plato. Plato studied in Egypt and was familiar with the ancient Egyptian mysteries in which an earthly substance or entity was understood to be a reflection of the eternal metaphysical entity. Very likely, Plato borrowed the idea of Forms from the ancient Egyptians. The Apostle’s epistemology is often expressed in Platonic terms, as in this verse: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (I Corinthians 13:12)

Paul was familiar with Greek Philosophy. In Jerusalem, he studied under Gamaliel whose rabbinic school had five hundred pupils. Gamaliel taught Greek philosophy so that his pupils would return to their Greek-speaking provinces prepared to be leaders. 

Paul enjoyed a classical Greek education in Tarsus, a center of learning with a famous academy that the Greek geographer Strabo considered better than the academies of Athens and Alexandria. Growing up in Tarsus, Paul would have heard great discussions and debates in the tea houses and town square. The Stoic philosopher Athenodorus governed Tarsus and reformed its constitution. He died at age 82 before Paul came of age, but his teachings were upheld by his successor Nestor, who Paul would have heard speak. Athenodorus regarded duty to be a matter of the conscience, a concept that the Apostle uses throughout his epistles. Athenodorus said that, “Everyman's conscience is his god.” Taking this from another angle, Paul states that those who worship the Sinless God feel guilty for their sins and the blood of bulls cannot remedy this. Only by the blood of Jesus can we have “our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience…” (Heb. 10:22)

The word “conscience” is not found in Hebrew. The closest parallel in the Hebrew Scriptures is the word “heart” as is found in Jeremiah 31:34. St. Paul speaks of the conscience in these passages: Romans 2:15, 9:1 and 13:5; I Corinthians 8:7-12, 10:25-29; II Corinthians 1:12, 4:2 and 5:11; Hebrews 13:18.

Paul's schooling Greek philosophy is evident in his approach to Old Testament figures. In 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, he demonstrates a Platonic approach of Christology. The first man is imperfect but the second man is the perfect Form of humanity. Adam, made in the image of God, could not save himself, but the second Adam, who is God, is able to save.

In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul uses Platonism to explain the difference between liberty based on divine promise and constraints based on Levitical rules. He uses Sarah and Hagar, women whose relationship to Abraham strikes a strong contrast. Paul writes, “There is an allegory here: these women stand for the two covenants.”

The Old and New Covenants are accompanied by the sign of blood. Sarah’s bond with Abraham is a blood (consanguine) bond, as opposed to a Hagar's fictive (arranged) relationship with Abraham. The blood bond is always the stronger. Sarah, as both wife and half-sister to Abraham, is the blood relative and cannot be put away. Likewise, the Covenant of the blood of Jesus cannot be set aside. It is superior in rank and design to the Covenant of the blood of beasts. Hagar, the bondservant or concubine, is not related by blood to Abraham and can be put away. Hagar’s relationship with Abraham was Sarah’s desperate work of the flesh, and not God’s will. So the Apostle urges the Hebrew Christians to “Purge your conscience from dead works.” (Heb. 9:14) What has the power to save comes by God’s promises, not by our own efforts.



Part II: Christ Came to Do the Father’s Will


Therefore when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,

But a body you prepared for me;

With burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.

Then I said: ‘Here I am – it is written about me in the scroll –


I have come to do your will, O God.’” (cf. Septuagint, Psalm 40:6-8)


Christ came into the world to do God’s will, and that involves setting aside the Covenant of Levites to establish, or perhaps restore, the Covenant of Promise. Hebrews 10:9 states, “Then he said, ‘Here I am. I have come to do your will.’ He sets aside the first to establish the second.” 

The contrast is between the Covenant of the blood of beasts which reminds us of our sins and the Covenant of the blood of the Son of God which cleanses our sins. By God’s will, “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb. 10:10)

St. Ambrose instructs us:

Not without the Father does He [the Son] work; not without His Father’s will did He offer Himself for that most holy Passion, the Victim slain for the salvation of the whole world; not without His Father’s will concurring did He raise the dead to life. For example, when He was at the point to raise Lazarus to life, He lifted up His eyes and said, “Father, I thank thee, for that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou dost always hear me, but for the sake of the multitude that standeth round I spake, that they may believe that thou has sent me” [John 11:40], in order that, though speaking agreeably to His assumed character of man in the flesh, He might still express His oneness with the Father in will and operation, in that the Father hears all and sees all that the Son wills, and therefore also the Father sees the Son’s doings, hears the utterances of His will, for the Son made no request and yet that He had been heard. (On the Christian Faith, Book IV, chap.vi, no.70 )



Part III: Christ the True Form of Priest

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:11-14)

The contrast continues between the ineffectual sacrifices offered by the priests of Israel and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The contrast is illustrated by the verbs “stand” and “sit.” Christ’s sacrifice was offered once for all, for all people at all times and in all places. Therefore His work is complete. No priest sits while he is on duty. Jesus is seated at the right hand of the throne of God because His work is done and now He awaits the resolution of all events, even as He offers intercessions on our behalf.

When God “manifested in the flesh” became the sacrifice, offering Himself in a final act of kenosis (self-emptying), He sealed the sovereign will of God, by which His enemies also receive what they desire. Since they hate the Light, they would find no pleasure in spending eternity with God.



Part IV: The Holy Spirit Testifies

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

“This is the covenant I will make with them after the time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.

Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”

And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.



The Holy Spirit spoke through the Prophets about what was to come. The quote is from Jeremiah 31:33, 24. This idea is also expressed in Isaiah 43:35, which says, “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.”

Zechariah 3:19 says, “Behold, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,' says the LORD Almighty, 'and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day.”

Psalm 103:12 speaks of God forgiveness using the celestial image of the heavens stretched above us so that none can measure them. God promises to remove our sins “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”



Part V: Therefore confidently draw near to God

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the veil, that is, His body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another – and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Concerning this passage, Matthew Henry writes, "As believers had an open way to the presence of God, it became them to use this privilege. The way and means by which Christians enjoy such privileges, is by the blood of Jesus, by the merit of that blood which he offered up as an atoning sacrifice. The agreement of infinite holiness with pardoning mercy, was not clearly understood till the human nature of Christ, the Son of God, was wounded and bruised for our sins. Our way to heaven is by a crucified Savior; his death is to us the way of life, and to those who believe this, he will be precious. They must draw near to God; it would be contempt of Christ, still to keep at a distance."

St. John Chrysostom writes that when shame is taken away and sins are forgiven, we “being made fellow-heirs, and enjoying so great love” become bold. (On Hebrews, Homily 19, no. 2 )

Living confidently as a Christian will express itself in encouragement of one another, in demonstrations of love and in good deeds. Paul’s sense of urgency is apparent in the closing line. The Day of Judgment approaches.



Part VI: A Dreadful Thing

If we deliberately keep sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation.

St. Paul assumes that his audience is familiar with Deuteronomy 32:34, 35 which says, “Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’ For the Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone and there is none remaining, bond or free.” He uses this to stress the serious nature of apostasy and the certainty of God’s mercy , but in Romans 12:19, he uses the same verse to stress that it is wrong for Christians to take revenge against their enemies.

Here the Apostle emphasizes the gravity of falling away. Archbishop Royster writes, “Since the Apostle is attempting to combat the fairly common sin of apostasy, he rather conscientiously warns those who have fallen away of the consequences and points out what they have to look forward to: “a fearful expectation of judgment: and a “fiery jealousy” (pyros zēlos in Greek). St. Paul elsewhere calls his own jealousy over those whom he had brought to faith in Christ and have fallen away “a jealousy of God” (II Corinthians 11:2). That God Himself should be jealous for those who became His adopted children in baptism is not surprising, because the same was attributed to Him in the case of Israel (see Nahum 1:2; Zechariah 1:14, etc.). This fire will consume them that have become His adversaries. The apostate is then in a condition much worse than that of the unbeliever.”

This state is described in Hebrews 6:7-9, using the analogy of the land. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Consider how the New England preacher, Jonathan Edwards, set forth Paul’s warning in Hebrew 10:31.

“O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment.” (From "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”)

Edwards' reminder that all sinnners have a Mediator in Jesus Christ in almost lost in the harshness of his tone. However, when he preached this famous sermon in Enfield, Connecticut on July 8, 1741, a deep conviction of sin fell on those who heard it, and many repented. We also feel the power of St. Paul’s warning and recognize the truth of his words.



Part VII: Do Not Shrink Back

Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what He has promised. For in just a very little while,

“He who is coming will come and will not delay.

But my righteous one will live by faith.

And if he shrinks back,

I will not be pleased with him.” (Habakkuk 2:3, 4)

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Having endured suffering, many Hebrew Christians were tempted to quit the confession of faith in Jesus Christ. Paul encourages those who are impatient waiting for the realization of the Promise. Just as Jesus saw beyond His passion to the joy that was before Him (Hebrews 12:2), so they are to see beyond this time of struggle to the great reward that awaits them at Christ’s appearing.

The Greek term hypostellō is used in both verse 38 and 39 and means to “shrink back” and “to conceal or suppress because of fear.” Paul includes himself when he speaks of not shrinking back in fear, but persevering in faith. In this, he exemplifies the courageous Christian who remains obedience and loyal to his Master under all circumstances.

St. John Chrysostom noted that Paul used a Greek term associated with athletic games, and wrote, “It is as if one should speak of an athlete who had overthrown all, and had no antagonist, and was then to be crowned, and yet endured not that time, during which the president of the games comes, and places the crown upon him; and he impatient, should wish to go out, and escape as though he could not bear the thirst and the heat.” (First Instruction to Catechumens, no. 3)

The Greek term associated with athletic games is hupomone, which means “to bear up under, to persevere; to endure.” Its constituent parts are hupo (under) and meno (to remain). Endurance is remaining to the last breath under the headship of Jesus Christ.


END


Related reading:  Paul to the Hebrews: Persevere in Hope; Paul to the Hebrews: Hold Fast the Faith of Your Horim

Paul to Hebrew Christians: Persevere in Hope

Alice C. Linsley


In Hebrews 6, the Apostle Paul urges the Hebrew Christians to deepen in the doctrine of Christ by building on the foundation they received through their baptismal instruction, chrismation and apostolic teaching. They are sternly warned about and the consequences of going back on their baptismal promises, which Paul likens to “crucifying the Son of God all over again” (verse 6). The Apostle expresses frustration with some for remaining as babies in the faith, but commends others as examples of how a Christian should persevere.  His tone is both exhortative and compassionate.  He writes as one who is confident of God’s power to save and the certainty of God’s promises.

In speaking of the elementary teachings about Christ, Paul specifies repentance first, as this is necessarily the first act and attitude of every Christian.  He considers faith in God as fundamental, but alone it is insufficient for Christian maturity.  Here is a message for those who labor under the false notion that one only has to believe in God to be saved.

Baptismal instruction, chrismation, and belief in the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment are also “elementary” things. That is to say, they are the starting point rather than the terminus for those who would taste eternity.

Baptism, chrismation, the resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment would have formed a part of early Christian catechetical instruction. He notes that for many Jews of the first century the doctrines of the resurrection and the final judgment would have been new, which goes to show how far rabbinic Judaism had strayed from the beliefs of the Horim (ancestors).  It is clear that Abraham and his Horite people believed in the resurrection of the dead, which is the meaning of the so-called binding of Isaac, though Jews deny this even today.

It might seem that the Apostle is minimizing the importance of catechesis when, in reality, he is stressing such doctrinal instruction as essential.  His concern is that those who have received the instruction move on to a deeper acquaintance of Jesus Christ and the things of God that lead to heavenly recognition.  Therefore he is careful not to discredit those works of love shown to God and to God’s people (verse 10).

The Christian Defined

The Apostle provides an excellent definition of the Christian in this chapter. The Christian is one who has been enlightened, has tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, and has tasted the goodness of God’s word and the powers of the age to come. 

As light is the first evidence of God’s creative work in Scripture (Gen. 1:3), it is also the first gift of the new creature brought forth in baptism.

When the newly baptized receives the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion, he tastes the heavenly Gift.

In worship and in the fellowship of the Church, the Christian shares in the Holy Spirit and continues to taste the goodness of God’s word (divine promises and reproofs).

The Christian lives beyond earthly and fleshly aspirations since her heart is set on Christ’s eternal kingdom.

St. Paul draws on an analogy made by our Lord in the Parable of the Sower when he likens the Christian to land that drinks the rain and brings forth good fruit. He warns against becoming like land that produces thorns and thistles. Clearly, he doesn’t believe that the Hebrew Christians are that far gone because he goes on to say (verse 9): “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case.”

We are reminded of Paul’s great confidence in God’s power to preserve His inheritance, expressed throughout his writings.  To the Church at Philippi, he writes, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” Also consider Romans 8:35-38:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?  As it is written: ‘For your sake we face death all day long; we are as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God revealed to us in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Never Lose Hope

The Apostle is concerned that those experiencing trials and persecutions might grow discouraged and lose hope. He encourages them to endure to the end as Christ himself faced suffering and was faithful to the end.

Paul experienced tribulations and persecutions and would have recognized how perseverance gives hope to other suffering Christians.  He wants the Hebrew Christians to “imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what is promised.” (verse 12)

Hope is described as “an anchor of the soul” (verse 19), a symbol of hope and provision for both the Greeks and the Hebrews. It functions to stabilize a storm-tossed ship.  The anchor within a circlet or diadem was a Hellenistic symbol of kingship.

From archaeological discoveries, we know that the anchor was a symbol of deified rulers among the Egyptian rulers of Phoenicia.  It has been found with the Egyptian ankh symbol in excavations at ancient Tyre and Sidon.  The word anchor is related to the Egyptian word ankh, meaning life.

In his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul warns them not to be tossed to and from, and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” but instead to “grow up into Him who is the Head, that is, Christ.” (Eph. 4:14,15)

The hope that we have as “an anchor for the soul” is Jesus Christ whose death, resurrection and ascension establish us firmly and securely in the heavenly realms where He is seated at the Father’s right hand.

Resist Complacency and Sloth

Recognizing that complacency can come of persecution and exhaustion, Paul urges them to be diligent to the end in order to secure their hope.  He writes (verse 12), “We do not want you to become lazy/slothful.”  The Greek word is nōthroi, and can be translated “dull” as in dull of hearing or deaf.

As is often the case with Paul’s arguments, he uses Abraham as an example. He reminds his Jewish readers that “after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.”  Paul is thinking typologically here. Abraham received Isaac, the promised son, whose miraculous birth speaks of the miraculous birth of the Promised Son who Abraham and his Horite people expected to come into the world.  He is the “Seed of the Woman” and the focus of the first promise and prophecy of Scripture (Gen. 3:15).  So “waiting patiently” has a double meaning.  It refers both to Isaac’s birth and to Christ’s appearance, to the realized and to the yet-to-be fulfilled.  That Paul believed that Abraham expected the Seed to come into the world is made clear in Hebrews 4:2, which states, “For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they (the Horim) did.”

The Certainty of God’s Promises

The Apostle connects the certainty of God’s promises to God’s divine nature and eternal power (cf. Rom. 1:20).  He reminds his readers that “When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for Him to swear by, He swore by Himself…” (verse 13)  It is evident that God cannot lie, therefore “we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. (verse 18)

Paul reiterates the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis 22:17: “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.” (verse 14)  The Hebrew Christians, who were well acquainted with the genealogies of their Horim, would have understood that this was fulfilled in Abraham’s lifetime, for he lived to a ripe old age and had nine sons* and an unknown number of daughters. 

Reflecting on this promise, St. Irenaeus wrote, “the promise of God, which He gave to Abraham, remains steadfast… they which are of faith are the children of Abraham” (Against Heresies, Book V, chap. 32, no. 2)  In Romans 11:17, Paul states that Gentile believers are grafted into the faith of Abraham.

The immutable nature of God’s promises is expressed with regard to Christ’s eternal and pre-existent priesthood.  As our great high priest, He goes before us into the Holy of Holies behind the curtain. Here Paul strikes a contrast between the Aaronic priesthood and Jesus’ messianic priesthood, which by its nature is superior in power and efficacy. Jesus is declared “high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”



Melcizedek a Type of Christ

Melchizedek, the ruler-priest of Jerusalem (Salem), is one of the most fascinating figures of Genesis. His name - malkîtsedek - means righteous king. He is mentioned in Genesis 14, Psalm 110:4 and in Hebrews 7 and 8, where he is given much attention by the Apostle Paul.

It is clear from Genesis 14 that Melchizedek and Abraham were well acquainted. Both belonged to the Horite order of ruler-priests which practiced endogamy. In other words, they were kin. It is likely that Melchizedek was the brother-in-law of Joktan, Abraham's father-in-law.

Read more about Melchizedek's lineage here.

* Issac (Yitzak), son of sister wife Sarah; Joktan, Midian, Zimran, Midan, Ishbak (Yishbak) and Shuah, sons of cousin wife Keturah (Gen. 25); Ishmael (Yishmael), son of concubine Hagar, and Eliezar, son of concubine Masek (named in the Septuagint).

Paul to the Hebrew Christians: Hold fast the faith of your Horim

Alice C. Linsley

Hebrews speaks of the prophets, angels, Moses, Joshua, and the priesthood as types or patterns whereby the one true Prophet-Priest-King, Jesus Christ, may be discerned. Angels, being more glorious and powerful than humans, are higher than humans, but not higher than the God who took on flesh. He is higher than the angels, and by “putting on Christ” we also hope to share in His glory.

Jesus Christ is the one to whom all the types point in Hebrews.  He alone proved to be faithful over all the House of Israel. Moses was appointed a leader and he led some to the Promised Land, though he himself could not enter it.  Joshua and Caleb were the only leaders of that generation who were permitted to enter (Numbers 14:30), as they had, in a very real sense, stormed the strongholds of Canaan by faith. 

Even these faithful leaders died and remained in the grave, thereby proving that they had no power to save from death. That power rests with Jesus Christ alone, the perfect Leader. Hebrews 3:1 expresses it this way:  Jesus Christ is “the apostle and the high priest of our profession of faith” and as such, He is superior in every way to his servant Moses. 

As usual, Paul is telling the truth, and his words would have comforted some and discomforted others. For Jews of the first century the assertion of Jesus’ superiority to the prophets, angels and Moses would have been blasphemous. It would have stirred anger and incited violence against Christ’s Jewish followers. The Apostle is careful not to speak of Moses in a negative way. He simply asserts that Jesus is greater than Moses, as the master is greater than his servant.  Jesus is greater because He completed all his work at the foundation of the world. (Gen. 2:2)  Moses gave the Sabbath Law in order that the people might mimic God at rest, thereby identifying themselves with God.

Hebrews 4 brings to a conclusion the exhortation to not be like the generation that died in the Wilderness because they were not joined to the perfect Leader in faith. The Hebrew Christians are told to encourage one another so that none is hardened by the lure of sin “as at the Rebellion.” (Heb. 3:15) 

It is evident that the Apostle saw signs among the early Hebrew Christian of weakening and falling away from the faith of their Horim (Horite ancestors). The “Rebellion” is described in Numbers 14:22: … all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice…  Rebellion in the wilderness expressed itself in various ways. 

    The people grumbled about the hardships they faced. (Philippians 2:14)

     They resisted Moses’ leadership. 

     Some aligned themselves with Moses’ half-brother Korah who challenged Moses’ authority.

     They forgot all that God had done for them.

     They yearned for the garlic and onions of Egypt. Like Lot’s wife, they looked back instead of forward to the promise of rest in a land flowing with milk and honey.

In other words, they repeatedly tested God’s patience and because this was their pattern of life, they missed the day of opportunity.

Hebrews 4:1 is a reminder that it is never too late to receive the promise of rest/restoration/communion with God.  As long as one is alive, the promise is active and can be received. So the Apostle stresses, “Today is the day of salvation.” (Heb. 4:7)  Those in Christ are “heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29); and “This is the promise that He hath promised us, eternal life” (I John 2:25).

Doubtless, the tightly knit Jewish community applied pressure to those early Jewish Believers to conform to rabbinic Judaism. They would have felt this pressure from family, business associates, and local synagogue members. Many would have played the guilt card, suggesting that the Believer had abandoned the “traditions of the Horim” (Fathers), when the rabbis themselves had abandoned the Faith of their Horim (Horites).

Without directly attacking the falsehoods of the rabbis, the Apostle explains: For unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (Heb. 4:2)

Moses and his father were Horites, according to evidence of Scripture. They believed that heavenly recognition of a people depended on the righteousness of their ruler-priest who represented the entire community/clan/tribe/caste. As Archbishop Royster writes in his excellent commentary on Hebrews, “The promises of God were made to His people as a nation or community, although each member, to be sure, had his personal responsibility for maintaining his faith, as was the case with Joshua and Caleb.” (p. 59)

Horite ruler-priests were known for their purity and devotion to the High God whose emblem was the Sun. Many Horite names contained the hieroglyph for the Sun which was a circle.  This was true for Joshua, whose original name was Oshea. Justin Martyr asks the Jews in his Dialogue with Trypho why they attached prophetic importance to Abraham’s name change, but ignored the significance of Oshea becoming Yeshua.  In the first name God was symbolized by the Sun and its properties; i.e., universal light, warmth, revealer of all things (Eph. 5:13, 14) and sustainer of life.  The Sun speaks of God’s rule above in the heavens. In the name Yeshua, the Y speaks of God’s rule on Earth in the person of His Perfect Ruler. In the Dedanite language of Abraham and his ancestors, the Y was a hieroglyph showing the Sun resting on the top of a tent peg.  The tent peg represented the ruler’s residence on Earth and the Sun indicates his divine appointment. In others words, Yeshua has the same meaning as Emmanuel.

Plutarch wrote that the “priests of the Sun at Heliopolis never carry wine into their temples, for they regard it as indecent for those who are devoted to the service of any god to indulge in the drinking of wine whilst they are under the immediate inspection of their Lord and King. The priests of the other deities are not so scrupulous in this respect, for they use it, though sparingly.”

In the ancient world, the ruler-priest was regarded as the mediator between God and the people.  If God turned His face away from the ruler, the people suffered from want and war.  If the ruler found favor with God, the people experienced abundance and peace. The righteous ruler was expected to intercede for his people in life and in death. The ruler's resurrection meant that he could lead his people beyond the grave to new life. This is why great pains were taken to insure that the ruler not come into contact with dead bodies, avoid sexual impurity, and be properly preserved after death.  The ruler's burial was attended by prayers, sacrifices and a grand procession to the royal tomb. The nation hoped that the ruler would rise from the grave, but none did, save Jesus Christ.

This is why Psalm 68:18 says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” (Eph. 4:8; Col. 2:15)

Hebrews speaks about Jesus as the perfect ruler-priest who was the firstborn from the grave. By his resurrection He delivers to the Father a "peculiar people." (I Peter 2:9) In Isaiah 43:21, we read these words from God, “This people have I formed for myself.” Christ leads us in the ascent to the Father where we receive heavenly recognition because we belong to or are united to Him.

This Pauline theology is echoed in Galatians 3:16, 29: Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Christ…. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.


Heavenly recognition for the Horites was never an individual prospect.  As Archbishop Royster writes, “God’s rest was designed to be shared by those who are created in His image, human beings, and this is promised from the beginning.” (p. 60)  Hebrews 4 takes us back to Genesis 1:26, 27. Having made “them” in the Divine image, the Creator gave them rule (“dominion”) over all the earth.  The Horites took this very seriously, some ruling wisely and some ruling ruthlessly, but not one of them proved to be the Seed of the Woman who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15).


Heavenly recognition came to the people through the righteousness of their ruler-priest. Even the best ones failed to be the Ruler-Priest who rose from the dead. Therefore, none had the power to deliver captives from the grave and to lead them to the throne of heaven (Ps. 68:18; Ps. 7:7; Eph. 4:8).  That one true prophet-ruler-priest is Jesus, the Son of God and Abraham’s Seed.

The Hebrew Christians were torn between continuing in this, the true faith of their Horim, or returning to the familiar legalism of first century Judaism and the approval of their families and community elders. Failure of faith in the Son of God parallels the failure of the Israelites in the wilderness.  To receive Christ and then to cast Him aside is an act of rebellion.

Related reading:  The Afro-Arabian Dedanites; Abraham and Job: Horite Rulers; Moses' Horite Family; Frank Moore Cross: Israel's God is the God of the Horites