# Hebrews 8 last verse and why Hebrews is anonymous



## Eoghan (Sep 25, 2011)

As I came to the end of Hebrews 8 I was again struck by the way in which the end of the Temple is anticipated. We know it was prophesied by Daniel, foretold by Jesus and almost certainly taught by Stephen. Anyone who spoke against the Temple was guilty of a capital offense in first century Israel. Could this be the reason that it was officially anonymous but unofficially known to be Paul?


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 25, 2011)

None of the books of the New Testament mention the destruction of the temple as a past event.


----------



## MW (Sep 25, 2011)

The temple was destroyed in the death of Jesus, and raised to newness of life and service in His resurrection. John 2; Romans 6; 1 Corinthians 12.

The New Testament doesn't speak of the material destruction of the building at Jerusalem in AD 70; that building ceases to be significant with the coming of Christ.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 26, 2011)

Hi Pastor Winzer:

I would be interested to see how you exegete Matthew 24:1-2? Do you think that Jesus is talking about Himself?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> I would be interested to see how you exegete Matthew 24:1-2? Do you think that Jesus is talking about Himself?



In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus Christ is presented to us as the son of David, the son of Abraham. He recapitulates in Himself the covenant history of Israel. He is portrayed, especially in this Gospel, as the true Israelite who keeps covenant with God and inherits the promises on behalf of His people. He is the Seed of Abraham through whom all nations are blessed and the Son of David who reigns forever over the nations of the world.

Chapter 23 has concluded with woe. How Christ would have gathered the people as a hen gathers its chicks. Here He reveals Himself as the true temple, the place where God's people find shelter under His wings, c.f. Ps. 61:4. The Jews trusted in the temple building, not the house made without hands. They rejected the true temple. This is important to keep in mind coming into the passage in question. Having rejected the true temple, they are left without protection. Their house is left unto them desolate, just as in the exile.

The disciples, in 24:1, manifest the usual attitude of the day. They take pride in the buildings which had thus far taken forty six years to construct. They presume upon God's presence in the midst of Israel for the assurance that she will be protected. Christ answers them in language which cannot be misconstrued. The temple is ineffectual to save this city from the judgment of God. Verse 2 is Christ's correction of their wrong attitude. "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Does He mean that there will be a physical casting down of each stone of the material building which they beheld? or is it a reference to the temple in its theological significance as the symbol of God's presence unifying the people? Surely the latter. Having rejected the precious corner-stone which God has chosen to be the foundation of His people, there is no security left in this physical symbol of God's presence. When the reality is cast aside, the type and shadow loses its efficacy. "Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder," was the solemn declaration of 21:44.

"No stone on another" declares the ineffectual existence of the temple. The people might have wondered if Jeremiah had come back to haunt them. The whole scene is something of a re-enactment of Jeremiah 7. There the people had trusted in the lying words of their leaders: "the temple of the Lord," chanted three times like a magical formula; but they would not amend their ways. God charges them with making His house of prayer a den of robbers, and declares that He will cast them out of His sight. In verse 29 "O Jerusalem" is called upon to lament her desolation "for the Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of His wrath." Matthew has recorded for us the Jerusalem of above taking up a lament for the desolate Jerusalem of below; c.f. Gal 4:21-31.

In the little apocalypse, Christ is forthtelling the exile of the people. He is not foretelling, but forthtelling. Not predicting, but prophesying. It is not with regard to future events that He speaks, but to the covenant realities which are tied to His own person and work. His death signalled the destruction of the temple. The rulers, the Jews, and the Gentiles, by God's predetermined council, crucified the Lord of glory. They destroyed, not the mere symbol of God's reigning presence among His people, but the reality. Ah, but it is raised up again. He that sits in Heaven has laughed at their trifling plans. God has held them in derision and installed His King on Zion hill. The old economy is passed, behold, the new has come. Christ has triumphed over principalities and powers, and made an open show of them. Not the symbol, but the actual reigning presence of God now fills all things. He has been raised up to the highest heaven far above the principalities and powers which conspired to destroy Him. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Him. Not only is He the Lord of Israel, He is the King of all the nations. The universal struggle for dominion is resolved in His person and work. That age-long battle vividly portrayed in the visions of Daniel has been won by one like a Son of Man. He has triumphed and ascended the heavenly throne, with all things put under His feet. It is upon this note that the Gospel's recapitulation of covenant history ends. It is upon this note that Jesus sends forth His disciples, not to the tribes of Israel only, but to all nations. His presence is with His servants to the end of the world.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 26, 2011)

Rev. Winzer,

Are the two understandings mutually exclusive? I suppose my question appears in all sorts of discussions here. When the minor prophets warned of the coming judgment, were they speaking of the coming destruction by the Babylonians and Assyrians, or the final judgment of the world? Is Song of Songs about Christ and the Church or a human marriage? 

Even if one of the two understandings is _primary_, does that rule out the other view? I'm wholeheartedly with you that the heart of Christ's words is exactly as you say. Yet, given the physical destruction of that earthly temple just a generation after Christ, how can we say that Christ was not, in any sense, foretelling it? That seems a difficult negative to prove.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 26, 2011)

> Are the two understandings mutually exclusive? I suppose my question appears in all sorts of discussions here. When the minor prophets warned of the coming judgment, were they speaking of the coming destruction by the Babylonians and Assyrians, or the final judgment of the world?


"Understandings" bothers me because there can be only one interpretation of a verse. However, that does not rule out that _different times_ might be in view. A proximate fulfillment (captivity) and the longer-term fulfillment of these prophecies. A key here is how you are defining prophecy: a kind of Biblically-endorsed soothsaying? Or the bringing of God's word to His people? The distinction is critical, because those trying to make a symbolic connection between a specific verse in a prophecy and a future event are missing two things: 1. That the warnings of the prophets, given to God's people within the covenant, shout at us today to be wary of our own idolatry and apostasy. 2. That prophecy is about a person, Jesus, not an event.


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> Are the two understandings mutually exclusive? I suppose my question appears in all sorts of discussions here. When the minor prophets warned of the coming judgment, were they speaking of the coming destruction by the Babylonians and Assyrians, or the final judgment of the world? Is Song of Songs about Christ and the Church or a human marriage?
> 
> Even if one of the two understandings is _primary_, does that rule out the other view? I'm wholeheartedly with you that the heart of Christ's words is exactly as you say. Yet, given the physical destruction of that earthly temple just a generation after Christ, how can we say that Christ was not, in any sense, foretelling it? That seems a difficult negative to prove.



First, it is quite possible to have a proximate fulfilment prior to an ultimate fulfilment in the flow of history, but impossible to turn history back to front and make the proximate fulfilment follow the ultimate fulfilment. It is incongruous to apply Matt. 24 to the person and work of Jesus in an ultimate sense and then to apply it to the destruction of a physical building a little time later. The "proximate" fulfilment ends up being further away from the utterance than the "ultimate" fulfilment.

Secondly, the interpreter must reinvest "sacredness" in the temple in order to see the "abomination of desolation" in its material destruction in AD 70. Having done that, the interpretation I have presented is contradicted. The point, as I see it, is that our Lord was correcting the false impression of the disciples that this was a sacred place. One must assume the attitude of the disciples in order to see any validity in the 70AD interpretation.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 26, 2011)

> First, it is quite possible to have a proximate fulfilment prior to an ultimate fulfilment in the flow of history, but impossible to turn history back to front and make the proximate fulfilment follow the ultimate fulfilment. It is incongruous to apply Matt. 24 to the person and work of Jesus in an ultimate sense and then to apply it to the destruction of a physical building a little time later. The "proximate" fulfilment ends up being further away from the utterance than the "ultimate" fulfilment.



It would be wrong, by definition, to have the proximate fulfillment occur after the ultimate fulfillment. This is why I don't use those words. Using 'primary' and 'secondary' fulfillment, that tension is relieved, and timeline is of little consequence. 

The second argument, however, is both interesting and persuasive to me. Thanks.


----------

