Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Faber

All of the Old Covenant commands are obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)

Recommended Posts

The only commands from the Old Covenant that are binding on the Christian are those that have been repeated in the New Covenant.

 

 

Hebrews 8:13

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB)

 

The Greek word for "obsolete" is palaioō.

 

1. BDAG (3rd Edition): treat the first covenant as obsolete Hb 8:13a (palaioō, page 751).

2. J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida: to cause to become old and obsolete, and hence no longer valid -'to make old, to make out of date.' 'by speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one out of date' He 8.13 (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 67:103, palaioō, page 643).

3. NIDNTT: Heb. 8:13 takes up the promise of the new covenant of Jer. 31:31-35: "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete [pepalaōiken]. And what is becoming obsolete [palaioumenon] and growing old [gēraskon] is ready to vanish away." This is entirely God's work. Seeing that God in Christ makes a new covenant, the old covenant of the law has become obsolete. In Christ the first can be regarded only as old and fulfilled (2 Cor. 3:14) (2:716, Old/One, H. Haarbeck).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
The only commands from the Old Covenant that are binding on the Christian are those that have been repeated in the New Covenant.

 

 

Hebrews 8:13

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB)

 

The Greek word for "obsolete" is palaioō.

 

1. BDAG (3rd Edition): treat the first covenant as obsolete Hb 8:13a (palaioō, page 751).

2. J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida: to cause to become old and obsolete, and hence no longer valid -'to make old, to make out of date.' 'by speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one out of date' He 8.13 (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 67:103, palaioō, page 643).

I agree that the Old Covenant is obsolete for believers in Messiah Yeshua. However, do not confuse the OC and Torah as one and the same. The OC contains Torah, but it is not Torah. The OC was a covenant, not a law. The Torah that existed externally under the OC is now internalized under the NC since it is now written on hearts and minds (Jeremiah 31:33). The English word "law" in Jeremiah 31:33 is "Torah" in the Hebrew text.

 

3. NIDNTT: Heb. 8:13 takes up the promise of the new covenant of Jer. 31:31-35: "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete [pepalaōiken]. And what is becoming obsolete [palaioumenon] and growing old [gēraskon] is ready to vanish away." This is entirely God's work. Seeing that God in Christ makes a new covenant, the old covenant of the law has become obsolete. In Christ the first can be regarded only as old and fulfilled (2 Cor. 3:14) (2:716, Old/One, H. Haarbeck).

You are correct in that Hebrews 8:13 takes up the promise of the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-35. One of the primary promises in that passage is writing Torah inwardly.

 

BDB definition for "Torah":

1) law, direction, instruction

1a) instruction, direction (human or divine)

1a1) body of prophetic teaching

1a2) instruction in Messianic age

1a3) body of priestly direction or instruction

1a4) body of legal directives

1b) law

1b1) law of the burnt offering

1b2) of special law, codes of law

1c) custom, manner

1d) the Deuteronomic or Mosaic Law

 

Strong's Definition:

From H3384; a precept or statute, especially the Decalogue or Pentateuch: - law.

 

Even though you understand the OC to be obsolete, you still keep many of the laws that were part of it. You are mistaken to believe any particular law is no longer binding simply because it is not repeated in the NT. For example, are NC believers permitted to have sex with animals? I don't see that command repeated in the NT.

Share this post


Link to post
You are mistaken to believe any particular law is no longer binding simply because it is not repeated in the NT. For example, are NC believers permitted to have sex with animals? I don't see that command repeated in the NT.

 

You are mistaken because the New Covenant does forbid such action.

1. NIDNTT: In the Pauline writings the word-group pornē denotes any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse (1:500, Discipline, H. Reisser).

2. TDNT: The NT is characterised by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse (6:590, pornē, Hauch, Schulz).

3. Louw/Nida: to engage in sexual immorality of any kind (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 88.271, porneuō, page 771).

4. William Mounce: The word group to which porneia belongs generally relates to any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse - that is, sexual immorality or fornication (KJV) (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Sexual Immorality, page 638).

5. Joseph Thayer: prop. of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, porneia, page 532).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

You are mistaken because the New Covenant does forbid such action.

1. NIDNTT: In the Pauline writings the word-group pornē denotes any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse (1:500, Discipline, H. Reisser).

2. TDNT: The NT is characterised by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse (6:590, pornē, Hauch, Schulz).

3. Louw/Nida: to engage in sexual immorality of any kind (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 88.271, porneuō, page 771).

4. William Mounce: The word group to which porneia belongs generally relates to any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse - that is, sexual immorality or fornication (KJV) (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Sexual Immorality, page 638).

5. Joseph Thayer: prop. of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, porneia, page 532).

So you are allowing for specific commands to fall under the category of a single word. I have no problem with that. It simply verifies that bestiality is still forbidden as are all the OC laws related to sex. I can do the same thing by using the word "law" in Romans 3:31 and Hebrews 8:10 as including all laws under the OC.

Share this post


Link to post

So you are allowing for specific commands to fall under the category of a single word. I have no problem with that.

 

Thus proving it is forbidden in the New Covenant.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Thus proving it is forbidden in the New Covenant.

 

 

Hi Faber,

 

You keep bringing up Hebrews 8:13: Saying this tells us the law was done away. Let's get the context of what Hebrews is saying:

 

Hebrews 8:10: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:”

 

Hebrews 8:11: “And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.”

 

Hebrews 8:12: “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.”

 

This is addressing a time after Christ comes back and rules the nations with a rod of iron. The iron rod will only be needed for a season. After the people start receiving the blessings of living according to God's will, they will joy in it. Eventually Hebrews 8:11 will become fact. Hebrews 11 has never been true in the history of mankind, and it still is not. Thus it is the millennial reign.

 

Think and pray about it.

 

Yours,

 

Deade

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Thus proving it is forbidden in the New Covenant.

 

 

Hi Faber,

 

You keep bringing up Hebrews 8:13: Saying this tells us the law was done away. Let's get the context of what Hebrews is saying:

 

Hebrews 8:10: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:”

 

Hebrews 8:11: “And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.”

 

Hebrews 8:12: “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.”

 

This is addressing a time after Christ comes back and rules the nations with a rod of iron. The iron rod will only be needed for a season. After the people start receiving the blessings of living according to God's will, they will joy in it. Eventually Hebrews 8:11 will become fact. Hebrews 11 has never been true in the history of mankind, and it still is not. Thus it is the millennial reign.

 

Think and pray about it.

 

Yours,

 

Deade

Sorry, that can't be true. It's for now, and today. See Hebrews 8:6. The better covenant which is built on better promises is for "now".

 

This new covenant is all Grace, it's All Jesus. The old covenant is, Thou Shall Not, Thou Shall Not, Thou Shall Not.... But this new and better covenant is God saying, " I will, I will, I will" and notice no mention of us keeping the 10 Commandments.

 

Paul compared the two covenants to marriage in Romans 7:1-3 and trying to start a new before ending the OLD is adultery. This is specifically talking about the 10 commandments.

 

Mixing the two covenants is like mixing new wine into old wineskins, Jesus said you'll be left with nothing. Or it's like mixing cold and hot getting lukewarm, and He said He'd spit you out.

 

The new covenant DOES NOT pertain to the OLD. It's not built on the OLD, has nothing in common with the OLD. Hebrews 8:9 the trouble comes when watering down the 10 Commandments by saying, " do your best to keep them" No where in Scripture does it say to try your best. It's says you must keep them perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post

I beg to differ with you Ransol. Hebrews 8:11 is a prophetic reference to the following: Jeremiah 31:33,34: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

 

Now, you go read Jeremiah chapter 30 and read through 31: you will see the time frame is after the Day of the Lord. Remember during Jeremiah's time Israel (the 10 Northern tribes) were long gone, carried away captive. If you pay close attention, God was talking about a different people than the Jews. God always call the Jews: Judah. The name Israel belongs to Ephraim and Manasseh (see Genesis 48:1-16). Israel is not lost to God, He knows exactly where they are. This all has to do with prophecy of our time.

Edited by deade
added word "you"

Share this post


Link to post
I beg to differ with you Ransol. Hebrews 8:11 is a prophetic reference to the following: Jeremiah 31:33,34: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

 

Now, you go read Jeremiah chapter 30 and read through 31: you will see the time frame is after the Day of the Lord. Remember during Jeremiah's time Israel (the 10 Northern tribes) were long gone, carried away captive. If you pay close attention, God was talking about a different people than the Jews. God always call the Jews: Judah. The name Israel belongs to Ephraim and Manasseh (see Genesis 48:1-16). Israel is not lost to God, He knows exactly where they are. This all has to do with prophecy of our time.

Sorry, still don't see it that way. Jeremiah 31:23 -34 is all one Prophesy. "After those days" in verse 33 is talking about what will happen AFTER verses 23 thru 28. The sour grapes mentioned in 29 and 30 is in reference to the curse of the law being passed on to the children for their fathers sins. Remember the wine vinegar they touched to Jesus' lips while hanging on the cross? That's where He broke that curse. Now, He will REMEMBER OUR SINS NO MORE.

 

Jeremiah 33:1-8. Same thing.

Jeremiah 23:1-8. Same thing. But notice in verse 8, that it happened about 70 years ago and is still happening.

 

 

Besides all that, Hebrews 8:6 says that NOW (that was 2000 years ago) He obtained (past tense) a more excellent ministry.

Share this post


Link to post
I beg to differ with you Ransol. Hebrews 8:11 is a prophetic reference to the following: Jeremiah 31:33,34: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

 

Now, you go read Jeremiah chapter 30 and read through 31: you will see the time frame is after the Day of the Lord. Remember during Jeremiah's time Israel (the 10 Northern tribes) were long gone, carried away captive. If you pay close attention, God was talking about a different people than the Jews. God always call the Jews: Judah. The name Israel belongs to Ephraim and Manasseh (see Genesis 48:1-16). Israel is not lost to God, He knows exactly where they are. This all has to do with prophecy of our time.

Jer. 23:8 was talking about Israel not Judah. 70 years ago Judah was reestablished. Read the last paragraph of my post, God does not mix up the two.

Edited by deade
Correct ref.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I'm sure God thinks just like you do, but what's your point in saying it was Israel and not Judah? How does that make it still a future happening and not current?

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, I'm sure God thinks just like you do, but what's your point in saying it was Israel and not Judah? How does that make it still a future happening and not current?

If you knew who Israel really is, you would know.

Share this post


Link to post

God is not talking to spiritual Israel here. Like you pointed out in the comment above, this is physical Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
God is not talking to spiritual Israel here. Like you pointed out in the comment above, this is physical Israel.

How do you figure that? Esp. sense Hebrews referred to the prophecy as being fulfilled NOW.

 

Do you not believe we are in a new covenant? Are we still under the law?

Share this post


Link to post
God is not talking to spiritual Israel here. Like you pointed out in the comment above, this is physical Israel.

Ransol, this is what you wrote in comment 12: "Jeremiah 23:1-8. Same thing. But notice in verse 8, that it happened about 70 years ago and is still happening."

 

In Jeremiah's time Israel was long gone. God was speaking to a physical Israel in that prophecy. It is not hard to understand. It is important to get the time frame of all prophecy.

 

Yes, I agree we are under a new covenant and not under the law.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but in verse 8, "all the countries I have driven them..." never in history did They go to multple countries until after Second temple destroyed, then they were driven all over. Before they were taken to Egypt or Babylon but never scattered all over. And so they have not been coming back from every country He has driven them until just for the past 70 years.

Share this post


Link to post
The Children of promise are Israel, which are us, here and now. Still don't see your point.

 

We are the children of promise now but what will happen after the rapture, when we are taken out of the world?

 

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Acts 1:6-8 ESV

 

The disciples wanted to know when the kingdom of Israel would be restored. Jesus didn't say they were wrong in expecting this. He only said that we are not to know or be concerned about when this will happen. Our job is to preach the gospel to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

 

We are the children of promise now but what will happen after the rapture, when we are taken out of the world?

 

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Acts 1:6-8 ESV

 

The disciples wanted to know when the kingdom of Israel would be restored. Jesus didn't say they were wrong in expecting this. He only said that we are not to know or be concerned about when this will happen. Our job is to preach the gospel to everyone.

 

I'm not too sure about this passage. On one hand it seems that He was saying that someday the Kingdom would be restored to Israel because He said it is not for you to know when. On the other hand it seems (by verse 8) He is saying The Kingdom inside you (Luke 17:21) when the Holy Spirit comes on you.

 

maybe He is saying both. I know the tribulation is for the Hebrews and many will be saved thru it, and He did promise if they overcame, they would rule with Him 1000 years. Also in Revelation we are told the New Jerusalem will come down at the end of the 1000 years.

 

interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually the when the disciples wanted to know when the kingdom of Israel would be restored, from Acts 1:6-8; was the prophecy in Ezekiel.

 

In Ezekiel 47:13 on through Ezekiel 48:29, it lists how the Holy Land will be divided among the 12 tribes of Israel. This prophecy was what they were pointing at. This is the real Israel, not just Judah. I have Judah blood in me, so I have nothing to gain but setting the record straight. Judah is of Israel, but not all of Israel. Just like bears all are mammals, but not all mammals are bears. :RpS_thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Best arguments for Covenant/Household Baptism

      Really short version by JTB.SDG:   1) The covenant promises to Abraham were about salvation in the fullest sense (Gen.17:7-8; NT scripture). "...to be God to you and to your descendants after you." This is the essence of God's covenant with Abraham; and if you get this, everything else falls into place (below).   2) The covenant promises were made not only to Abraham but also to his offspring (Gen.17:7-8). "I will be God" --not just to Abraham--But: "to you and to your descendants after you. . .I will be their God." The exact same promise that is made to Abraham is equally made to his descendants.   3) The covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of THAT salvation. The sign of the covenant represents what the covenant is. If the covenant is about salvation, the sign is about salvation. This means that circumcision wasn't actually an ethnic or national sign--it was a spiritual sign. a) Abraham was marked with circumcision to signify his faith only after he believed (Rom.4:11). True. So why infant baptism? Abraham believed FIRST, and then and only then did he receive the sign.   b) Because he was then to apply that same sign to his infant sons before belief was possible (Gen.17:7-8). The exact same sign that he only received AFTER believing, he was to mark his infant sons with at 8 days old. It's what God commanded. Adult-circumcision for Abraham; but infant circumcision for his sons.       4) New Testament believers have entered into the SAME covenant promises made to Abraham (Rom.11:17 makes it clear there was not an OT tree and separate NT tree, but we are grafted into the same tree begun with Abraham). Galatians 3 and other Scripture make it really clear that the promises made to Abraham are GOSPEL promises that extend also to us as NT believers. Our only hope as NT believers are the covenant promises made to Abraham.   5) The NT Scriptures confirm that those covenant promises still extend to our children (Acts 2:39; household baptisms in the NT; and think about 1Cor.7:14--children of believers are "holy"--in what sense? Are they automatically saved? No. In the sense that they are "set apart" from unbelieving children. How set apart? They are part of the covenant--the same pattern as OT children).   6) THUS, our infant children should continue to be marked with the covenant sign.   IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS:   7) This doesn't mean that all Abraham's children (or ours) will be saved: this is by faith alone (cf. Ishmael, Esau; Rom.9:6-8, etc).   8) But it does mean that our children are included in the covenant and should receive the sign.   So--a question for you--I would love to hear. What about this would you object to?

      in Covenant/Household Baptism

    • What About Hebrews 6?

      Hebrews 6 is one of the most difficult passages of Scripture to understand, mainly because we don’t know who wrote the book or the circumstances surrounding its writing. If we knew, for instance, that the author was writing to people who had fallen in among the Judaizers like those in Galatia, he would be making an argument against salvation by the law. For someone to turn again to the law would be to reject everything he had received under the Gospel. The grace he had received in the Spirit would have no meaning. And not only that, once he returned to the law, there would be no redemption left for him; what the Cross could not do for him, the law certainly could not do. This may be what the writer meant by saying such a person would crucify again for himself the Son of God and put Him to open shame. By turning to the law, he would make a sham of the Cross, and no redemption would be available under a works Gospel.   This is a possible interpretation of the text. However, the writer also could be referring to apostates, to those who were members of the visible church but fell away from the faith and, thus, proved they never were part of the true church, as 1 John 2:19 says. If this is the right interpretation, we need to deal with the language of verses 4 and 5 in connection with an unbeliever. Let’s see if this can be done.   First, the text describes these apostates as those who have understood the Gospel and believed it to be true, which is possible for an unbeliever. Second, they have tasted the heavenly gift. This could mean partaking of the Lord’s Supper, something else an unbeliever can do. Third, they have become partakers of the Holy Spirit. This could mean they have some experience with the gifts of the Spirit, which can occur in unbelievers, or they were simply part of the Christian community living in the Spirit’s presence. Fourth, they have witnessed the signs and wonders that accompanied the Gospel, another action that is possible for unbelievers. Last, it says that they could not be renewed to repentance, implying that they once had repented. We know from the case of Esau that a person can have false repentance. If Hebrews 6 is talking about an apostate, then he will become so hardened in his sin that he has no hope of salvation—a sober reminder to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith.

      in Bible Study

    • Need help with an apologetics question re: Old Covenant

      I was talking with a somewhat liberal Catholic who has also attended the Eastern Orthodox for a period of time.  He said that he didn't believe in the Catholic notion that if you commit one mortal sin you go to hell, but that there was certainly greater and lesser sins.  I said that I believed all sins were mortal in a sense, in that we all deserve hell for our sins. He said that if that were the case, then Christians would be worse off then under the Old Covenant where you could sacrifice animals to atone for sin and Gentile God-fearers could be saved.  I asked what was the point of Jesus coming and dying if some of us could be a sinner that was "not really that bad", but beyond that I blanked out on how to answer his point.   Any input would be greatly appreciated if only so I can answer myself in my own mind. 🙂

      in Apologetics and Theology

    • Ken Ham Opens Ark Of The Covenant Encounter, Thousands Dead

      WILLIAMSTOWN, KY—Answers in Genesis' famed Ark Encounter has taken the evangelical world by storm, allowing believers from all over the world to tour what Noah's Ark might have looked like. The post Ken Ham Opens Ark Of The Covenant Encounter, Thousands Dead appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • Biblical Theology Set to Music: ‘Hebrews’ by Psallos

      Composers have been adapting and setting Scripture to music for centuries. The more poetic passages, such as from the prophetic books and the Psalms, are the most common sources. But narrative passages, too, have inspired grand works, like the Passion oratorios of Bach. As for treatments of whole books, some admirable examples from the last decade are The Book of Jonah by David Benjamin Blower and The Lamb Wins and The King Dreams by the Lesser Light Collective, musical retellings of the books of Revelation and Daniel, respectively. What to my knowledge has never been attempted is a systematic musical adaptation of an entire epistle—that is, until Psallos came onto the scene in 2015 with their first full-length album, Romans, which was followed up in 2017 by Hebrews. Music Interpreting Scripture A collective of musicians associated with Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, Psallos exists to help “clarify Scripture through music” that is both “artistically excellent and theologically rich.” The group is led by Cody Curtis, a doctor of musical composition and the writer behind all the songs. Curtis’s approach is not “let’s take these words and put pretty music around them” but rather “let’s use music to exegete these dense passages in an imaginative way.” The notes are not just ornamenting the words but actually interpreting them, drawing out their meaning—as are the other musical tools like tempo, rhythm, style, mode, and timbre. Hebrews is a 90-minute art music composition for vocals, folk rock band, and chamber orchestra (listen on Spotify). The overall feel is of a Broadway musical, as the album draws listeners into a dramatic world with a lush orchestral score that moves through different moods. Strings, winds, and brass combine with piano, guitars, and drums to accompany lead singers Thomas Griffith and Kelsie Edgren, who show amazing versatility, pulling off both quirky and grandiose. While the predominant musical style is orchestral folk, the 27 tracks also encompass bluegrass, hot jazz, rock, slow hip-hop, Irish dance, minimalism, and electronic. And then there are moments when the music gives way to sounds of live theater, such as introductory remarks, ambient noise, and spoken dialogue. Discerning the form of the biblical letter was the first step to composing Hebrews, Curtis said, as that would determine the musical structure. He then spent time studying the book’s themes and literary features, with the aid of a New Testament professor at Union. The author of Hebrews, Curtis found, uses the rhetoric of argument and debate as well as exhortation, with theological exposition running throughout. The quality is thus sermonic. The key themes—Christ is better, the old is gone, the new has come, endure in faith—are all underscored musically. The first song, “Heaven and Earth,” swells and then bursts on the words “Son” and “better,” and it ends on an unresolved musical phrase: “Christ is better than the.” This anticipates the final song, where a list is given of all the people and things that Christ is better than: the angels, the prophets, Moses, the Levites and their offerings and prayers. Eclectic Yet Cohesive One of the hallmarks of Hebrews is its simultaneous eclecticism and cohesiveness. Connectivity between tracks is established through recurring musical motives and reprises. For example, there are five warnings, all scored with the same beating piano and agitated strings, suggesting a severe tone. Some of the titles bear further clues of linkage, like “Wandered” and “Wondered,” which each sets an Old Testament citation, the one bleak (“They shall not enter my rest,” 3:11), the other hopeful (“I will be merciful toward their iniquities,” 8:12). “Peace on Earth . . .” is reprised in “. . . For Heaven’s Sake” because these two texts function as bookends, framing the central narrative about Jesus as high priest and offering; the anthemic “hold fast our confession” is doubly present (4:14, 10:23). One of the main musical themes, and perhaps my favorite, is “Before the Throne of God Above.” Charitie Lees Bancroft’s 19th-century hymn text is known today mostly from Vikki Cook’s congregation-friendly tuning of it, which is beautiful in itself, but the Psallos tune is grander, more elevated, transporting. It glimmers faintly at the end of the second warning and is then progressively developed, instrumentally, until the album closes with a full voicing. These aren’t the only familiar hymn lyrics that appear. “Angels We Have Heard on High” receives a lyrical revision, and “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” is likewise adapted, in a jarring manner, in “The Old.” Incarnation, Ascension, and the Triumph of the New Among the several theological doctrines the album explores are the incarnation and the ascension. The song “Ex Paradiso” quotes Fauré’s Requiem, a mass for the dead, but changes In paradisum deducant te angeli (“May angels lead you to paradise”) to Et perducant te angeli ex paradiso (“And angels lead him out of paradise”). Whereas the musical source pertains to the ascent of the souls of believers into heaven, Psallos marries that majestic tune to Hebrews 2:5–18, making it about Christ, who descended to earth so that we can ascend to heaven. At the end, a spoken word in Christ’s voice: “Goodbye, heaven! Hello, earth.” Then, nine tracks later, we hear “Goodbye, earth,” which tags the beginning of the next track: “Hello, heaven!” Here Jesus returns to his exalted position on high (8:1). The climax of Hebrews is “Two Mountains,” a reference to Sinai (representing the old) and Zion (representing the new). The “long ago” theme from the beginning returns, dark and shadowy, but it builds and then breaks; the shadows lift, and the Zion theme enters, bright, triumphant. Contemporary Masterpiece I don’t think I’m exaggerating to say Hebrews is a contemporary masterpiece. The level of sophistication and intentionality executed on such a large scale is astounding. Curtis employs a musical vocabulary that’s much wider than what most Christian artists employ, and it serves the biblical text so well. My small group has been studying Hebrews, and we’re doing so in conjunction with this album. Listening to the book sung in such an intricately crafted manner enhances our understanding and appreciation of its truths, which, having settled into our ears and hearts, we won’t soon forget. What a gift to the church. Related: Paul’s Letter to the Romans Set to Music (Trevin Wax) How One Church Is Making Scripture Sing (Chris K. Davidson) View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.