The Shadows Unveiled: Christ and the Old Testament Cultus in Hebrews 5-10

Liberty University


A paper submitted to Dr. A. Boyd luter

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for

the course NBST 654

Liberty Theological seminary


William Mcpherson

Lynchburg, Virginia








JESUS THE FINAL AND TOTAL SACRIFICE……………………………………………………………….11





                Nothing puts many Christians asleep faster than a discussion of the book of Leviticus; just a cursory reading of all of the sacrifices, ceremonies, and rituals often leaves many believers bewildered and wondering how any of it applies to their faith. When Jesus is presented as the great high priest of a better covenant, who is himself a sacrifice, many Christians just yawn and look for something more practical to read. This attitude may be prevalent in the modern church, but it is an attitude of ignorance, and even a bit of arrogance.

To the audience of the letter to the Hebrews, the allusions to the priestly cultus would have had incredible meaning and importance. If, as is speculated, the audience is newly converted Jews who were in danger of apostasy; then the meanings of the priesthood, covenant, and the ultimate sacrifice would be as dear to them as the old rugged cross and the empty tomb are to the modern believer. The priesthood conveyed mediating with God, the covenant hearkened back to promises to Abraham, Moses, and David, and the sacrifices were fresh reminders of God’s mercy even in a midst of sinful ignorance or even rebellion. It was critical then, that the author of Hebrews show that Christ was the superior fulfillment to all of those institutions; to reject Christ would be a nostalgic step backward into shadows that were no longer present.

To attempt to capture his readers’ hearts and minds back toward Christ, the author of Hebrews argues that Christ’s work is shown clearly through the Old Testament cultus by his being the fulfillment of the high priesthood, the mediator of a better covenant, and the unblemished sacrifice in Hebrews 5-10. Jesus Christ was the one with whom they would have to put their hope in a midst of their suffering and trials; the Old Testament law and its cultus could never save them in the first place.


            Hebrews 4:14-16 introduces the concept of Jesus as the great high priest who is able to sympathize with those who are tempted (as the readers were) to give in while enduring adversity. As Leon Morris points out, “The main point is that, though Jesus did not sin, we must not infer that life was easy for him. His sinlessness was…an earned sinlessness as he gained victory after victory in the constant battle with temptation that life in this world entails.”[1] This character of triumphant endurance in Jesus Christ allows him to identify with the readers and to accurately mediate the reader’s trials and tribulations before God.

Hebrews 5:1-5 then gives an description of the high priesthood as is defined by the Mosaic law through the Aaronic line of priests. F.F. Bruce summarizes the verses, “Our author makes two points about the general qualifications which any high priest must satisfy…(a) able to sympathize with those he represents, and (b) divinely appointed to his office.”[2] Verses one through three highlight the first reference and then verses four and five feature the second.

The Aaronic priesthood was said to be one where the high priest can sympathize with his people because he too was afflicted with weakness and had to offer sacrifices for his sins. Thus, the high priest could show patience and forbearance with even the most ignorant of offenders. Harold Attridge remarks, “The high priest can act with moderation because, like the people for who he functions, he too is characterized by weakness…The weakness with which the high priest is beset is simply a function of his humanity.”[3] However, Attridge also points out that this moderation is not extended to those who willfully sin, like the apostates soon to be discussed in chapter six.[4]

In verse four, the second qualification is discussed, that of a priesthood by appointment from God. Aaron was called by God to be the high priest under the Mosaic law; in order for Christ to also be the high priest, he had to have a calling from God. It is here that the author of Hebrews introduces quotes from Psalm 2 and Psalm 110; in reality, this is the second time the author quotes Psalm 2:7 and the first time (but not the last time) he will quote Psalm 110:4. George Guthrie has some thoughts on the usage of both verses, “The reiteration of this quotation (Psalm 2:7) is as the author is launching the second major movement of his Christological exposition,” in other words this basically a bookend with Hebrews 1:5, ” (about Psalm 110:4) A key element in this regard…is that the king has been proclaimed a ‘priest forever.’ Thus, the writer of Hebrews understands the verse to be an indirect typological prophecy about Jesus’ appointment to a unique form of priesthood.”[5] Because Psalm 110 is linked to Christ and is considered a messianic psalm, then Christ is then identified with the priesthood of the mysterious Old Testament figure Melchizidek. For now, the subject is tabled until chapter seven.

What then follows in Hebrews 5:7-10 is a short description of how Jesus has met both of these requirements. Jesus also was one who lifted up prayers and cries when he was in his trials, but he also submitted to the will of the Father. Thus, he learned, or experienced rather, obedience by his willingness to suffer and thus came out of his trials perfect and blameless. As will be demonstrated later, this was necessary for him to be offered up as the sacrifice of permanent atonement. Thus, Jesus’ priesthood was not for his own benefit but for the sake of all who would believe on him. Gareth Cockerill explains, “Thus the obedience of the Son by which he became the adequate Savior not only atoned for their sin but provided for their obedience.”[6] Jesus Christ has thus been proven to be sympathetic and appointed by the divine call of the Father; this is not for his own benefit but for the benefit of those who are his disciples to the glory of God the Father.

The author takes a exhortation intermission in chapter six to warn his hearers not to become lax or to turn away from the faith; he chides them for still being baby believers and takes it upon himself to help them to grow up by picking up the discussion of Jesus’ priesthood after the vein of Melchizidek in chapter seven.

In Hebrews 7:1-10, the order of Melchizidek is given credence by a rehashing of the story from Genesis 14:18-20. Abraham had just come back from defeating the five kings who had embarrassed the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah; he did so to rescue his nephew Lott. Before he is greeted by the grateful kings, another king-priest named Melchizidek arrives on the scene who is from Salem and is a priest of the Most High God. Abraham shows due reverence for Melchizidek and gives him a tenth of the spoils from the battle. This small story, when connected with the rest of the author’s argument, is crucial for demonstrating the superior priesthood of Christ.

The author of Hebrews tells the end of the story and then gives the meanings to Melchizidek who is king of righteousness and also king of peace. Donald Hagner writes, “The parenthetical explanation of the meaning of Melchizidek and Salem is important because of the appropriateness of titles of describing Christ who is preeminently king of righteousness and peace.”[7] He then moves on to describe how Melchizidek has no origins and no ending to his life as far as the text is concerned. This gives Melchizidek divine qualities that make him similar in nature to Jesus Christ. Donald Guthrie points out the significance, “Unlike the Aaronic priests for who Levitical descent was essential for eligibility to hold office, the order of Melchizidek is a wholly different kind…He stands mysteriously apart from all need to establish his genealogy. For this reason he is again admirably suited to be compared with Jesus Christ.”[8]

Having pointed out the obvious quality of Melchizidek from the text, the author then moves in verses four through ten to show how superior Melchizidek was to Abraham, and thus to Levi who was yet to be born and was still in Abraham’s loins when this event occurred. This is incredibly important, because if Melchizidek is greater than Abraham, then by default, he would be greater than Levi to who the Aaronic priesthood is descended. George Buchanan sums up the argument succinctly, “Levi was considered ‘still in the loins of his father’ Abraham ‘when Melchizidek met’ Abraham. Therefore the collector of tithes (Levi) was himself tithed by Melchizidek, who is obviously greater. Then the point of the a fortiori argument is, ‘If Levi is great, how much greater is Melchizidek!'”[9] It is from this conclusion that the author will turn to tying Christ with Melchizidek’s line.

Jesus’ high priesthood has to be from another line than Aaron; it has to be from the line of Melchizidek. As the author points out, Jesus is descended from the tribe Judah and not from the tribe of Levi. The only way that Jesus the Christ can be the High Priest is if he is one of another covenant (discussed below) and covenants would change once a new priesthood was inaugurated. Melchizidek provides such a priesthood, and therefore the author of Hebrews seeks to connect his lineage with Jesus Christ through “the power of an indestructible life.” (v. 16) To reinforce this idea the author once again quotes Psalm 110:4. George Guthrie points out how this ties up the author’s argument, “First, that Jesus was appointed to high priesthood suggests that the regulations for worship…have been exchanged for something better…Second, the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood is demonstrated by God’s use of an oath in bringing about his appointment…the author understands this to imply that Jesus guarantees a better covenant.”[10]

In verses twenty-three through twenty-eight the author sums up his thoughts about how this new priesthood in Christ affects believers. Jesus the Christ is a permanent high priest; death cannot touch him, so he is reliable and is always in the midst of interceding for the troubled believers. He also is high and exalted; glorious in his holiness and has no need to atone for his sins because he offered his own life as a sinless atonement (discussed later). Jesus is thus, the perfect high priest appointed by God and far superior to the old priesthood that the readers are considering returning to. Gareth Cockerill confirms this,

This understanding implies no deficiency in the eternal Son. Yet by his having been perfected as the              Savior of God’s people through his incarnate obedience, he has fulfilled what was inherent in his sonship               and provided the ultimate revelation of God…It is as the ‘Son perfected forever’ that he is a High Priest so              suited for his people’s needs.”[11]



            This next section is the second part of the author’s argument and it concerns the new covenant brought in by Jesus the Christ. The means of this is still to be discussed at the end of chapter nine and beginning of chapter ten; the author is very patient with the development of his argument, though dropping hints here and there. F.F. Bruce introduces this section nicely, “As the Aaronic priesthood gives place to the priesthood after the order of Melchizidek, so the old covenant gives place to the new, the earthly sanctuary gives place to the heavenly, and sacrifices which were but temporary tokens give place to one which is effective and of eternal validity.”[12]

The author begins his argument with a discussion of the differences between the heavenly tent and the Tabernacle, which is the earthly tent. The earthly was a shadow or counterpart to the heavenly and it foreshadowed the revelation of the heavenly in the work of Jesus the Christ. Donald Hagner writes, “What took place in that ritual of the historical tabernacle only through pictures and symbols actually takes place in the sacrificial work of Christ. The work of our high priest, therefore, concerns not pictures or symbols, but ultimate reality–the reality of God himself.”[13]

The author then quotes a passage from Exodus 25:40 concerning the design of the tabernacle by Moses in accordance with what he saw on the mountain. George Guthrie gives further insight into the use of this passage, “Thus, Hebrews’ reference to the heavenly tabernacle, from which the earthly tabernacle was copied, concerns the permanent heavenly dwelling place of God over against the earthly tabernacle, which was merely temporary and provisional,” he continues further, “Jesus has established a new covenant that is lasting and involves the transformation of people as well as their transference to an eternal kingdom. Both are [a]ffected by the new covenant, a covenant that, according to Hebrews, was established by Christ’s superior sacrifice,” he concludes,  “That sacrifice, moreover, is superior in part because it was made in the true tabernacle in heaven.”[14]

The new covenant’s initiation by Christ is then introduced in verse six which is erected on better promises, since the old covenant was insufficient to accomplish eternal redemption and atonement. Harold Attridge comments, “That the first covenant was not beyond reproach is, like the Law’s ineffectiveness, inferred from a scriptural promise.”[15] Leon Morris adds, “The old covenant was lacking not so much in what its terms spelled out as in the fact that it was weak and unable to bring men to God.”[16] This new covenant is linked by the author to Christ through his recitation of Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the classic Old Testament hint of the new covenant, and for the author of Hebrews it proves that Christ is indeed the progenitor. Donald Guthrie explains how this new covenant was a breath of fresh air in the stale old covenant, “The word for new here points to something which is new in comparison with what has proceeded it, whereas the alternate adjective, applied to the same covenant…points to its freshness, compared to something old and worn out.”[17] George Guthrie comments on the importance of Jeremiah 31:31-34 to the author’s argument, “the author understands this rich passage in Jeremiah as a direct verbal prophecy, fulfilled by the inauguration of the new covenant in Christ’s sacrificial death and his triumphant exaltation to service as superior high priest,” he continues, “It is that new covenant, established by a superior offering, by which people can know God, have his law written on their heart and mind, and have their sins decisively forgiven.”[18]

The new covenant had been a long and earnest expectation of God’s people; not necessarily those who were devoutly religious. In Luke 2, one reads of Simeon and Anna, two common individuals who were yearning for the visitation of the Lord. This visitation or advent was linked with the establishing of a new covenant; those who became experts in the Law missed it, while those who simply hoped in the promises received it. The desire of many in Israel was that God would visit his people and bring them under his favor again; he did so in the person of Jesus the Christ. Christ’s work is what allowed the Law to be written on their hearts by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, and for their sins to be remembered no more. No wonder that the author of Hebrews points out how obsolete the old covenant is in verse thirteen. The consolation of Israel was found not in the Law, but in the fulfiller of the Law and initiator of the new covenant; the God-man, Jesus the Christ.

Chapter nine is a transition point and author now brings his argument about the new covenant to the thrilling conclusion he has been patiently building: the new priesthood of the new covenant entails a new sacrifice. Still not tipping his hand, the author begins a discussion of the rituals of the earthly tabernacle, particularly the most holy place, where only the high priest ministered. Donald Hagner explains, “In order to comprehend the significance of the work of Christ, it is essential to understand that which pointed to him. The first [covenant] was ordained by God as far as both regulations and place were concerned.”[19]

First, the author describes the room and the decor. There is a holy place with a lampstand, a table, and the bread of Presence; then there is the more important room, the most holy place which contained the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant. Inside the ark of the covenant, according to the author of Hebrews, was a golden urn with manna, Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets containing the ten commandments. Above the ark was the cherubim who overshadowed the mercy seat where the blood of the Yom Kippur sacrifices was sprinkled.

Second, the author zeroes in on the most holy place in verse six, for it is here that the most important activity in the earthly tent occurs. The high priest entered the most holy place twice on Yom Kippur; once for his sins and his family’s sins and then for the sins of all of Israel. Leon Morris describes the ritual, “To go into the Most Holy Place was dangerous; so the high priest had to safeguard himself by offering blood in the prescribed manner…His offering was ‘for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.’ Being a sinner himself, he had to atone for himself before he could minister on behalf of others.”[20]

Gareth Cockerill gives some clarification to the meaning of verses eight through ten, “Above all else, this description of ministry in the ‘earthly sanctuary’ reveals that ‘the way into the [heavenly] Sanctuary had not yet been disclosed while that First Tent still had validity.'”[21] He goes on to discuss that the first tent is a reference to the holy place not to the entire earthly tabernacle, since the heavenly sanctuary also has a most holy place. He then concludes, “With this understood, it becomes clear why the pastor says that the true heavenly ‘Sanctuary’ was not even ‘made known’ or revealed as long as the Holy Place and its rituals were in force. If the ‘Tent’ could not even give access to the inner ‘Tent,’ what would give access to heaven itself?”[22]

Verses nine and ten reveal that the old rituals were just filler until Christ’s work could be accomplished; all they could do was be a constant reminder of sin and impurity. They could not cleanse the conscience and the rituals themselves did not make a person right with God. The rituals always had to be accompanied by faith in God’s promises to provide that sacrificial lamb just he provided it for Abraham in place of Issac. Donald Guthrie shows how this is transition to the pinnacle of the author’s argument, “There seems to be in this next section a contrast between conscience and flesh, between the inward and spiritual and the outward and physical. The minute regulations were imposed, whereas in Christ a much more effective result is achieved by spiritual, not legal, means.”[23] With a hint about the change brought about in Christ in the “time of reformation (v.10), the author moves to his final argument concerning the sacrifice of Jesus being the sealing of the covenant and the ultimate expression of his priesthood.


            F.F. Bruce introduces this section nicely, “But now the time of reformation has arrived; what used to be ‘the good things to come’ are now ‘the good things that have come,’ ‘the good things in being.’ For Christ has appeared, and in him the shadows have given way to the perfect and abiding reality.”[24] The author of Hebrews now prepares for the summit of his teaching by talking about how the blood of sacrifices has been replaced by the sacrifice; the holy place replaced by the heavenly sanctuary. Leon Morris reinforces this, “The sacrifices of the old covenant were ineffectual. But in strong contrast Christ made an offering that secures a redemption valid for all eternity.”[25] It is blood that is necessary to make atonement for sins (v. 22), and if the blood of the sacrifices does not do the work, then it is Christ’s work that must complete the atonement.

The contrast between flesh and spirit mentioned above occurs in verses 13-14; if the sacrifices benefited the worshiper by cleansing them of physical defilement, how much more would the blood of Christ benefit the one who is sprinkled with it? According to verse fourteen, Christ’s blood has the power to “purify…conscience from dead works,” this is something the old covenant sacrifices could never do. Hagner affirms this, “But the incomparable superior blood of Christ brings about the reality of a far more significant cleansing. Christ offered himself unblemished to God, and this was done through the eternal spirit–a further indication of the categorical difference between the offering of Christ and those of the levitical priesthood.”[26]

Blood was needed to mediate both covenants; it was the blood of sacrifices in the old and the blood of Christ in the new. Jesus is introduced as the mediator and the one who has given those who believe on him the promised inheritance because of what he leaves behind through his death (the author uses the analogy of a legal will). The author then tells of another Old Testament event found in Exodus 24:3-8. In this passage, Moses has just inaugurated the Sinai covenant with the people of Israel, and took the blood of several sacrificed animals and sprinkled the Law and the people with the blood. The direct quote is from Exodus 24:8, and about this George Guthrie writes, “Very simply, the quotation from Exod. 24:8 serves to reinforce the idea that the covenants are established with blood sacrifice. The author is doing more than establishing a helpful analogy…The establishment of a covenant necessitates a sacrificial death, for cleansing and forgiveness come only with the shedding of blood.”[27]

Hebrews 9:23-28 is the summit of the letter to the Hebrews; chapter ten is just an elaboration of its theme. The earthly tabernacle had to constantly be purified and sin had to be constantly atoned for, year after agonizing year. However, with the appearance of Christ something amazing happens; Christ goes before God once and for all and accomplishes full and complete redemption.  Concerning this Harold Attridge notes, “The primary characteristic of self-offering here is its absolute singularity, emphatically proclaimed by ‘once’ an adverb used elsewhere in a traditional formula referring to Christ’s death and exaltation, but takes on special significance in Hebrews,” he continues, “This singular event has taken place at the decisive moment of history…The notion that Christ’s death is the decisive eschatological event is common in early Christianity.”[28] With sin dealt with in Christ’s singular sacrifice, there is nothing left to do but to actively and eagerly await his coming for those he has redeemed. Donald Guthrie writes, “The Christ who has dealt with sin at his first coming will appear a second time for a different purpose…the second coming is said to be for salvation. The second coming is in fact the divine seal on the complete acceptance of the sacrifice offered previously.”[29]

Chapter ten, as mentioned above, is the explication of Hebrews 9:23-28; what does it mean that Christ has offered his own blood sacrificially once and for all? Once again the author of Hebrews downplays the law with his shadow language and by reinforcing what he said earlier about the ineffectiveness of sacrifices and their inability to clear consciences. He finishes this discussion with the conclusion that sacrifices were just God’s way of reminding the Israelites of their sinfulness and helplessness and that those sacrifices could never and were never meant to take away sins. George Buchanan emphasizes the futility, “‘Every year’ the same kinds of offerings were offered in the same way ‘with [the] same remembrance of sins.’ After all these years…it was clear to the author that the method was ineffective. Blood is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, but ‘the blood of bulls and goats’…was ‘not able to remove sins.'”[30]

The quote from Psalm 40:6-8 is said to come from Christ; once again this is because the early church considered it partially messianic in origin. Thus, the author of Hebrews finds a prime proof-text for his argument concerning the futility of animal sacrifices. George Guthrie sees in this quote an emphasis on the discontinuity of the old and new covenants, the unsatisfactory success of the old covenant sacrifices, and Christ’s own obedience in offering himself as a sacrifice for sins.[31] F.F. Bruce observes,

In these words of Ps. 40, then, interpreted as our Lord’s declaration at his entry into the world , our author                    sees the abrogation of the old sacrifice cultus announced. The sacrifices in which God is said to take no      pleasure are the sacrifices prescribed by the ancient cultic law of Israel; now that entire law is to be        superseded by a new order.”[32]


Sanctification has been given through the death of Christ along with his sacrifice; what was ineffectual before has been made possible through Christ to all who put their faith on him.

The priests of the old covenant were always standing and constantly busy offering sacrifices. Not so with Jesus; after he finished his work he took a seat and is preparing to prop his feet up on the backs of his enemies. Verses twelve through thirteen are the fourth allusion to Psalm 110:1 and George Guthrie comments, “Christ demonstrates the finality of his sacrifice by sitting down at the right hand of God upon his exaltation. Now until the end of the age, when enemies will be placed under his feet, he waits.”[33] Christ is finished with sin and all of those who trust in him can also be finished with sin and become sanctified.

The author closes his thoughts on the subject with another quotation of Jeremiah 31:33-34 talking about how the new covenant will put the people’s hearts and minds on God’s laws, and as a result he will no longer remember their sin and rebellion. Gareth Cockerill summarizes the conclusion well, “this verse (v.18) is a powerful conclusion to the whole symphony. The removal of sin effected by Christ’s sacrfice is so complete that clears all rivals from the field.”[34] Jesus the Christ is the ultimate final sacrifice and without him there is no other offering acceptable for sin; with him there is no need to even worry about sin.



            Verses nineteen through twenty five speak of the confidence one should have if one has trusted in Christ; the kind of confidence that allows one to seek God, hold onto hope, and not to neglect gathering together as the household of God. Jesus the Christ is now not just a superior high priest; he is the only high priest. Jesus is now not just the guarantee of a superior covenant; he is the guarantee of the only covenant. Jesus is no longer a superior sacrifice for sin; he is the only sacrifice for sin. The author of Hebrews expertly uses the Old Testament to show the inferiority of the old covenant cultus, and at same time used that same Old Testament to prove the superiority of Christ’s priesthood, covenant, and sacrifice. There is not a more fitting use of God’s word than to point to the glory of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.

Some suggested reading for further study would include all of the sources mentioned but also would include the following titles: The Letter to the Hebrews from the Pillar Commentary by Thomas O’Brien, Hebrews: New Testament Commentary from the MacArthur Bible Commentary by John MacArthur, Hebrews from the Reformed Expository Commentary by Richard D. Phillips, and Hebrews: Ancient Encouragement for Believers Today by Edward Fudge just to name a few. The reader is also encouraged to look up Hebrews in some scholarly journals as well as to study the letter to the Hebrews for oneself with prayer and careful hermeneutics.




Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews: a Commentary On the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia.             Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.


Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans   Publishing Company, 2012. Kindle Edition.


Buchanan, George. To the Hebrews. The Anchor Bible Commentary. vol. 36. Garden City,           N.Y.:   Doubleday & Co., 1972.


Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.    Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.


Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. 2nd ed.TNTC. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009.

Guthrie, George. “Hebrews” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.       G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Hagner, Donald A. Hebrews. NIBC. vol. 14. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Pub, 1990.


Morris, Leon. “Hebrews” in Hebrews through Revelation.  The Expositors Commentary. vol. 12    Frank E. Gaebelein ed. Germany: Zondervan, 1982.


                [1] Leon Morris, “Hebrews” in Hebrews through Revelation,  The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,vol 12. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 46.

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, Revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012),  1416.


[3] Harold W. Attridge, Hebrews: a Commentary On the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia,  (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989),  144.

[4] Ibid.


[5] George Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale, eds. (Nottingham, England: Baker Academic, 2007) , 961.

                [6] Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 251.


[7] Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews,  NIBC, Vol. 14. (Peabody: Paternoster Press, 1995), 102.

[8] Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 160.


[9] George Buchanan, To the Hebrews, The Anchor Bible Commentary, vol. 36,  (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1972),  122.

                [10] George Guthrie, 968.


[11] Cockerill, 345.

                [12] Bruce, 2071.


[13] Hagner, 117.


[14] George Guthrie, 970.

                [15] Attridge, 226-227.


[16] Morris, 76.


[17] Donald Guthrie, 178.


[18] George Guthrie, 972.

                [19] Hagner, 127.

                [20] Morris, 83.


                [21] Cockerill, 381.


                [22] Ibid.,382.

                [23] Donald Guthrie, 186.


[24] Bruce. 2412.


[25] Morris, 85.

                [26] Hagner, 136-137.


[27] George Guthrie, 974.

                [28] Attridge, 264.


[29] Donald Guthrie, 202.


[30] Buchanan, 164.

                [31] G. Guthrie, 978.


[32] Bruce, 2745.


[33] G. Guthrie, 978.


[34] Cockerill, 458-459.