Paul uses the same basic arrangement in many of his letters. He first lays a doctrinal foundation, then gives practical exhortations based on that foundation. Hebrews conforms to this pattern. We have seen the doctrine: Christ surpasses angels (Heb. 1:4 – 2:18), Moses (Heb. 3:1 – 4:13), and Aaron (Heb. 4:14 – 10:18). The remaining sections in Hebrews exhort readers to act on these truths (Heb. 10:19 – 13:25).
We will continue to confirm inmillennialism by showing how it supports Paul’s reasoning in this section on practice. This post will examine his first application: a warning against apostasy (Heb. 10:19–39).
Paul gave three such warnings earlier, one in each major doctrinal section. The first (Heb. 2:1–4) is in the section about angels. A second occurs when Paul discusses Moses (Heb. 3:7 – 4:12). The third (Heb. 5:11 – 6:20) comes in relation to Aaron. Each warning has a severe message: leaving Christ to return to the law, the Temple worship it ordained, and the priests who administered its rituals would bring a catastrophe.
Paul’s warning in our present passage continues this message. He arranges his warnings around three realities the Hebrews should consider: 1.) there is now a new Temple (Heb. 10:19–25a); 2.) there is a soon-coming day of judgment (Heb. 10:25b–31); and 3.) the second coming of Christ is near (Heb. 10:32–39).
Inmillennialism accommodates all three elements.
The New Temple
Paul based his exhortations against apostasy on God’s reformation of public worship through Christ Jesus. This reformation was occurring in his generation (cp. Heb. 9:10).
The Lord discussed this change in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5–36). In doing so, he established the basis of New Testament prophecy. As John F. Hart says, “without it [i.e., the Olivet Discourse] we could hardly understand the other prophetic passages in the NT, including the book of Revelation.”1
The fall of the Temple in Jerusalem within a generation was the controlling theme for that foundational discourse (Matt. 24:1–3, 34). Jesus said invading armies would soon destroy Jerusalem and the Temple (Luke 21:20, 32). This removal of the physical Temple would transform the public worship of God.
Paul reminds the Hebrews of these facts. God has now established a new Holy of Holies into which all his people can enter through the blood of Christ. This presents a stark contrast to the Most Holy Place in the physical Temple and its “off limits” sign that prevented entrance by the people. Paul says the new, welcoming house of God stands and will remain standing when the old, restrictive house disappears (Heb. 10:19–22).
He tells the Hebrews that the assembly in which they now worship God is the new house of God (cp. 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19). Paul’s cosmology places this Assembly-Temple “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6). That is where Christ is as well. He has “entered . . . into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24).
If the Hebrews wanted to avoid apostasy, they must recognize the Temple-change God was making during their generation. They should respond in faith to the new order under Christ.
For the new house of God to exist, the Hebrews must assemble themselves together (Heb. 10:25). This was their safety net against apostasy. Arthur Pink says,
The word for ‘assembling together’ is a double compound, and occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in 2 Thess. 2:1: ‘our gathering together unto Him,’ that is unto Christ; this shows that the ‘assembling together’ here is under one Head, and that the ‘forsaking’ is because He has been turned away from.2
To stay faithful to Christ, the Hebrews needed the exhortations found only in the assembly of the saints.
Extending Pink’s analysis to the corresponding verb—“to gather together”—sheds more light on Paul’s statements in this context. Jesus had pronounced a woe on the Jews because they refused to allow him to “gather them together” under his protection (Matt. 23:37). The woe would come in his generation (Matt. 23:36).
Jesus then proclaimed his messengers would “gather together” the elect during the Messianic Age (Matt. 24:31). That gathering was already under way during his generation because the Messianic Age overlapped the “last days” of the Mosaic Age. Now, near the end of Jesus’ generation, Paul exhorts the Hebrews to take heed to this “gathering together” (Heb. 10:25). What the unbelieving Jews had refused, the Hebrews must now embrace, or they, too, would perish.
Inmillennialism accounts for the historical context in which Paul wrote such statements. It places the “gathering together” in the last days of the Mosaic Age and in the Messianic Age parousia (presence) of Christ with his church.
The Coming Day
Paul urges his readers to embrace God’s “gathering together” as they “see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). “The day” to which he refers is the one that would end the law given by the disposition of angels, that would end the house established by Moses, and that would end the priesthood of Aaron.
Pink continues:
There seems little room for doubt that the first reference here is to the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, which was now very nigh, for this epistle was written within less than eight years before Jerusalem was captured by Titus. That terrible catastrophe had been foretold, again and again, by Israel’s prophets, and was plainly announced by the Lord Jesus in Luke 21. The approach of that dreadful “day” could be plainly seen or perceived by those possessing spiritual discernment: the continued refusal of the Nation to repent of their murder of Christ, and the abandoning of Christianity for an apostate Judaism by such large numbers, clearly presaged the bursting of the storm of God’s judgment. This very fact supplied an additional motive for genuine Christians to remain faithful. The Lord Jesus promised that His followers should be preserved from the destruction of Jerusalem, but only as they attended to His cautions in Luke 21:8, 19, 34, etc., only as they persevered in faith and holiness, Matthew 24:13.3
Christ surpasses every element of Mosaic Age worship. The approaching day would make that clear.
What does Paul say about those who refuse to accept this change, or that leave Christ and prefer Moses? They should expect “judgment and the fury of a fire about to4 consume the adversaries” (Heb. 10:27; HCSB). Paul, speaking to the Thessalonians about the wicked Jews who persecuted Christ’s people, said: “wrath has overtaken them at last” (1 Thess. 2:16; HCSB). Their situation, outside Christ and obedience to him, was dire.
These statements point to the “great tribulation” Jesus associated with the destruction of the Temple (Matt. 24:21). During that period, the Jewish universe—with the Temple at its center—would collapse (Matt. 24:29). The Son of Man would reign from heaven during his parousia (Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39) and his messengers would “gather together” his people (Matt. 24:30–31). This would occur in Paul’s generation (Matt. 24:34), and that generation was near its end as he wrote these words to the Hebrews. God’s judgment was about to come.
Inmillennialism reflects this perspective and supports Paul’s argument based on the approach of the day of God’s judgment of Jerusalem.
The Second Coming
Inmillennialism (or something like it) is vital to understanding how the new Temple and the coming day of judgment relate to the Second Coming of Christ. As we have seen, our prophetic model describes these relationships based on the Olivet Discourse and First Corinthians Fifteen.
One aspect of Paul’s warning to the Hebrews highlights a distinction we made while constructing our prophetic model from these two passages. We emphasized the Greek verb erchomai (coming) most often refers to a point-in-time action, and the noun parousia (presence) refers to a state of being. As an insightful Greek student once said, “an erchomai (coming) is necessary for a parousia (presence) to exist.”
Without this understanding, Paul’s statement in this warning passage is almost unintelligible: “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (Heb. 10:37). William Gouge, a Puritan pastor and author, provides important insights regarding this statement in the original language:
The apostle’s expression of his mind is very elegant and emphatical; he useth a word, [mikron], that signifieth a little while; ‘yet a little while, am I with you,’ saith Christ, John 13:33. So here, [heti mikron], ‘yet a little while.’ The apostle, for further emphasis, addeth another particle, [hoson], by way of diminution, thus, a very little while. Yea, he doubleth that particle, [hoson, hoson], thus, a very, very little while.5
Our model suggests the “coming” (Gk. erchomai) Paul has in mind is the point-in-time event when Jesus would destroy the Temple. His parousia (presence) with his people would now be in the new Temple—the assembly of God’s people.
We emphasize that Paul does not say the coming of Christ might happen in the very, very near future—he affirms it will happen. That coming would complete the transition from the Temple in Jerusalem to the new Temple. It would occur on the coming day of which the Apostle warned the Hebrews.
Inmillennialism accounts for this perspective of the coming (erchomai) of Christ.
Conclusion
God did wonderful things for his people during the “last days” of the Mosaic Age (Heb. 1:2). His revelation through Christ surpassed that of the angels. The house Jesus built exceeded that of Moses in glory. The priesthood of Christ outshone that of Aaron.
Paul establishes these truths in the first part of Hebrews. He then warns the Christians to whom he wrote not to return to the inferior manner of worshiping God.
Our prophetic model determines how we understand his argument. We believe inmillennialism accounts for the core elements of his reasoning better than other existing models.
For ease of reference, we will again present our inmillennial model with references from Hebrews overlaid on it:
Footnotes
- Quoting Zane Hodges, John F. Hart, Should Pretribulationists Reconsider the Rapture in Matthew 24:36–44? Part 1 of 3, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society Autumn 2007), 47. Italics in original.
- Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1967), 1:607-608. Italics in original.
- Pink, Hebrews, 1:608-609. Italics in original.
- This translation recognizes the presence of the Greek verb mellō.
- William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1980), 748. My Greek transliterations.
6 comments
You added this:
“He tells the Hebrews that the assembly in which they now worship God is the new house of God (cp. 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19). Paul’s cosmology places this Assembly-Temple “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6). That is where Christ is as well. He has “entered . . . into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24).”
I’m assuming you mean the same thing by “house of God, temple, Holy Place, etc.” Unless you explain “heavenly places” in some non-traditional way, it appears you are contradicting yourself. You say the assembly on earth is the new temple but also that it is in heaven. Also, what’s the difference in Jesus’ presence with us and his being in the presence of God in heaven? I’m guessing both are Parousia.
The Bible’s cosmology presents challenges to our post-Enlightenment, scientific (so-called) ways of viewing God’s creation. Your question makes perfect sense to me; I was an engineer in a previous life. My previous understanding of the space-time continuum did not prepare me to accept some of Paul’s language.
I do take the terms you mentioned as almost synonyms. And, the assembly is on earth and in heaven. The Ephesians were in the (local) church on earth (cp. Acts 20:17f), yet were seated in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). Paul said God had acted on his purpose to “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him” (Eph. 1:10). Their locale was not an either-heaven-or-earth matter, but a both-and situation. The Ephesians were in Christ, “Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” (Eph. 3:15). This dual location seemed not to cause Paul difficulty.
The both/and concept is, I believe, the traditional understanding. (I’m not sure why my position seems “non-traditional.”) John Gill, for example, says
In some sense, I believe we are both in the temple on earth—if we belong to a local church—and in the temple in heaven.
Yes, the parousia (presence) of Christ exists in heaven as on earth. But, this word and the terms in your list transcend our time-space reality. They speak of our relationship to New Covenant realities in Christ.
If I have misunderstood your question, please let me know.
A brother who wishes to remain anonymous wrote: I think we need to compare scripture to scripture here and balance what you said with 2 Corinthians 5:6-9 and Philippians 1:23.
Dear Brother,
Thank you for making this valuable point.
I was hoping my next-to-last paragraph would achieve the needed balance. The words about which Jacky asked “transcend our time-space reality.” They speak of our relationship to “New Covenant realities in Christ.”
The passages you mention, 2 Corinthians 5:6-9 and Philippians 1:23, and their immediate contexts (i.e., within a paragraph) emphasize our physical condition, “our time-space reality.” Ephesians 1:10; 2:6; and 3:15 stress “New Covenant realities in Christ.”
Paul sometimes intermingles these two realities. He speaks of “our time-space reality” and our “New Covenant realities in Christ” in the same context. Consider Colossians 2:16–3:7. The apostle says, “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,” (Col. 2:20). The Colossians were not “in the world” (in a sense), but should live “in the world” (in another sense) in light of the fact they were not “in the world” (in the first sense). They were “risen with Christ” (Col. 3:1) in their “New Covenant reality,” but this does not mean they had escaped their “time-space reality”: they must continue to “mortify [their] members which are upon the earth” (Col. 3:5).
We sit with Christ “in heavenly places” from a covenantal perspective. Simultaneously, we are “at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6) as a physical reality.
Yours in both heavenly and earthly places,
Mike
You said:
“For the new house of God to exist, the Hebrews must assemble themselves together (Heb. 10:25). This was their safety net against apostasy.”
By all means it is critical that God’s people assemble. But I think the new house of God exists whether or not it assembles. “We,” the children of God are the house; so as long as we exist, the house exists. Jesus’ sacrifice and the indwelling Holy Spirit insures its continued existence. I would even say they are what insures its continued assembly. I may be being too technical, but it sounds like you are saying the existence of the new house is dependent upon assembly—as if it could cease to exist if we stopped meeting together. Hypothetically this could be true, but Jesus has made that an impossibility.
I agree that Scripture uses key terms—“assembly,” “house of God,” “church,” etc.—as collective nouns to include all the elect. But, they place overwhelming emphasis on the local and concrete nature of these terms. For example, the word for church (Gk. ekklēsia)—which resembles the word for “assembly” in Heb. 10:25—occurs 114 times in the New Testament. Over 100 of these refer to a local assembly.
When the apostle commanded the Hebrews (and us) to not forsake “the assembling of ourselves together,” he refers to a tangible local assembly. In the context of Heb. 10:21, it seems important to stress the physical reality of the “house of God.” Like a not-convened Senate cannot pass laws, so believers cannot “consider one another” (Heb. 10:24) in a not-assembled assembly (should such a thing exist).
So, your point is a good one, and I do not want to deny the collective use of such terms. Here, however, I think you will agree that the assembly must assemble for the Hebrews to obey the Apostle.