AdamjEdgar
Active Member
CAVEAT
I believe Hebrews was written either directly or indirectly by the Apostle Paul (i have included my reasons for this in the second half of this post)
---------------------------
I have puzzled over this question of the Alter of Incense location in Hebrews 9 for a while and it is only in the last few days that i really narrowed down on the fact that we are left with only 3 options:
When we study the Old Testament Sanctuary Service, we note that the only day in which the High Priest carried the Censor into the Most Holy Place was the Day of Atonement. What is unique about this day is that is specifically represented the future day of Christ’s death on the cross…it was different from the usual daily sacrifices. When Christ died on the cross (which the O/T Day of Atonement represents), he became our High Priest, the veil in the temple was torn in two signifying a change in the Sanctuary Service and this is the key to my theory.
I believe that When Christ died and the veil was torn in two, the need for the alter of incense carrying the prayors of sinners up and over the veil became redundant. Christ/High Priest now carried the censor into the Most Holy place and presents it before the Ark of the Covenant!
Some may ask, what about the description of the candlestick and table of showbread in Hebrews? These are still included because they represent Gods eternal power and sustaining of life...these do not change after the cleasing of sin from the universe...they remain, but the alter of incense is no longer required because there is no new sin after this point.
As further evidence of my theory on this, i note that some bible translations use different descriptors in Hebrews 9:3&4 (two different examples shown below)
NIV 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
KJV 3And after the second veil, the Tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
It is my belief that this may be an avenue of study on why Paul seemingly got his history wrong in Hebrews 9:3&4.
And let us not forget, despite the description of the “censor” in some translations, it still does not explain why there is no alter of incense in any part of the tabernacle in these translations that use censor instead of alter.
I thought that perhaps it might be interesting to have some ideas and discussion about this with the forum.
Some may ask why its even important? I believe it’s important because it is an example of potential biblical error and i think given Paul’s importance in the New Testament theology and the extensive writings attributed to his, this issue appears to discredit Paul’s knowledge…I mean if he was a murderer and was present at the stoning of Stephen, if Paul cant describe the Jewish tabernacle properly, how can he possibly be an authoritative figure on anything else?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to also just address the authorship issue because I am sure it will come up... i dont really think it changes the nature of my question above
This is a little bit off where the question above wished to go, but i guess its important enough to discuss. Below are my concern, some evidence in support, and my conclusion:
What those who may decide to focus on in terms of whether or not Paul wrote Hebrews fail to appreciate is, the question is more about the canonicity of Hebrews than just its author. Christians all claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If God cannot get his authors to record his statements accurately, then the entire bible becomes a mythical fairytale and that plays directly into the hands of atheism. Personally, i think this is something that most TEists for example, in the way they discredit the historical reading of creation and flood accounts, simply do not understand. Hence their doctrines are obtained from theological buckets full of holes leaking copious amounts of water.
There are references both ways on the topic of authorship…however, despite scholarly debate, you will find that most of the available references for the book of Hebrews associate it with Paul. His name more than any other is front and center with it. I am comfortable with Paul as its author (either directly or as a recording of his theology and written by an understudy or colleague).
Jerome and Augustine believed Paul wrote Hebrews and it was their view that eventually convinced the Eastern Church of this at the Sixth Synod of Carthage in 419 A.D
The Council of Trent 1546 - Paul
The 1611 King James bible has the following heading: “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.”
google - The Apostle Paul
Wikipedia - traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle
Encyclopedia Brittanica - Paul most likely is the author, although it notes that it’s possible one of Paul’s understudies/disciples may have written it (which means that Paul is still the major influence in the books theology)
Catholic Church - Paul is the “indirect author” of Hebrews
biblegateway - possibly Luke, however, they cite Origen’s statement that it may have been dictated by Paul and written by another but “only God knows”
Martin Luther thought perhaps Apollos was its author
There is an academic paper on this by By Prof. Félix H. Cortez Andrews University in the US
Prof Cortez concludes that “I believe it is likely that Paul wrote Hebrews. We should, however, recognize the complexity and difficulty of the issue and respect and welcome those who assess the evidence differently.”
For those who like to read a supporting argument in its entirety, A link to his article is included
On the Authorship of Hebrews: The case for Paul
For those who like to simply skim over the main points of the supporting side, some quotes from the article supporting Pauline authorship are included below
Furthermore, Hebrews is anonymous to us, but it was not to the original audience. The audience knew who the author was. He requests them to pray for him so that he may be restored to them sooner (Heb 13:18–19).11 The author refers to a Timothy, who must have been known both by the author and the audience (13:23).
Clement, the oldest extant work of early Christian literature composed around AD 96, alludes clearly to Hebrews (1 Clem 36:1–5) and to other writings of Paul (e.g., 35:5–6) showing he held them in high esteem, though, with one exception, he does not identify the author in any of those references.
The Shepherd of Hermas, produced in Rome during the second century AD and the most popular noncanonical writing of the first centuries of Christianity, was written in part to explain that repentance was possible for sins committed after baptism. The best explanation is that it was trying to answer questions raised by Hebrews 6:4–8 and 10:26–31. The evidence suggests that views of a wholesale rejection of Hebrews in the west are overstated.
By the end of the 4th century, Ambrose, Pelagius, and Rufinus in the west had attributed Hebrews to Paul
Closer scrutiny shows that rejection of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews is less significant than it seems at the beginning. Marcion, who rejected Hebrews, also rejected the God of the Old Testament and all the writings of the Old Testament. He probably rejected Hebrews because of its abundant use of the Old Testament. He also rejected most of the New Testament.
The view that Irenaeus and Hippolytus rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews came from a comment made by Gobarus more than three hundred years later (ca. AD 600), according to the report made by Photius in AD 800! How much weight can we place on this report?
Tertullian says that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, but thinks Barnabas was communicating the ideas of Paul
The Arians probably rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews because of its high Christology [for those unfamiliar with the significance of this point by the professor, Arians do not believe in the trinity and Christ is not considered God. Hebrews is problematic for that view]
I will sum up in the same way the article does…why is the authorship of Hebrews even important? If we discredit its authorship because supposedly Paul didnt write it, given Christ wrote nothing down…where does that leave the credibility of the Gospel? I will finish with a quote from the Paper by Prof Cortez…
Since Jesus did not leave any writings himself, the Christian church recognized the canonical authority of those writings that came from the apostles, those to whom Jesus entrusted the gospel (Matt 28:18–20).27 The apostolic criterion did not require that the apostles themselves wrote the books, but only that the books were produced under the authority of the apostles or by their associates.
I believe Hebrews was written either directly or indirectly by the Apostle Paul (i have included my reasons for this in the second half of this post)
---------------------------
I have puzzled over this question of the Alter of Incense location in Hebrews 9 for a while and it is only in the last few days that i really narrowed down on the fact that we are left with only 3 options:
- Paul had no idea what he was talking about and made an elementary historical mistake or
- Paul had a specific theological reason for differing in his description of the two compartments of the earthly and heavenly Tabernacles
- Its a translational/scribal error
- Paul made a historical mistake
2. Paul had a specific Theological reason
I think this is the more likely interpretation and i have the beginnings of a theory on why i believe this might be the case.When we study the Old Testament Sanctuary Service, we note that the only day in which the High Priest carried the Censor into the Most Holy Place was the Day of Atonement. What is unique about this day is that is specifically represented the future day of Christ’s death on the cross…it was different from the usual daily sacrifices. When Christ died on the cross (which the O/T Day of Atonement represents), he became our High Priest, the veil in the temple was torn in two signifying a change in the Sanctuary Service and this is the key to my theory.
I believe that When Christ died and the veil was torn in two, the need for the alter of incense carrying the prayors of sinners up and over the veil became redundant. Christ/High Priest now carried the censor into the Most Holy place and presents it before the Ark of the Covenant!
Some may ask, what about the description of the candlestick and table of showbread in Hebrews? These are still included because they represent Gods eternal power and sustaining of life...these do not change after the cleasing of sin from the universe...they remain, but the alter of incense is no longer required because there is no new sin after this point.
As further evidence of my theory on this, i note that some bible translations use different descriptors in Hebrews 9:3&4 (two different examples shown below)
NIV 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
KJV 3And after the second veil, the Tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
It is my belief that this may be an avenue of study on why Paul seemingly got his history wrong in Hebrews 9:3&4.
3. Scribal error
This is a possibility, but again, given the overwhelming historical knowledge passed down for centuries…indeed more than a millennia about the Old Testament Tabernacle and, given that some translations describe the golden censor instead of the altar of incense, i think this explanation is unlikely. Some excellent translations use Alter of Incense (NLT, ESV, NAS) however, I note that both Codex Sinaticus and Vaticanus use the “golden censor” descriptor and they date more than 2 centuries after Christ.And let us not forget, despite the description of the “censor” in some translations, it still does not explain why there is no alter of incense in any part of the tabernacle in these translations that use censor instead of alter.
I thought that perhaps it might be interesting to have some ideas and discussion about this with the forum.
Some may ask why its even important? I believe it’s important because it is an example of potential biblical error and i think given Paul’s importance in the New Testament theology and the extensive writings attributed to his, this issue appears to discredit Paul’s knowledge…I mean if he was a murderer and was present at the stoning of Stephen, if Paul cant describe the Jewish tabernacle properly, how can he possibly be an authoritative figure on anything else?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to also just address the authorship issue because I am sure it will come up... i dont really think it changes the nature of my question above
This is a little bit off where the question above wished to go, but i guess its important enough to discuss. Below are my concern, some evidence in support, and my conclusion:
What those who may decide to focus on in terms of whether or not Paul wrote Hebrews fail to appreciate is, the question is more about the canonicity of Hebrews than just its author. Christians all claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If God cannot get his authors to record his statements accurately, then the entire bible becomes a mythical fairytale and that plays directly into the hands of atheism. Personally, i think this is something that most TEists for example, in the way they discredit the historical reading of creation and flood accounts, simply do not understand. Hence their doctrines are obtained from theological buckets full of holes leaking copious amounts of water.
There are references both ways on the topic of authorship…however, despite scholarly debate, you will find that most of the available references for the book of Hebrews associate it with Paul. His name more than any other is front and center with it. I am comfortable with Paul as its author (either directly or as a recording of his theology and written by an understudy or colleague).
Jerome and Augustine believed Paul wrote Hebrews and it was their view that eventually convinced the Eastern Church of this at the Sixth Synod of Carthage in 419 A.D
The Council of Trent 1546 - Paul
The 1611 King James bible has the following heading: “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.”
google - The Apostle Paul
Wikipedia - traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle
Encyclopedia Brittanica - Paul most likely is the author, although it notes that it’s possible one of Paul’s understudies/disciples may have written it (which means that Paul is still the major influence in the books theology)
Catholic Church - Paul is the “indirect author” of Hebrews
biblegateway - possibly Luke, however, they cite Origen’s statement that it may have been dictated by Paul and written by another but “only God knows”
Martin Luther thought perhaps Apollos was its author
There is an academic paper on this by By Prof. Félix H. Cortez Andrews University in the US
Prof Cortez concludes that “I believe it is likely that Paul wrote Hebrews. We should, however, recognize the complexity and difficulty of the issue and respect and welcome those who assess the evidence differently.”
For those who like to read a supporting argument in its entirety, A link to his article is included
On the Authorship of Hebrews: The case for Paul
For those who like to simply skim over the main points of the supporting side, some quotes from the article supporting Pauline authorship are included below
Furthermore, Hebrews is anonymous to us, but it was not to the original audience. The audience knew who the author was. He requests them to pray for him so that he may be restored to them sooner (Heb 13:18–19).11 The author refers to a Timothy, who must have been known both by the author and the audience (13:23).
Clement, the oldest extant work of early Christian literature composed around AD 96, alludes clearly to Hebrews (1 Clem 36:1–5) and to other writings of Paul (e.g., 35:5–6) showing he held them in high esteem, though, with one exception, he does not identify the author in any of those references.
The Shepherd of Hermas, produced in Rome during the second century AD and the most popular noncanonical writing of the first centuries of Christianity, was written in part to explain that repentance was possible for sins committed after baptism. The best explanation is that it was trying to answer questions raised by Hebrews 6:4–8 and 10:26–31. The evidence suggests that views of a wholesale rejection of Hebrews in the west are overstated.
By the end of the 4th century, Ambrose, Pelagius, and Rufinus in the west had attributed Hebrews to Paul
Closer scrutiny shows that rejection of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews is less significant than it seems at the beginning. Marcion, who rejected Hebrews, also rejected the God of the Old Testament and all the writings of the Old Testament. He probably rejected Hebrews because of its abundant use of the Old Testament. He also rejected most of the New Testament.
The view that Irenaeus and Hippolytus rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews came from a comment made by Gobarus more than three hundred years later (ca. AD 600), according to the report made by Photius in AD 800! How much weight can we place on this report?
Tertullian says that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, but thinks Barnabas was communicating the ideas of Paul
The Arians probably rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews because of its high Christology [for those unfamiliar with the significance of this point by the professor, Arians do not believe in the trinity and Christ is not considered God. Hebrews is problematic for that view]
I will sum up in the same way the article does…why is the authorship of Hebrews even important? If we discredit its authorship because supposedly Paul didnt write it, given Christ wrote nothing down…where does that leave the credibility of the Gospel? I will finish with a quote from the Paper by Prof Cortez…
Since Jesus did not leave any writings himself, the Christian church recognized the canonical authority of those writings that came from the apostles, those to whom Jesus entrusted the gospel (Matt 28:18–20).27 The apostolic criterion did not require that the apostles themselves wrote the books, but only that the books were produced under the authority of the apostles or by their associates.
Last edited:
