As the “father of lies” steps up his activities in these last days in order to deceive people into rejecting or renouncing Yeshua as the Messiah and Savior of mankind as appointed by Yahweh, he attempts to achieve his goal by discrediting the New Testament. His attacks against the Apostle Paul and his writings have been addressed in my blog entitled, “A Defense of the Apostle Paul“.

This study will address those issues concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews which are under attack by Satan and his fellow workers. May the Almighty guide you through this defense and firmly establish in your heart and mind that the words of Hebrews are truth and invaluable for the edification and spiritual growth of His people.


Argument #1

The author of Hebrews is unknown. “An anonymous book is not worth the paper it’s written on.”


If we apply that reasoning to the Old Testament books as well, we would need to discard all the books from Judges to Job, except Ezra and Nehemiah, since their authors are unknown. We would also need to throw out about 70 Psalms. Additionally, it is assumed that Joshua wrote Joshua, but there is no proof of that. So that book may need to be trashed as well. We would also have to cut out the accounts of the death of Joshua and Moses since we don’t know who wrote those either.

The fact of the matter is that the identity of the author is not what’s important, but the content.


Argument #2

“The author of Hebrews is also well known for making fearful warnings to those who do not get in line and agree with his doctrine. Many Christians have spent sleepless nights worrying about the implications of certain passages in Hebrews. The most notable of them are these. 

Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.  Hebrews 4:1

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put him to an open shame.  Hebrews 6:4-6

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His People.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:26-31.

. . .

Of course, all those who employ these extortive threat tactics thoroughly believe their doctrines are correct and they honestly believe they are doing others a priceless favor if they can manage to convince them to agree. But what this philosophy really amounts to is the end justifies the means. It is very common in many religious institutions today and is used regularly on easily impressionable children. It would be a repulsive tactic even if their doctrines were correct!  But, as I have shown, the doctrines of Paul and of Hebrews are severely flawed from the start. So I would encourage others to not be struck with fear by their intimidating words. They are not the words of God.”1


The author above rightly calls such New Testament passages “fearful warnings”, but then he later calls them a “repulsive tactic” and “extortive threat tactics” that are “not the words of God”. Let’s look at some of the words of Yahweh Elohim throughout the Old Testament and see if we can detect any similarities.

Lev 26:14-18 – “But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursues you. And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.”

Yahweh goes on to instill fear in the hearts of all Israel by listing many other judgments that shall befall them if they refuse to obey Him.

Yahweh says the following about stubborn and rebellious children:

De 21:21 – “And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

The man who transgresses Yahweh’s commandments and is found worthy of death will be “accursed” of Elohim.

De 21:22-23 – “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of Elohim;) that thy land be not defiled, which Yahweh thy Elohim gives thee for an inheritance.”

The three passages given above certainly sound like fearful warnings, but Yahweh doesn’t stop there. In Deuteronomy 28:15-68, Yahweh instills more fear into the hearts of Israel culminating in these fearful words:

“And Yahweh shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other mighty ones, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but Yahweh shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: In the morning thou shalt say, Would Elohim it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would Elohim it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. And Yahweh shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spoke unto thee,Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.” (De 28:64-68)

These are definitely “fearful warnings”, but are they “repulsive tactics” or “extortive threat tactics”? Are they not the words of Yahweh Elohim? The reason the book of Hebrews uses such fearful warnings is because the same Spirit that inspired the Old Testament passages above moved in the author of Hebrews. He was undoubtedly filled with that same Spirit, a Spirit that will warn people of impending judgment if they transgress a certain boundary.


Argument #3

“Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. HEB 9:1-5

There is a problem with this passage. Some say it is a translation problem.

And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense…

This part is not correct as written. The altar of incense is in the first sanctuary with the lampstand and table, not in the Holy of Holies with the Ark of the Covenant. Some commentators on Hebrews argue that the Greek word for “altar” here should be translated as “censor.” They say that the writer was really referring to the High Priest’s censor (a device carried by the priest with coals and incense) that was carried into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. To their support, the writer of Hebrews does reference later, several times, the elements of the Day of Atonement. However, if he was really referring to the censor then he made another equally grave mistake. He forgot to describe the altar of incense in the holy place. In either case, his explanation of the earthly sanctuary is not correct.

But the passage in Revelation 8:3-5 sheds more light on the matter. That passage contains both the words “altar” and “censor” together. The Greek word for “altar” (thusiasterion #2379) is the same word used in Hebrews 9:3. The Greek word used for censor (such as a portable censor for incense) is entirely different; it is libanotos #3031. This evidence suggests that the writer of Hebrews was referring to the altar of incense, not the censor used by the high priest. Therefore, we are back to the original error. He has placed the altar of incense in the wrong chamber.” 2


The writer above quotes from the New American Standard Version. However, at least eight other versions translate the Greek as “censer”. Actually, the Greek word in question is not “thusiasterion”, but “thumiaterion”. That is the same Greek word used in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) for “censer” in 2Ch 26:19 and Eze 8:11.

2Ch 26:19 – “Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of YHWH, from beside the incense altar.”

Eze 8:11 – “And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.”

2Ch 26:19 uses “thusiasteriou ton thumiamaton” (altar of the incense) which was translated “incense altar” in the KJV. The altar is “thusiasteriou”, the incense is “thumiamaton” and the censer is “thumiaterion”.

Since the writer of Hebrews was about to expound upon the Day of Atonement, he obviously had in mind Lev 16:12 when he wrote of the censer in the “Holy of Holies”. It reads:

“And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before YHWH, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail:”

As for why the writer of Hebrews does not mention the altar of incense in the “holy place”, we can only assume. However, neglecting to mention the altar of incense does not prove the writer was ignorant of it or it’s location. Perhaps his thoughts were primarily focused on the Day of Atonement, in which case he would give more detail of the Holy of Holies since that is where most of the high priest’s activity took place. We cannot know the writer’s motives in presenting the information he did. Therefore, to assume he made a mistake, thus causing the Book of Hebrews to be unacceptable for the Canon, is a grave mistake itself.


Argument #4

“Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yeshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways. For instance, Yeshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,É without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”  Hebrews 7:1-3 

This certainly qualifies as “hard to explain”! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don’t have Melchizedek’s genealogical records, parent’s names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for usÉ he had none?!” 3


The particulars mentioned in verse 3 ( without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life) are not ways in which Yeshua and Melchizedek are alike. They are simply things said of Melchizedek based on the fact that Scripture does not record that information. The writer of Hebrews knows full well that Yeshua had a genealogy based on his words in Hebrews 7:14.

“For it is evident that our Master sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.”

He also knew full well that, since Yeshua sprang from Judah, it had to be through his mother or father. It is safe to assume that all followers of Yeshua knew of his virgin birth, including the writer of Hebrews, which would necessitate his knowing Yeshua had a mother.

The likeness that the writer of Hebrews is pointing out is that they are both priests continually. Verse 3 says Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of Elohim (Yeshua). How can that be if Melchizedek existed first? Yeshua existed in Yahweh’s plan of salvation long before Melchizedek came on the seen. Therefore, Melchizedek is the archetype of Messiah Yeshua of whom it was prophesied and foreordained before the creation of the world that he would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This is not to say that Melchizedek never literally died or that he has been literally ministering as priest since Abraham’s day, but only as a type of the everlasting priest to come, Messiah Yeshua.


Argument #5

“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law.”  Hebrews 7:12        

Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God?   If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author’s logic simply does not flow… yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument.” 4


The logic of the writer of Hebrews flows smoothly. It is the misinterpretation of those opposed to Hebrews that causes the problem. They believe the phrase “change of the Law” means the Law of Moses is abolished and a new law has replaced it. The fact is, he is referring to a change only in the law concerning the high priest being a son of Aaron.

As for where this fundamental truth is written, look to Psalm 110:4.

“Yahweh has sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

If we say this verse refers to either David or Messiah Yeshua, then how can either be a priest since they are both from the tribe of Judah?

There are only three resolutions.

1) The promise/oath was made to a Levite.

2) The promise/oath was made to a man from both Judah and Levi.

3) A change in the law/Torah had to occur to allow someone from Judah to serve as high priest.

#1 cannot be true since the context of Psalm 110 says nothing about Levites. Also, Levites were not to rule Israel from David’s throne. Yet, the subject of Psa.110:4 is to rule from Zion. If we say the future Messiah must be a Levite, then we create another need for a change in the law to allow a Levite to sit on the throne of David to rule from Zion.

#2 cannot be proved and will be explored under the next argument.

#3 is the only logical solution. The law pertaining to the Aaronic priesthood had to change to allow for a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Yahweh Himself made the change in Torah the moment He spoke the oath in Psa.110:4.


Argument #6

“The author of Hebrews argues that because Yeshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and “everlasting” priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yeshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yeshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!” 5


A change in the law to allow for a Melchizedekian high priest does not negate the everlasting priesthood of Aaron and his sons. Messiah did not need to be from Levi in order to fulfill Psa.110:4. That is why he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and NOTafter the order of Aaron. It is pure assumption to believe Messiah Yeshua is from the tribe of Levi and such a reckless interpretation would cause the less studious among us to abandon trust in the valuable Epistle to the Hebrews as the author above has done.

Let’s examine his position on why he believes Messiah Yeshua is from Levi. He writes:

“In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yeshua’s mother Mary was a “cousin” (KJV) to Elizabeth who was “of the daughters of Aaron”. (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated “cousin” literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word “sungenes”. This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary’s aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn’t make a difference either way as you will see.

In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary’s father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary’s mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary’s mother had to have been a “daughter of Aaron” as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary’s mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth’s parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a “daughter of Aaron” and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary’s aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary’s mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary’s mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yeshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother’s bloodlines.  Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!” 6

Here is Strong’s definition of “sungenes”:

4773. suggenes ‘; from 4862 and 1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:– cousin, kin(-sfolk, -sman).

Here is Thayer’s definition of the same word:

4773 suggenes

from 4862 and 1085; TDNT – 7:736,1097; adj

KJV – kinsman 7, cousin 2, kinsfolk 2, kin 1; 12

1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood

2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

As you can see, the word can apply to a “fellow countryman” and is not necessarily limited to one’s own tribe. All Israelites are related by blood and by genetics through a common ancestor, Jacob/Israel. Therefore, every tribe is related by blood and genetics to every other tribe. We will see how Miriam’s relation to Elizabeth could have come about later. First, let’s examine the following statement:

“In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13)”

Is that true? Here are the references in full.

Lev 21:1 “And Yahweh said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:”

Lev 21:13-14 – “And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.”

Lev 22:12-13 – “If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things. But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.”

What does the phrase, “his own people” mean? Is it a reference to the tribe of Levi, the family of Aaron, or all Israelites?

Yahweh provides the answer through Ezekiel.

“But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, says Adonai Yahweh:

They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.

And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.

They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causes sweat.

And when they go forth into the utter court, even into the utter court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments.

Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court.

Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.” (Ezekiel 44:15-22).

Zadok is of the house of Aaron, but we see here that his sons are permitted to marry any maiden (virgin) from the whole house of Israel and not just from the tribe of Levi. Therefore, the phrase, “of his own people” in Lev.21:14 refers to all Israel.

Additionally, according to the Mishnah, even the daughter of a Proselyte father can marry a priest, provided her mother is not also a Proselyte.

Mishnah 5. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says:

A woman who is a daughter of a Proselyte may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite woman. [this law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite. A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: ‘Which thou, O God, hast given unto me’.(Mishna Mas. Bikkurim [First Fruits] Chapter 1)

To further support the belief that Yeshua was from Judah and Levi, a genealogy is presented by the author of, “The Problem With Hebrews.”.


Here are his concluding statements based on the evidence he presented.

“The fact that Yeshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew’s assertion that Yeshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author’s ongoing argument. . . . Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone.” 7

In reality, it is this author who is making a “nice-try” at discrediting the Spirit filled author of Hebrews. We have already seen how his primary premise is faulty, that is, that a priest MUST marry a Levite. Now we will look at an alternate genealogy in which Miriam can still be a “cousin” to Elizabeth, but not from Levi.

St. Hippolytus (in Nicephor II.iii – an apocryphal writing) recorded the following information:

Matthan had 3 daughters –

1) Mary (not Yeshua’s mother)    2) Soba      3) Ann

1) Mary – married a man of Bethlehem, and was the mother of her daughter, “Salome”.

2) Soba – married at Bethlehem also, but a “Son of Levi” by whom she had “Elizabeth” (the mother of John the Baptist).

3) Ann – married Joachim, a Galilean also, and bore “Miriam” (Yeshua’s mother).

So, Salome, Elizabeth and Mary were First Cousins.  Elizabeth was “of the daughters of Aaron” on her father’s side, and on her mother’s side, the cousin of “Miriam”.

Here is a view of that genealogy:


This shows that it is possible for Elizabeth to be a daughter of Aaron, while Miriam is of the tribe of Judah, and yet still be cousins, as stated in Luke.

It is irrelevant whether or not this genealogy is correct. What matters is that it clearly sets forth a scenario in which Miriam and Elizabeth are cousins without Miriam being from Levi.

We are now faced with a choice. Do we believe the author of Hebrews, whose book has blessed millions throughout the centuries, when he writes that Yeshua was from Judah, not Levi or do we accept this new scenario in which Yeshua is from Levi, thus destroying the credibility of Hebrews? To me, the choice is obvious.


Argument # 7

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. “(Heb.7:12)

It is claimed that this verse contradicts Yeshua’s words in Matthew 5:17-18 and Jeremiah’s words in Jeremiah 33:18. Those verses read as follows:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Mt.5:17-18)

“Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.” (Jer.33:18)


I do not believe there is a contradiction. There is, however, a lack of understanding on how these verses harmonize. Let’s begin by examining Jer.33:18.

Reading Jer.33:18 in context, including verses 17-21, aids our understanding.

For thus says YHWH; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;

Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

And the word of YHWH came unto Jeremiah, saying,

Thus says YHWH; If you can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;

Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

Verse 17 does not mean David will always have a son sitting on the throne day after day without interruption. It means, if a king sits on the throne, he will be a son of David.

Hosea 3:4 reads;

For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:

Here we see a prophecy stating there will be a time when a son of David will not be sitting on the throne because Israel will not have a king. Therefore, Jer.33:17 cannot mean David’s sons will reign without interruption.

The same holds true for the Levites of Jer.33:18. It does not mean the Levitical priesthood would serve uninterrupted forever. It means, as long as there is day and night and as long as David’s son sits on the throne, the Levites will minister. However, Yahweh Himself has brought about an interruption in the Levitical system by allowing the temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed. No Levites have ministered and no sacrifices or offerings have been made since 70 C.E. This is in keeping with Hosea 3:4 as well;

“abide many days . . . without a sacrifice”

Yet, this verse implies that the period of time without a king and without a sacrifice will end and they will receive both back.

Now we can try to understand Hebrews 7:17-21.

For he testifies, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto Elohim.

And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him that said unto him, YHWH swore and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek:)

Yahweh made a promise/oath to someone in Psalm 110:4.

Who is the subject of Psalm 110:4? It obviously cannot pertain to David since verse one pertains to David’s “adoni” (master) who Yahweh continues talking to in verses 2-4.

Zechariah 6:11-12 tell us the “Branch” (Messiah) will be a priest and a king. The “Branch”, by the way, cannot be David based on Jer.23:5 and Zech.6:12-13.

“Behold, the days come, says YHWH, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” (Jer.23:5)

“And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaks YHWH of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of YHWH:

Even he shall build the temple of YHWH; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (Zech.6:12-13).

David was not permitted to build Yahweh’s temple because of all the blood he shed (1 Chr.22:18; 28:3). Yahweh’s promise that David’s son would build His house (2 Sam.7:13) was fulfilled in Solomon, however, the temple of Zech.6:12-13 would be built by the “Branch” which is a reference to Messiah.

The writer of Hebrews knew exactly what he was writing about and he wrote the truth. A change (transfer) in the law pertaining to the selection of a high priest had to occur and that change was authorized by Yahweh Himself by virtue of the promise He made in Psalm 110:4.

The high priest’s office was transferred from the Aaronic priesthood to a Melchizedekian priesthood.

Heb.7:18 reads:

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

This does not mean the Levitical priesthood was disannulled. Nor does it mean the Levites would no longer minister before Yahweh. Jer.33:18 makes it clear that the Levites will minister as long as there is day and night and as long as David’s son sits on the throne. Yeshua (the son of David) is now sitting on that throne and will continue to sit at least until the end of the millennium when he turns the Kingdom over to his Father (1 Cor.15:24). Jer.33:18, however, does not exclude a non-Levitical high priest from ministering as well.

Heb.7:18 is referring only to the command found in Ex.28:1-3 that requires the high priest be a son of Aaron.

And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons.

And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.

And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. (Ex.28:1-3)

When the temple is rebuilt and sacrifices resume, the majority of the Levites will be excluded from serving in the sanctuary due to their iniquity. That honor will go to the Sons of Zadok who are of the line of Aaron.

And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity.

Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them.

Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity; therefore have I lifted up mine hand against them, says Adonai YHWH, and they shall bear their iniquity.

And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed.

But I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein.

But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, says Adonai YHWH:

They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge. (Ezek.44:10-16).

What Heb.7:18 means is that the commandment which designates the Aaronic line to be high priest was weak and unprofitable not only because it was dealing with mortals, “They were not suffered to continue by reason of death” (vs.23) and “the law makes men high priests which have infirmity” (vs.28) (they eventually died and were weak in that they were subject to sin -Rom 8:3), but because it did not allow for Yahweh’s chosen priest/king after the order of Melchizedek.

By making an allowance in Torah to permit a Melchizedekian high priest/king, Yahweh made those offices even better by designating a person who cannot die and who never sinned.

Such a person was needed to minister in the heavenly sanctuary (which the earthly sanctuary was patterned after; Ex.25:40; 26:30). No earthly high priest would have sufficed seeing he could not survive in heaven in the flesh. Nor could he stand in Yahweh’s presence in his sinful state.

The bringing of this high priest/king before Yahweh is pictured in Dan.7:13-14.

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before Him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

No earthly king could have fulfilled this calling either. A king who would live forever in order to have dominion forever was needed.

This King/Priest that Yahweh made His oath to in Psalm 110:4 can be none other than Messiah Yeshua. He will rule forever over Yahweh’s kingdom and he will minister to Yahweh forever as His high priest.

How does all this harmonize with Mt.5:16-17?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It was not Yeshua who changed Torah to allow for a priest after the order of Melchizedek, but Yahweh Himself. Yahweh made the oath in Psa.110:4. When it was time for that priest to arise and fulfill the oath, Yahweh transferred the high priest’s order from Aaron to Melchizedek. He made it possible for a man from Judah to serve as high priest simply by making such an oath in the first place.

Some would say such a change by Yahweh would be a transgression of Deut.4:2:

You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your Elohim which I command you.

Yahweh is saying, “You shall not add” meaning “Man shall not add”. It does not say Yahweh could not make an addition/change to His own Torah. When was that change made? It was made when Yahweh made the oath which was prior to Yeshua’s day. So when Yeshua said those words in Mt.5:17, the change had already been made. From the time Yeshua spoke those words onward, not one jot or title would pass from the law until all was fulfilled.


Argument # 8

The writer of Hebrews is teaching that a new covenant has come, and with it a new law, thus abolishing the Law of Moses. However, the new covenant is made with Israel only and not with Gentiles.


The writer of Hebrews does not teach about a “new law”. This argument is based on the previous misunderstanding that “a change of the Law” means the Law of Moses is abolished and a new law put in its place (See my defense of argument #4). This argument is also based on a misunderstanding of the following verse:

In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away. (Heb.8:13)

The words “decays” and “waxes” are in the present tense in Greek. The old covenant is in the process of decaying and waxing old, but has not been abolished yet. It is “ready” to vanish away. In other words, its abolishment is close at hand, but is not yet.

There is a transition period between the start of the new covenant and the end of the old covenant during which both covenants function at the same time, but for different people (no one can be under both covenants at the same time). When Yeshua said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you”, he was teaching us that after his blood was shed, anyone who becomes his disciple and partakes of his blood through the drinking of the cup would enter into a new covenant. Yet, the writer of Hebrews does not teach that the old covenant ended at Yeshua’s death. Writing many years later, he still says the old covenant is in the process of vanishing away.

Those that have been living under the old covenant will continue to do so until they choose to enter into the new covenant through faith in Messiah Yeshua and his shed blood for the remission of their sins.

The writer of Hebrews quotes Jer.31:31-34 in Heb.8:8-12:

Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, says Yahweh.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them an Elohim, and they shall be to me a people:

And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Does this prophecy exclude Gentiles? It depends on whether or not you believe Paul’s writings. The anti-Paulist would say it excludes Gentiles, but Paul says no. Gentiles are grafted into the natural olive tree of Israel through faith in Messiah Yeshua (Romans 11:17-24). At the same time, the natural branches are cut off in unbelief and blinded by Yahweh for a time (Romans 11:7-16). Once Israel’s blindness is lifted, they, too, will turn to Messiah Yeshua and be grafted back into the olive tree of Israel.

Paul teaches that Gentiles were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel”, but now, through Messiah Yeshua, “are made nigh by the blood of Messiah” (Eph.2:12-13). He also teaches that Gentiles become “Abraham’s seed” through Messiah Yeshua. Therefore, Gentiles are also of the seed of Isaac and Jacob/Israel.

As engrafted Israelites and of the “house of Israel”, Gentiles are NOT excluded from the new covenant, but can enjoy it through faith in Messiah Yeshua. The natural branches of Israel can enjoy it as well upon faith in Messiah Yeshua, but the majority will not enter into it until Messiah Yeshua returns and the blindness is lifted. That is what Micah 5:2-4 refers to. It reads:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel [Messiah]; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Therefore will he [Messiah] give them up [Israel], until the time that she which travails has brought forth [the resurrection of the saints]: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel [to preach Messiah to them at which time they will believe].

And he shall stand and feed in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his Elohim; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. [Brackets mine]

It has been almost 2,000 years since Messiah Yeshua gave up Israel. Since then the Gentiles have been entering into the new covenant through their grafting into Israel. After the woman of Revelation 12 gives birth to the resurrected saints in Messiah, those that are alive and remain (the remnant of her seed) will preach the true evangel (good news) to Israel. With the blindness lifted, they will see Yeshua as never before and receive him as Yahweh’s chosen Messiah. Their time to enter the new covenant will have arrived as well.



The Epistle to the Hebrews has blessed many people since it’s writing because it is full of truth and guidance for mankind. There is nothing in it that transgresses Torah or that is untrue. The attacks that are being levied against it are based on assumption and misinterpretation. If there are other arguments that I failed to address, you can rest assured that they, too, are faulty arguments.

Blessed be Yahweh who has power over all things, including Torah, and who has given His people Israel a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a better covenant, and a better King sitting upon the throne of the Kingdom of Yahweh.

1. The Book of Hebrews, Scott Nelson,

2. The Paradigm of Hebrews, Monte Judah,

3. The Problem With Hebrews, Scott Nelson,

4. ibid.

5. ibid.

6. ibid.

7. ibid.