Chapter Three

  Dr. Jay Snell Newsletter Feed and Free Bonuses

Why We Know That Jewish Christians Are Continuously Inheriting
Healing And Prosperity Now.

      In the Old Testament era, the sacrifices of Moses' law maintained the continuous flow of the Abrahamic Covenant blessings of healing and prosperity including salvation.  However, not all of physical Israel was saved in the Old Testament period.  Being a physical descendant of Abraham guaranteed nothing.  The blessings of Abraham's Covenant could be maintained only by understanding what sin was and by making the appropriate sacrifices when those sins were committed.  This maintenance was possible by viewing the Law, not as an independent religious system of works to secure the favor of God, but as the God appointed means to continue a preexisting relationship, given them by Grace, and contained in the Abrahamic Covenant.  Alas, as time passed, most of Abraham's physical descendants erred, and became followers of "The Great Disconnect Theory."  Only a Remnant understood the true relationship of Moses' law to the Abrahamic Covenant.  This saved Remnant became a "nation within a nation."

     The doctrine of the Remnant can be traced throughout the Scriptures.  In the history of Israel, the saved Remnant became a minority.  They were, indeed, a spiritual, believing, obedient nation within a physical nation that was neither believing nor obedient.  Only seven thousand Jews belonged to the Remnant in Elijah's day.  By Isaiah's time, the number was probably less than seven thousand, while during the bondage, the number of the Remnant was probably even less.  The Remnant that returned from Babylon under Ezra and Nehemiah probably decreased even more.  When Jesus appeared in history, the vast majority of physical Israel meticulously kept Moses' law to work for and thereby securing their own salvation and temporal blessings, leaving only a very small believing Remnant.

     In the New Testament era, Paul says there is still a believing Jewish Remnant.  "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace" (Romans 11:5).  The question we must now answer is this: If the Jewish Remnant in the Old Testament period maintained the flow of the Abrahamic blessings of health and wealth in addition to salvation, by recognizing these blessings were granted to them in the Abrahamic Covenant and maintained by their making the appropriate sacrifices under Moses' law, then, how is the Jewish Remnant Paul says exists in the New Testament era (Romans 11:5) to maintain them?  In other words, there is a Jewish Remnant in both Testaments.  We understand fully how the Remnant maintained the Abrahamic blessings in the Old Testament economy.  But what about the Jew in the New Testament era?  How does he maintain them?  He maintains them the same way in the New Testament era, i.e., by recognizing that they are granted to him in the Abrahamic Covenant and maintained by making the appropriate sacrifice demanded by Moses' law.  The difference, however, between Jewish salvation including health and prosperity in the Old Testament period and Jewish salvation including healing and prosperity in the New Testament period, is the sacrifice itself.  In the Old Testament economy the sacrifices necessary to maintain the Abrahamic blessings were many, different, having to be repeated, i.e., Moses demanded a different kind of sacrifice for different kinds of sins to be repeated each time those sins were committed.  In the New Testament economy, Jesus is, himself, the sacrifice.  There were no additional sacrifices to be made.  His sacrifice was sufficient to cover "all sin(s)."  His sacrifice was "once for all," never having to be repeated.  Since Jesus' sacrifice was for "all sins" and was "once for all," he became the "end of the law" and the "fulfillment of the Law."  Consequently, the sacrifices of the law were "abolished."  They are no longer valid—they are "finished."

            Our traditional way of saying that Joe, who is a Gentile, has become a Christian, is by saying "Joe has received Christ as his personal Savior." Our traditional way of saying that Jim, who is a Jew, has become a Christian is "Jim received Christ as his personal Savior."  Later, we shall look closer at what we mean when we say of Joe, a Gentile, received Christ as his Savior.  But now, what exactly do we mean when we say "Jim received Christ as his personal Savior"?  We mean simply this: Salvation, including health and wealth was granted to Jim, a Jew, in the Abrahamic Covenant and could be continuously realized only by making the proper sacrifice.  Since he lives in the New Testament era, Christ is the final sacrifice for sin, therefore.  Jim receives Christ in his substitutionary death as the final sacrifice demanded by the Law, rather than the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament era.  The consequence of Jim's receiving Christ as his personal sacrifice for sin(s) rather than animal sacrifices in the Old Testament era, enables Jim to continuously realize, in the New Testament era, the salvation including healing and prosperity promised him in the Abrahamic Covenant.  Since the sacrifice of Jesus is "once for an," i.e., never to be repeated, the continuous realization of the Abrahamic blessings promised to Jim will be uninterrupted forever.  This is the theology of the New Testament.  We shall demonstrate this view by examining, in addition to Galatians 3, which we examined thoroughly in Volume I, other passages relating to this subject.  

Hebrews 6:10-20

     The primary passage to consider is Hebrews 6:10-20.  Even a superficial reading of this passage reveals that it is taken up entirely with the Abrahamic Covenant, showing its relationship to Jewish salvation including healing and prosperity during the New Testament or Christian era.  The message of this relationship is so clear it refuses to be buried as just an Old Testament type or example (the Example Theory), used only to illustrate Christian truth.  Using Old Testament persons, events and institutions to illustrate Christian truth is a valid, legitimate, acceptable practice.  For instance, we can preach "Christ is our High Priest" from an Old Testament passage concerning the Old Testament High Priest, by using the Old Testament passage as an illustration of the Christian truth of the priestly ministry of Christ.  From an Old Testament passage concerning the Levitical sacrifices, we can preach "Christ is our own sacrifice."  In this manner, the Old Testament is no more than an illustration of the Christian truth that "Christ died for us."

     Abraham, his faith and his covenant are certainly beautiful, valid illustrations of the kind of character and faith Christians should have in the promises God made to them.  However, Abraham, his faith and his covenant are more than just illustrations of Christian truth.  In Galatians 3, Paul demonstrated the continuing validity of the Abrahamic Covenant.  In Hebrews 6:10-20, the author not only demonstrates its continuing validity, but also relates its continuing validity to Jewish salvation including health and wealth in the New Testament era.  He shows the Abrahamic Covenant as the "original grant" of Jewish salvation including healing and prosperity in both Testaments.  This message is so clear, it refuses to be buried as just an illustration of other aspects of Christian truth.  In other words, neither Abraham, his faith, nor his promises are used in Hebrews 6:10-20 as types, examples, or illustrations of Christian truth.  Abraham was an actual man who actually inherited actual promises.  Those actual promises inherited are still actually valid and are the actual content of Jewish faith in the New Testament era.

     The reader should keep firmly fixed in his/her mind what we've said about Hebrews 6:11-20 in Volume I.  There, we listed four reasons why the Jewish Christians are inheriting the same identical promises of healing and prosperity in addition to salvation that Abraham himself inherited.  Those four reasons are:

 1.  The way the author tied verses 13-15 to verse 12.

2.  The way the author used the Definite Article (Anaphoric).

3.  Abraham obtained what he was promised which was (BARAK-EULOGIA blessing).

4.  Common sense, i.e., Abraham must be eliminated from the chapter and a "disclaimer" inserted if the heirs and Abraham are not inheriting the same thing.  The reader may want to reread this section in Volume I on pages 65-73.

Hebrews 6:11-12

     We must identify the main terms used in this passage to clearly understand the author's exact meaning.  Both the context and the Greek grammatical constructions used will make the following identifications obvious and easily grasped.

     First, "the hope" mentioned in verse 11 is the same "hope" mentioned in verse 18.  And the term "hope" in both verses 11 and 18 are used synonymously with the expression "the Abrahamic Covenant."

     Next, "the promises" in verse 12, "the promise" in verse 15, and "the promise" in verse 17 are all the same identical "promise(s)."  The term "the promise(s)" in all three verses, 12, 15 and 17, are all used synonymously with the expression "the Abrahamic Covenant."

     In addition. the term "hope" in verses 11 and 18, and the term "promise(s)" in verses 12, 15 and 18 are used interchangeably, i.e., both "hope" and "promise(s)" all refer to and are used synonymously with the term "the Abrahamic Covenant."  In other words, wherever one expression is used, the other two expressions could be substituted in its place and the meaning of the passage would remain unchanged.

     A third term that is used interchangeably with "hope," "promise(s)" and "the Abrahamic Covenant" is "counsel" in verse 17.  Both the Greek grammatical construction, the context and common sense affirm this as this chapter will demonstrate to the reader's complete satisfaction.  So then, these four terms, (1) "hope," (2) "promise(s)," (3) "counsel" and (4) "the Abrahamic Covenant" are synonyms and are interchangeable.

     "Hope," "promise(s)," "counsel" and "the Abrahamic Covenant" are not, however, the only synonymous, interchangeable terms in this passage. "Them who through faith and patience inherit the promises," mentioned in verse 12, is used interchangeably with the expression "the heirs of promise" in verse 17. And, both of these expressions are used interchangeably with the expression, "who have fled for refuge" in verse 18.  In other words, all three expressions refer to the same identical group of people, the Abrahamic Seed Group.  "Them who through faith and patience inherit the promises" (v. 12), "the heirs of promise" (v. 17), and "who have fled for refuge" (v. 18) are descriptions of the same, single group of people, the Abrahamic Seed Group.

     The context fully substantiates the interchangeability of the above terms.  However, their interchangeability is more precisely determined by the Anaphoric Use of the Greek Definite Article, which denotes or identifies a word that has been used previously in the context.  When the same word or expression is used more than once in a context and the Article is used with second or third occurrence of the same word or expression, the Article signals to the reader that the second or third occurrence is the same identical thing, person, event, idea, etc., that was previously mentioned.  The Definite Article is used with "hope" and "promise(s)" in each place they are used in this passage, recognizing them as identical.  Although the expression "the Abrahamic Covenant" is not used in this context, both "hope" and "promise(s)" are used interchangeably with it.  The Article is also used with "them who inherit," "the heirs of promise" and "those who fled," identifying all three expressions as referring to the same, single group of people, the Abrahamic Seed Group.  All Greek grammarians recognize this use of the Greek Definite Article:

 "The article calls attention to a substantive which has been previously mentioned and which may be defined or identified or understood by recollection of the previous reference.  The initial reference may or may not have the article.  This use is sometimes referred to as the anaphoric use" (BW p. 68).

 "The article may be used to point out an object, the identity of which is determined by some previous reference made to it in the context" (DM p. 141).

 "The individualizing use of the article was described by Apollonius Dyscolus, an early grammarian, as anaphoric, in that it refers back to what is already familiar" (M III p. 173).

 "...known as the anaphoric use because there is reference back to what is known or assumed to be known" (BD pp. 131-132).

 "The article often refers to something just mentioned.  This is called the Anaphoric use" (WDC p. 55).

      Some examples from Scripture, demonstrating the Anaphoric Use of the Article will make the above statements plain.  In Matthew 2:7, the Article used with "wise men" identifies them as the same "wise men" in verse 1.  In Revelation 15:6, the Article used with both the "seven angels" and the "seven plagues,"  identifies them as the same "angels" and "plagues" in verse 1.  Blass cites 1 Corinthians 13:13 as Anaphoric, referring "charity" back to "charity" in verses 3 and 4 (BD p. 132).  He also says that the "feast" of John 12:12 is the same as the "passover" in verse 1 because of anaphora.  Finally, he says the "prophet" in John 7:40 is the same prophet mentioned in John 1:21 because of anaphora.  In this example, the first and second occurrence of "prophet" are separated by several chapters.

            The Anaphoric Use of the Article refers to the "sameness" of things in a context whether the things are described by the same words and expressions throughout the passage or with different words and expressions.  In addition to the examples cited by Blass above, the great grammarian A.T. Robertson, gives examples of this use of the Article.  He cites in Acts 9:17, "the one appearing" as the same as and refers back to "the Lord" in verse 11.  In James 2:3, the "one wearing the splendid clothing" refers back to and is the same as "a man gold-fingered in clothing splended" in verse 2.  In James 2:3, a "poor man" refers back to the poor man "in shabby clothing" in verse 2.  In 2 Corinthians 5:5, "the one having given" is referred back to "the one having wrought" in the same verse.  Then, both the "one having given" and the "one having wrought" are referred back to "the life" in 2 Corinthians 5:4.  In Hebrews 5:5,  "the honor" is referred back to "the things" in verse 1 (ATR p. 762).  In other words, Anaphora denotes "sameness" even though the same referents are described by different expressions.  Later in this section we will show from the context that "hope" in verses 11 and 18 refer to the Abrahamic Covenant and not to Jesus.  Of course, Jesus is the "hope" of the world. But, not in this context.  The "hope" in verses 11 and 18 is a synonym of the Abrahamic Covenant.

     One other question must be answered.  Why does the author use the plural "promises" in verse 12 and the singular "promise" in verses 15 and 17?  The same phenomenon also occurs in Galatians 3:16 and 17.  Both the singular, "promise," and the plural "promises," are used interchangeably.  Some commentators view "promises" as being the Abrahamic Covenant repeated at various intervals down through the centuries.  Other commentators view "promises" as being the individual "promises" that make up the one Abrahamic Covenant.  Whichever use of "promises" one chooses, both groups of commentator's refer "promises," substantially, to "the promise" which is the Abrahamic Covenant.  In other words, "promises" and "promise" are, in essence, the same thing, i.e., they both refer substantially to the Abrahamic Covenant and are used interchangeably. (See WEV III, p. 219.)

     In this section we examine four expressions the author used in Hebrews 6:10-12.  These four expressions set the stage for the balance of the chapter.  They are "diligence to," "the full assurance," "of hope," and "inherit."

"Diligence To"

     In verse 10, the readers of the Hebrews were diligently engaged in work, labor of love and ministry to the saints.  In verse 11, the author desires for them to demonstrate the same diligence, resulting in the full assurance that they had demonstrated to their work, labor of love and ministry to the saints.  His desire for their diligence, resulting in the full assurance, was no whimsical thing.  "Desire" is the translation of the Greek word EPITHUMEO, which stresses a deep, inner impulse.  It means a deep emotional craving or longing.

     He desires "diligence," which is the translation of SPOUDE, meaning earnest, care, haste and zeal.

            He desires their diligence to have a practical result in their lives, i.e., he desires their diligence to result in the "full assurance."  "To" is the translation of the Greek preposition PROS, which in this context denotes purpose, destiny, that for which one consciously aims or strives at, and the results which follow the conscious striving (BAG p. 710). This use of PROS can be illustrated by Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:28.  He said, "whosoever looketh at a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."  "To" is the translation of PROS, which means in this context, "resulting in," i.e., "whosoever looketh on a woman 'resulting in' lust...."  PROS has the same meaning in Hebrews 6:11.  The author desires their diligence "to result in" the full assurance.

"The Full Assurance"

     "The full assurance" is the most important expression in verse 11.  It may well be the most important expression in the entire book of Hebrews.  Everything that follows in chapter six was written to demonstrate the concept of "the full assurance."  The major importance of this expression is seen in the word itself.  "Full Assurance" is the translation of PLEROPHORIA.  The noun form of this word used here, is the combination of PLERO, meaning "full" plus PHERO, meaning "to carry." The verb form of this word means "to persuade fully."  The noun form in verse 11 means "a full-carrying assurance as a result of having been fully persuaded."  Because one has been fully persuaded, he has a full-carrying assurance.  This word does not admit of a hesitant, halting, incomplete, persuasion, resulting in an uncertain, doubtful, wavering form of on-again off-again assurance.  This word means "convinced to the overflowing point."  It means "carrying a full load" of whatever is necessary to produce, "unqualified confidence."  It means "full assurance."

     The second demonstration of the great importance of "full assurance" is in the word "the" placed just before "full assurance" in the KJV of verse 11.  "The" is the Definite Article in both Greek and English.  The primary function of the Greek Definite Article is to identify, to particularize, to distinguish, or to set apart.  "The," combined with "full assurance," sets "full assurance" apart conspicuously, like a light on a hill for all to see in isolation from all other lights.

     All Greek grammarians agree that the basic function of the Greek Definite Article is to "particularize."

Turner says, "It separates some from others, individualizing something as this and not that" (M III p.36). He further adds,... "it particularizes an individual member of a group or class" (M III p. 165).

Dana and Mantey declare, "The function of the Article is to point out an object or to draw attention to it.  Its use with a word makes the word stand out distinctly" (DM p. 137).

Summers states, "The basic function of the Greek article is to identify" (RS p. 129).

Mare says, "The article, like the English 'the,' is often needed to make a word definite, such as 'the' boy, 'the' man, rather than 'a' boy or 'a' man" (WHM p. 19).

Robertson - Davis concur, "It defines, limits, points out from.  The Greek article is a pointer.  It is natural, if not good manners, for children to point at objects...As a pointer it can point out or at anything not already definite enough without it" (RD pp. 275, 276).

 Chamberlain agrees, "The article points out objects.  The article distinguishes: individuals from individuals - classes from classes - qualities from qualities" (WDC p. 54).

 Greenlee affirms, "The article is used with nouns which are set apart as a special member of their class" (JHG p. 22).

 Brooks and Winbery declare, "The basic function of the Greek article is to point out, to draw attention to, to identify, to make definite, to define, to limit" (BW p. 67).

 LaSor says, "The definite article can serve to make a noun or substantive particular.  Out of all the men in the genus, I am speaking about a particular man, the 'man.'  In this sense, the Greek definite article is translated by the English definite article" (LSB pp. 183, 184).

 Robertson says,  "There is either contrast in the distinction drawn or allusion (anaphoric) to what is already mentioned or assumed as well known.  The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing out like an index finger.  It is a pointer...Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite...The article is never meaningless in Greek...Its free use leads to exactness and finesse...The article does not give the reason for the distinction drawn between individuals.  That is usually apparent from the context...The vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of view and find the reason for the use of the article" (ATR pp. 755, 756, 757).

      In other words, the use of the Greek Definite Article with "full assurance," means that our author desires their diligence to result in "the full assurance" which is distinct from all other forms or kinds of "full assurances."  In the last quote above, Robertson says we should find the reason for the use of the Article and that the reason is usually revealed in the context.  This statement brings us to ask what is so particular and distinct about the "full assurance" in verse 11?  Why is the Definite Article used here?  What is the individualizing exactness the author wishes us to see in "the full assurance"?  Does the context reveal "why" the Article is used here?  Indeed it does, as we shall see next concerning "the hope."

                                 "Of Hope"

     The next two words in the verse,  "of hope," explain what makes "the full assurance" so particular and distinct.  He desires their diligence to result in "the full assurance of hope."  We must point out two great facts about the expression, "of hope."  First, in the Greek text, the Definite Article is also used with "hope."  The KJV did not translate this occurrence of the Article in their translation.  This is unfortunate since it leaves the impression that "hope" in verse 11 could be just "any vague hope," rather than "the specific, definite, distinct hope."  Everything said above concerning the Definite Article with "full assurance," including all the grammars quoted, applies also to "hope."  "The hope" in verse 11, consequently, is not just any hope, but is "the hope," specifically and distinctly.  What exactly, is this specific, definite, distinct hope?  The context of Hebrews 6:11-20 and the Greek text shows that "the hope" is used interchangeably with "the promises to Abraham" and also with "the Abrahamic Covenant."  Therefore, the exactness, the specificity of the hope is this: "the hope," in this context, is the Abrahamic Covenant.

     The next great fact concerning "the hope" is the way the expression "of the hope" is used in this sentence.  It is used in the Greek construction that is the Greeks' way of describing something.  This construction describes by telling "what kind it is."  It describes by saying "it is this kind and not that kind," or "it is this kind and no other kind."  The name of this Greek construction is the "Genitive Case."  Robertson - Davis said, "The genitive case means 'this and not that,' or 'this and no other' " (RD p. 225).  The Genitive Case, this Greek construction for describing something, is used throughout the Greek New Testament.  In Hebrews 3:12, in the expression, "an evil heart of unbelief," "of unbelief" is in the Genitive Case, which describes what kind of "an evil heart" it is.  For example, it is an unbelief kind of evil heart and no other kind of evil heart.  In Matthew 5:22, in the expression, "hell fire," fire is in the Genitive Case describing what kind of hell (gehenna) it is, i.e., a fire kind of hell and no other kind of hell.  In Luke 4:22, in the expression "words of grace," grace is in the Genitive Case describing what kind of words they are.  For example, they are the grace kind of words and no other kind of words.  In Hebrews 6:11, in the expression, "the full assurance of the hope," "the hope" is in the Genitive Case describing what kind of the full assurance it is.  For example, it is the hope kind of the full assurance and no other kind of full assurance.  Since "the hope" is used interchangeably with "the Abrahamic Covenant," we may say that it is the Abrahamic Covenant kind of the full-carrying assurance and no other kind of full-carrying assurance.

     All Greek grammarians recognize that the basic function of the Genitive Case is description:

 Hewett said, "The genitive case is used to add more definiteness than the substantive, adjective, verb or preposition would otherwise have.  It will tell the kind, specify, define, limit, or designate something about the word to which it is related that the bare word itself would not convey" (JAH p. 197).

 Chamberlain said, "The genitive case is primarily the 'describing' case" (WDC p. 29).

 Dana and Mantey declare, "The genitive case is the case of definition or description...the basal function of the genitive is to define...The genitive limits as to kind...The genitive reduces the range of reference possible to an idea, and confines its application within specific...Thus, by the use of the genitive, the implications of an idea are brought within a definite scope.  Then it would appear that the basal function of the genitive is to set more definitely the limits of an idea as to its class or kind" (DM pp. 72, 73).

 Brooks and Winbery state, "The basic function of the genitive is to describe and define.  It does so by attributing a quality or relationship to a substantive.  It limits the meaning and application of a substantive.  It does so by answering the question, What kind?" (BW pp. 7, 8).

      This expression, "of the hope," could also be translated by "the full assurance consisting of the hope." This translation considers the expression "of the hope" as a Genitive of Apposition.  When the term in the Genitive is not actually identical with the word it describes, but is identical in a practical way we can translate using such expressions as "precisely," "namely" or "consisting of."

 Brooks and Winbery state,  "If the word in the genitive is identical with the word it modifies, it is a genitive of apposition...A test for this use of the genitive is the ability to use some such expression as 'consisting of, namely, filled with, or made of in the translation' " (BW p. 15).

 Robertson - Davis call this the Qualitative Use of the Genitive and declare, "There may be practical identity (apposition) at times..." (RD p. 228).

 Chamberlain says, "It may be used in apposition to another noun to further define it" (WDC p. 30).

 Hewett affirms, "The word in the genitive may be substituted for another word, thereby gaining the signification of the prior term" (JAH p. 198).

 Goodwin calls this use of the Genitive, the Genitive of Material.  He says it describes "Material or contents including that of which anything consists" (WWG p. 230).

 Dana and Mantey conclude, "In this construction a thing denoted as a represenative of a class is more specifically defined by attributing to it in the genitive a particular designation" (DM p. 79).

      Second Corinthians 5:1 is a prime example of the Genitive of Apposition: "...if our earthly house of this tabernacle (tent) were dissolved...."  "Of this tent" is a Genitive of Apposition.  It tells of what the house consists, i.e., "if our earthly house 'namely' this tent, or 'consisting of' this tent..." etc.  Another prime illustration is Romans 4:11: Abraham "received the sign of circumcision...."  "Of circumcision" is the Genitive of Apposition.  It tells of what the sign consists, i.e., "he received the sign 'namely' circumcision" or, "he received the sign 'consisting of' circumcision...."  In Hebrews 6:11, the expression "of the hope" is also a prime example of the Genitive of Apposition.  It tells of what the full assurance consists: "the full assurance 'namely' the hope," or "the full assurance 'consisting of' the hope," or "consisting of" the Abrahamic Covenant since "hope" and "the Abrahamic Covenant" are synonyms.  Other obvious examples of the Genitive of Apposition include 2 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Peter 2:6; Ephesians 2:20; Hebrews 12:11; 2 Corinthians 1: 22; and John 2:21.

     We readily see from the above discussion that the Definite Article draws the distinction and the Genitive Case describes the distinction by telling what kind it is and of what the distinction consists.  In other words, the author deeply desires every individual reader to demonstrate the same diligence they demonstrated concerning their work and ministry; to result in the Abrahamic Promise kind of full-carrying assurance and no other kind of full-carrying assurance.  He desires for them to have the full-carrying assurance consisting of the promises made to Abraham.  Now, we can understand why the author used "the" with "full-carrying assurance."  He set it apart because it is the specific, definite, exact Abrahamic Covenant kind of "full-carrying assurance" as opposed to all other kinds of assurances.

     "Hope" is the translation of ELPIDA, the regular Greek word for "hope."  "Unto" is the translation of ACHRI, the Greek word for "until."  "End" is the translation of TELOS which means the point at which things, processes, etc., cease.

            What is the author's purpose in desiring the full-carrying assurance consisting of the promises to Abraham?  Verse 12 reveals that he had a negative and positive purpose.  His negative purpose was that "ye be not slothful."  "Slothful" is the translation of NOTHROS meaning sluggish, dull, languid or lazy.  He was fearful they were on the verge of lapsing back into The Great Disconnect Theory, and they would again attempt to seek salvation by the works of the law apart from the Abrahamic Covenant.

"Inherit"

     His positive purpose is that they be "followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises."  (Again, the reader may want to reread pages 65-73 in Volume I of this work to review the four reasons why we know these "inheritors" in verse 12 are continuously inheriting the same identical blessings (BARAK-EULOGIA) that Abraham obtained.)

     "Followers" is the translation of MEMATAS which means "imitator." Our English word "mimic" corresponds to it.  This word, in the noun form, is used seven times in the Greek New Testament and is always translated "followers."  It is used as a verb four times in the Greek New Testament and is always translated "follows."  It means more, however, than just to mimic, copy or imitate.  It means, at bottom, obedience.  "The New Testament as a whole does not teach imitation in the primary sense of imitating an example but rather in the predominate sense of discipleship, i.e., of obedience to the Word and will of the Lord either directly or by way of the apostles" (TDNT p. 596).  In other words, even as the author was writing the book of Hebrews, there was a group, the Remnant (the Abrahamic Seed Group) who were at that very same time, continuously inheriting the promises made to Abraham.  They were continuously inheriting them because they understood the Law was an act of grace, enabling them to maintain the Abrahamic blessings.  They also understood that Jesus was the final sacrifice of the Law for their sins, and by receiving him as their personal sacrifice, rather than the animal sacrifices prescribed by Moses, the Abrahamic blessings were theirs forever.  Based on this understanding, they willingly and deliberately received him.  In so doing, they became part of the Remnant (the Abrahamic Seed Group) and began continuously inheriting the promises.  The author desires everyone of his readers to have the same understanding the Remnant had.  Then, based upon that understanding, he desires everyone of his readers to do the same thing that the Remnant did, i.e., receive Christ as their own substitute for sin rather than the animal sacrifices prescribed by Moses, in so doing, they too, would become part of the Remnant and would begin continuously inheriting the Abrahamic promises.

     The fact of the Remnant's continuously inheriting the promises of Abraham is seen in the way the word "inherit" is used in the Greek text.  "Inherit" is the translation of KLARONOMEO, meaning to receive possession of by inheriting.  In verse 12, KLARONOMEO, "inherit," is a Present Participle.  This Present Participle demonstrates that the Remnant (the Abrahamic Seed Group) is continuously inheriting the promises to Abraham during the present time.  We shall prove this statement by defining the use of a Greek Present Participle and thereby supporting our definition from a number of Greek grammars.  Finally, we shall apply our definition to the Remnant (the Abrahamic Seed Group) in verse 12.  Keep in mind that verses 11 and 12 are one sentence and that "desire" is the main verb in the sentence.  "Desire" is in the Present Tense.

     A Present Participle is the device the Greeks used to describe an action that is in progress during the time of the main action (verb) in the sentence.

     All Greek Participles, standing alone, are timeless.  They contain no implication of time.  Although they describe an action or state of being, there is nothing about them that denotes time.  They do, however, assume a time relationship from the context of the sentences in which they are used.  The Greek Present Participle in verse 12, "inherit," also assumes a time relationship.  It assumes the same time relationship that is the predominate use of the Greek Present Participle in the Greek New Testament, which is to describe a continuous action occurring at the same time as the main verb (action) in the sentence.  Since "inherit" follows the predominate usage of Greek Present Participles in the Greek New Testament, we shall frame the rule for this predominate use thus: unless the context Indicates otherwise, the Greek Present Participle denotes continuous action occurring at the same time as the time of the action denoted by the main verb in the sentence.

 Summers says,  "The present participle indicates continuous action which takes place at the same time as the action of the main verb.  The present participle indicates action which is contemporaneous with the action of the main verb" (RS pp. 89, 90).

 Machen states, "The tense of the participle is relative to the time of the leading verb.  The present participle, therefore, is used if the action denoted by the participle is represented as taking place at the same time as the action denoted by the leading verb, no matter whether the action denoted by the leading verb is past, present or future" (JGM pp. 105, 106).

 Volez affirms, "The tense of the participle is understood relative to the tense of the main verb.  The participle does not convey any particular time in and of itself.  THIS IS TRUE OF PARTICIPLES OF EVERY TENSE.  The present participle conveys action at the same time as the main verb, whatever that time may be" (JWV p. 131).

 Davis declares, "The participle has not time in itself.  Time with a participle is purely relative; it gets its time from the verb with which it is used.  Tense in the participle expresses 'kind of action': the present participle, durative action..." (WHD p. 99).

 Mare says, "The present participle indicates action that occurs at the same time as that of the main verb,..."  "Further, it is to be noted that the time of the present participle, being related to that of the main verb, is coincidental with the time of the main verb which governs the overall time situation of the sentence" (WHM pp. 45, 48).

 Turner continues, "But, eventually the aorist participle came to denote a time which was past in relation to the main verb, and the present participle time which was contemporaneous" (M III p. 79).

 Dana and Mantey confirm, "Simultaneous action relative to the main verb is ordinarily expressed by the Present Participle" (DM p. 230).

 Burton concludes, "The Present Participle most frequently denotes an action in progress, simultaneous with the action of the principle verb" (EDB p. 54).

      From the preceding definition, we understand that a Greek Present Participle denotes continuous action.  The Participle in verse 12, "inherit" therefore, is continuous and should be translated "are continuously inheriting."  We also understand from the above, that the continuous action of the Present Participle takes place at the same time as the leading verb in the sentence.  "Desire" is the leading verb in our sentence here and is in the Present Tense.  Putting the two together, we see that the continuous action of our Present Participle, "are continuously inheriting" is taking place at the same time of our Present Tense verb, "desire."  The author "is desiring" while the Remnant "is continuously inheriting."

     The real force and scope of the Greek Participle is expressed by Burton's statement, "...the action of the verb falls within the period covered by the participle" (EDB p. 55).

     The period covered by the Participle "inheriting," extends from Abraham to the present.  It was during this period that the author performed his act of "desiring."  But how do we know that the Participle "inheriting" covered such a broad span of time, i.e., from Abraham to the present?  We know this for two reasons.  First, common sense gleans from this context that it was Abraham's heirs - all of them - down through the centuries who had been and still are inheriting Abraham's blessings.  Second, the way the Present Participle "inheriting" is used here lets us know the Participle covers the time span from Abraham to the present.

     What is there about this Present Participle (inheriting) that allows it to cover every believing seed of Abraham during a period that spans 2000 years, and that with its force still continuing in verse 12?  This Present Participle spanned 2000 years with continuing effectiveness because it is a Greek grammatical construction called "A Present of Past Action Still in Progress."

     "The Present of Past Action Still in Progress" in Greek includes an action begun in the past which is still continuing in the present.  But the simple Greek Present Tense and the Greek Present Participle can render this meaning.  This "Present of Past Action Still in Progress" is given different names by different grammarians, but the idea is the same regardless of the name.

 Dana and Mantey call it the "Present of Duration" and declare, "Sometimes the progressive present is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present" (DM p. 183).

 Burton calls it the Present of Past Action Still in Progress and says, "...the action denoted beginning before the action of the principal verb and continuing in progress..." (EDB p. 59).

 Turner doesn't name it.  He just defines it:  "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress" (M III p. 62).

 Brooks and Winbery follow Dana and Mantey by calling it the Durative Present:  "An action or state of being which began in the past is described as continuing until the present.  The past and the present are gathered up in a single affirmation...Although impractical to bring out in English translation, the full meaning is that something has been and still is" (BW p. 77).

 Chamberlain defines it without naming it.  He says, "The force may be to 'gather up the past and the present time into one phrase' " (WDC p. 70).

 In other words, the inheriting in 6:12 has been going on since Abraham and is still going on.

            John 5:5 is a graphic illustration of the Present Participle used as a "Present of Past Action Still in Progress."  John says, "And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years."  "Had" is a Present Participle and should be translated "continuously having."  The context in this verse signals that the "continuously having" has been going on for thirty-eight years and still is.  Hence, the Participle is a Present of Past Action Still in Progress.  Both A. T. Robertson and E. D. Burton cite this verse as an example of the Present Participle used as the Present of Past Action Still in Progress.

Scholarship recognizes both the context and the Participle "inheriting" used here as a "Present of Past Action Still in Progress" to demonstrate that the "inheritors" in verse 12 includes all of Abraham's believing seed from the time of Abraham down to the present.

     McComiskey states, "Even the writer of Hebrews said, 'Abraham received what was promised' (6:15).  But in verse 12, he affirmed the continuing effectiveness of the promise, for he spoke of those 'who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised' " (TEM p. 48).

      The Century Bible states, "The may have specially in mind the men of faith of the Old Covenant, many of whom are enumerated in the eleventh chapter...and Christian believers may be included" (CB - Hebrews p. 148).

      The American Commentary affirms, "The present participle, inheriting shows that not merely the patriarchs and the ancient worthies are meant, but the whole line of the faithful down to their own day" (TAC VI Hebrews p. 80).

             The Pulpit Commentary says, "The present participle 'inheriting' does not confine the sense of the expression to those who are now so inheriting.  Abraham being presently adduced as an example, it refers to all who at any time so inherit..." (PC XXI Hebrews p. 162).

 Kistemaker declares, "Although the writer does not specify in 6:12 who the inheritors are, the context reveals that he is thinking of Old Testament saints - Abraham (6:13) and the heroes of faith (chap. 11) - and saints of his own day" (SJK pp - 167, 168).

      Lange concludes, "The Present Participle 'inheriting,' implies a continuous and abiding act, so that the reference can scarcely be exclusively to the Patriarchs" (LC XI Hebrews p. 118).

      Verses 11 and 12, then, teach of a believing Jewish Remnant, the Abrahamic Seed Group, in the New Testament era who understood the relationship of Moses' law to the Abrahamic Covenant.  They understood that the performance of the proper sacrifices for sin prescribed by Moses' law in the Old Testament era maintained the continuous flow of the provisions of Abraham's Covenant in their behalf.  They understood that during the New Testament era, receiving Jesus Christ as the final, blood sacrifice for sin, thereby terminating the sacrifices of Moses' law, the provisions of the promises to Abraham, including healing and prosperity in addition to salvation, would be theirs without interruption.  This Remnant is the group the author refers to in verse 12 as presently continuously inheriting the Abrahamic promises.  We must emphasize again, that this present, continuous inheriting is based upon four things.

 1.  It is based upon the proper understanding of the relationship of Moses' law to the Abrahamic Covenant, i.e., Moses' law was an act of grace to maintain the promises.

 2.  They must understand that Jesus Christ is the final sacrifice for sin under Moses' law.

 3.  They must understand that by receiving Christ as the final sacrifice for their sin, they maintain for themselves the provisions of the promises of Abraham forever.

 4.  Finally, based upon the three-fold understanding described above, they must willingly, deliberately receive Jesus as their Savior, i.e., they must receive him as the final Mosaic sacrifice for sin.

      The author of Hebrews, in desiring that each one of his Jewish readers "mimic" those who are presently inheriting the promises of Abraham, is speaking of their doing the same thing the Remnant is doing to continuously be inheriting the promises.  The Remnant is believing in Jesus as the final Mosaic sacrifice to maintain the promises of Abraham for themselves.  When the author's readers do the same thing, i.e., believe in Jesus as the final Mosaic sacrifice to maintain the Abrahamic promises for themselves, each one of them will become a member of the Remnant, the Abrahamic Seed Group, (the nation within the nation).  Then, they too, will be continuously inheriting the Abrahamic promises of healing, prosperity and salvation without interruption.

The Reasons Why We Know That Jewish Christians Are Continuously Inheriting Health, Wealth and Salvation

      Verses 13 through 20 give several reasons why the Remnant is presently, continuously inheriting the promises made to Abraham.  These same reasons also justify the author's desire for his readers diligence to result in the Abrahamic Covenant kind of full-carrying assurance and no other kind of full-carrying assurance.  He presents these reasons under two main headings.  Under the first heading, he relates the Abrahamic Covenant to Abraham himself.  Under the second heading, he relates the Abrahamic Covenant to the "heirs of promise."  He introduces both headings with the conjunction "for," which is the translation of the Greek conjunction GAR.  In this work, we shall examine both headings together by breaking them into five distinct sets of reasons that demonstrate why the Remnant is continuously inheriting the promises and why the writer's desire for their full-carrying assurance is justified.  These five, distinct groups of reasons are based upon five great themes presented in verses 13-20.  These themes are:

 1.  The experience of Abraham himself.

2.  The nature and character of God.

3.  The scope, nature and character of "The Hope."

4.  The Heirs of Promise.

5.  The identity and function of the Forerunner.

      Before examining the five categories of reasons listed above, we must say some things about the conjunction "for" used in verses 13 and 16.  This word is used to give the reason or cause for a preceding statement.  The preceding statement can be general and the reason or reasons supporting it (introduced by "for") can be particular.  This is the case in this passage.  To say that the Remnant is continuously inheriting the promises is a general statement.  To say that the writer desires their diligence to result in the full-carrying assurance is also a general statement.  But, beginning with verse 13, introduced by "for," the writer supports these two general statements with a host of individual, particular reasons.  It is to this host of individual, particular reasons that we now turn our attention.

 Reasons Based Upon Abraham's Experience Why We Know the Jewish   Remnant of the Abrahamic Seed Group is Continuously Inheriting Healing and  Prosperity in Addition to Salvation in Hebrews 6:12

      The first reason introduced by "for" or GAR is the fact that Abraham obtained what God promised him.  We demonstrated in Volume I that the promises Jewish Christians are presently inheriting are the same identical blessings that Abraham obtained which is healing and prosperity in addition to salvation. (See Volume I, pp. 65-73).

     But, if our purpose is to "devotionalize" this passage (Hebrews 6:10-20), we can make it say anything we want it to say.  i.e., we can use it to illustrate any Christian truth it might fit.  We can use it to illustrate that since God kept his Word with Abraham, he will also keep his Word with Christians.  This "devotional" posits the promises in verse 12 as Christian promises exclusively, and the promises in verse 13-15 as exclusively Abrahamic.  Christians are now continuously inheriting their Christian promises God made to them in verse 12, just like Abraham obtained his promises God made to him in verse 15.  In other words, God's keeping his Word to Abraham is used to illustrate the Christian truth that God is keeping his Word with Christians also.  This is good, valid, acceptable devotional preaching, teaching and writing.  But, if our purpose is to reproduce in our language what the author wrote in Greek, the above devotional misses it by a mile, since neither the context nor the Greek language allows such vagueness.

     The above devotional assumes that the phrase in verse 12, "them who inherit the promises," refers to Christians who are inheriting a completely different, totally unrelated set of promises from those "...promised...and sware..." to Abraham in verse 13.  In other words, Christians have a set of Christian promises in verse 12.  Abraham had an entirely different set of promises in verse 13.  He obtained his set of promises in the past in verse 15, while Christians are inheriting their set of promises now in verse 12.  And God is viewed as keeping his Word with both Abraham and Christians concerning their two different, unrelated sets of promises.  God's fidelity to Abraham is no more than an illustration of his fidelity to Christians.  And we have already demonstrated this "devotionalizing" just won't wash.

     We cannot conclude, however, that Abraham obtained everything contained in the promises, (11:13 and 39), for the simple reason that the Supreme Seed, Jesus, was not yet born.  Although the promise of Jesus, the seed to whom the promises were made, was contained in the original promises to Abraham, yet Abraham never realized this promise during his lifetime.  He did, however, obtain that portion of the covenant that was intended for him to receive during his lifetime (v. 15).  "Obtained" is the translation of EPITUNCHANO, the combination of the Greek preposition EPI which means "upon," with TUNCHANO, meaning "to get."  In other words, Abraham "got upon" the promise.  He obtained the promises; He "got upon" them.

     The same promise that had some things for Abraham to obtain during his lifetime also contained some things for the Remnant to receive during their lifetime.  Since the same covenant contained provisions for both Abraham and the Remnant, and since Abraham received the portion that pertained to his lifetime, it stands to reason that the same covenant would also be valid for the Remnant during their lifetime.  This is the writer's meaning demonstrated by the conjunction "for."  We have already observed that "for" gives the reasons in support of a preceding, general statement.  In other words, the Remnant in verse 12 is continuously inheriting the promises to Abraham for the simple reason that the provisions pertaining to them were contained in the same promises Abraham received in his lifetime.  Because Abraham received his portion of the promises, the Remnant is also receiving their portion of the promises.  Indeed, they are continuously inheriting their portion of the promises even now.

     There is another reason cited in verses 13-15, that shows why the Remnant is continuously inheriting the promises to Abraham.  This reason is that the interval of time, between God's giving the promises to Abraham and Abraham's obtaining of them, made no difference at all.  Although there was an interval between the two, the passage of time did not lessen the validity of the promise to Abraham.  Regardless of the interval, he obtained the promise.  Since time did not lessen the validity of the promises to Abraham and since the Remnant is included in the same promises, therefore, time did not lessen the validity of the Abrahamic Covenant to the Remnant.  This is demonstrated by his statement in verse 12, showing the Remnant "is continuously inheriting the promises."  Verse 12 states that it is "through patience" during the interval that the Remnant is continuously inheriting the promises.  Verse 15 states that Abraham "patiently endured" during the interval, after which he obtained the promises.  The expression "through patience" in verse 12, and the expression "patiently endured" in verse 15, are translations of the same Greek word, MAKROTHUMEO.  This word combines MAKROS, meaning long, with THUMOS, meaning mind or temper.  The combination means "longtempered" or "longminded," hence, patience.  In other words, during the interval between God's giving of the promises and Abraham's receiving them, Abraham was longtempered or patient.  Consequently, he obtained them.  Since the Remnant was included in the same promises, during the interval between Gods' giving of the promises, which included them, and their receiving of them, the Remnant is longtempered or patient.  Consequently, they are continuously inheriting the promises.  The interval did not lessen the validity of the promises for either Abraham or the Remnant.

            When the writer posited God's promises to Abraham. which included both him and the Remnant within its borders, as the reason why the Remnant is continuously inheriting what was promised them, he openly declared the continuing validity of the Abrahamic Covenant as the basis for Jewish healing and prosperity in addition to salvation in the New Testament era.  McComiskey said of this passage that God "affirmed the current force of the promise (6:13) for New Testament believers" (TEM p. 141).

 Reasons Based Upon the Nature, Character and Acts of God Why the Jewish Remnant of the Abrahamic Seed Group is Continuously Inheriting Healing and Prosperity in Addition to Salvation in Hebrews 6:12

      The next series of reasons introduced by "for" (GAR) why the Remnant is continuously inheriting the Abrahamic promises are based on the nature, character and acts of God.  The first of his characteristics we examine is his Exclusive Greatness as revealed in the expression "because he could swear by no greater" in verse 13.

     "He could" is the translation of EIKEN, which is in the Imperfect Tense.  This is the construction the Greek used to denote continuous action in past time.  It means that God was continuously searching the universe for the greatest being there was so he could swear by him.  He continuously found no one greater than himself.  Since he determined to back his promises to Abraham and his seed with an oath appealed to the highest authority, he gave himself no choice but to swear by himself.

     All oaths are related to the highest being in the universe.  When called upon, in a court of law to affirm by oath, we say, "So help me God."  Since God's oath was given to back a series of promises that were to endure forever, how could God's oath be appealed to a lesser authority than himself?  Only God had the greatness and ability to promise things having eternal ramifications.  In addition, he was the only high authority that could be appealed to with the ability to guarantee eternal promises with an oath.  Under the circumstances, what lesser authority could guarantee eternal promises?  Could he swear by the sun, moon and stars?  No.  They cannot back eternal promises since they are not eternal.  They could pass away and no longer vouchsafe for promises that outlasted them.  Could he swear by the earth?  No, for the greatness of the earth does not insure its eternality.  It, too, could pass away and no longer exist to guarantee the eternal promises God made to Abraham and his seed.  Consequently, if God did not appeal to himself, then who or what could he appeal to with the greatness necessary to back eternal promises?  There was no one else.

     The promises to Abraham and the heirs of promise were so important to God, that he gave himself no choice but to swear by himself.  A lesser authority just would not do.  The importance God placed upon his promises to Abraham and the Remnant wouldn't allow it.  Therefore, God placed himself under necessity to swear by himself rather than a lesser authority.  He did this to show the extent, depth, intensity and magnitude of his commitment to Abraham and his heirs.  God cut himself off from the option of choice.  He was forced by the importance he himself placed upon the promises to swear by himself.  His promises to Abraham and the Remnant meant that much to him.  Appealing to a lesser authority would have left the impression that the promises were of a lesser nature than they were.  But, there was no way that God would let his friend Abraham and the Remnant entertain such a thought.  He meant for them to have no doubt that he was placing all the weight of heaven behind his promises.  He meant for them to know that the Exclusive Greatness of God was that which guaranteed their eternal promises.  He had no one greater to swear by.

     No wonder the writer desires the diligence of his readers to result in the Abrahamic Covenant kind of full-carrying assurance.  The covenant is backed by the Exclusive Greatness of God.  No wonder, after 2000 years, the Remnant is still continuously inheriting the promises made to themselves and Abraham.  The promises are guaranteed by the Exclusive Greatness of God.  Before the promises can fail the Exclusiveness of God's Greatness must crumble.  The promises are as unfailing as the Greatness of God is secure.

     The question we must answer now is why did he need to swear at all?  He swore to place himself on man's level.  In other words, men in general use an oath to confirm agreements between themselves (and these oaths are always appealed to the highest authority).  The modern courtroom oath formula: "So help me God" and the questions asked by a notary public attest this fact.  This is the gist of verse 16.  Verse 16 is simply an illustration of what follows in verse 17.  Put differently, Gods' swearing in verse 17 simply copied what men do.  God condescended to man's level, i.e., his way of doing things and swore like men so Abraham and his heirs could identify with something with which they were already familiar.

            Consequently, when the author used the expression "wherein" in verse 17, he simply meant "in this way" or "in this manner" or "in this same kind of procedure."  What "same kind of procedure"?  God, knowing that men confirm agreements between themselves by oathings, condescends to man's level, i.e., he had previously made an agreement to do certain things for Abraham via his covenant.  Now, using the "same kind of procedure" that men use to confirm agreements between themselves, he makes an oath to Abraham.  This oath for confirmation was an end of all uncertainty, doubt or even strife between God and Abraham as to whether or not God would deliver on his promises.  No wonder our author desires his readers to have the Abrahamic Covenant kind of full-carrying assurance and no other kind: God condescended to our level and swore by the greatest being there is (Himself) to guarantee the Abrahamic Covenant for the benefit of the Abrahamic Seed Group.

          Next, we must determine just exactly what God meant to accomplish with his oath.  In so doing, we learn the next reason why the Seed Group in verse 12 is continuously inheriting healing and prosperity (BARAK-EULOGIA) in addition to salvation.  Actually, he had two purposes in mind when he swore to Abraham.  The first purpose, of course, was for the benefit of Abraham himself.  But verse 17 informs us that he also had another purpose in mind, namely, that he might show "to the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel."  In other words, the Abrahamic Covenant not only included Abraham but also his heirs.  Consequently, God gave the oath to Abraham so that Abraham could have unqualified confidence in the covenant promises, but also that the heirs who would later come into its benefits could have the same unqualified confidence.

     And in verse 17, he elaborates on this aspect of his purpose in swearing, i. e., the heirs could have unqualified confidence in his covenant to bless.  To drive home his point in swearing for the benefit of the heirs, verse 17 contains five terms we must examine.  Those terms translate into English by (1) "willing," (2) "more abundantly," (3) "counsel," (4) "immutability" and (5) "confirmed." (Before proceeding to examine these five terms, we must alert the reader that verses 17 through 20 form one long, complete sentence in which "God" is the subject and "confirmed' is the verb.  "Confirmed" is in the Aorist Tense which means finished action in past time.)

     Our first term showing why the Seed Group in verse 12 is continuously inheriting healing and prosperity (BARAK-EULOGIA) in addition to salvation, is "willing."  This word translates the Greek word BOULOMAI, which means "decisions of the will after previous deliberation" (BAG p. 146).  In other words, BOULOMAI means deciding to act from a pre-conceived, deliberate purpose, plan or design.  Part of God's design in swearing to Abraham was so the heirs would be as reassured and confident as Abraham himself.  "Willing" in this verse is a Present Participle.  Remember the rule for Present Participles: unless the context indicates otherwise, a Present Participle denotes continuous action occurring at the same time as the time of the action denoted by the main verb in the sentence.  And as we stated previously, the main verb in this sentence is "confirmed" in the Aorist Tense signifying finished action in past time.  (Of course "confirmed' is finished action in past time because God confirmed the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 22.) "Willing" here, then, means that even as God finished his act of swearing, he was even then, continuously "willing," or deciding for the heirs to know that, his Blessing Covenant with Abraham and with them would never change.  Way back in Genesis 22, God was continuously willing (deciding) to show by his oath his concern and care for the Abrahamic Seed Group, the heirs of the promise.  As such, the heirs were not an afterthought in the mind of God.  Even as he swore to Abraham, the heirs were continuously a part of his design.  When he swore, he willingly acted from that design in their behalf by swearing by himself.  No wonder our author wants his readers to have the Abrahamic Covenant kind of full-carrying assurance and no other kind: even as he swore (backing the promises by the highest being there is) he was continuously acting for the benefit of the heirs, from a design that included them as well as Abraham.

     The next expression we examine which demonstrates why the Seed Group in verse 12 is continuously inheriting healing and prosperity (BARAK-EULOGIA) in addition to salvation is "more abundantly." Previously, we determined that "he had," in the Imperfect Tense in verse 13, demonstrated how strongly God felt towards Abraham since he swore by himself for Abraham's personal benefit.  And in verse 17, our author reveals that God had even stronger, more intense feelings for the heirs of promise.  These stronger, more intense feelings for the heirs are conveyed to us in the expression "more abundantly."

     "More abundantly" translates PERISSOTERON, meaning over and above; more than is necessary; exceeding some number, rank, need or measure; exceedingly; beyond measure; supremely; exceeding abundantly; something further; more; much more than all; superior; extraordinary; surpassing; more imminent; more remarkable; more excellent (JHT p. 506).  In other words,  God's feelings toward Abraham were so strong that he placed himself under the necessity to swear by no one greater than himself.  And as he was swearing, he was continuously exercising even stronger, more intense feelings of care and concern for the Abrahamic Seed Group, the heirs of promise.  As great as his feelings were for Abraham (the friend of God), his feelings for the Abrahamic Seed Group were "superior."  They were "much more."  They were "beyond measure." They were "supreme!"  No wonder our author desires his readers to have the full-carrying assurance which consists of the Abrahamic Covenant and no other kind: His feeling for them was even stronger than his feelings for Abraham.

     The third term which demonstrates why the Remnant in verse 12 is continuously inheriting health and prosperity (BARAK-EULOGIA) in addition to salvation is "counsel." In verse 17, God calls the Abrahamic Covenant his "counsel."  This translates BOUIA which is the noun form of BOULOMAI, translated "willing" in the first part of this verse.  Since BOULOMAI means the decision to act from a deliberate plan, purpose or design, then BOULA means the plan, purpose and design itself. The Definite Article is used with "counsel," pointing the finger of specificity to it.  In other words, this is not just "any" counsel, "some" counsel or "a" counsel, this is the specific "counsel" plan, design or the Abrahamic Covenant (The Article here is also Anaphoric referring to "promise" in verse 15).  Common sense affirms this, for verse 17 states that God confirmed by oath his counsel.  Verses 13-15 state that God backed his "promise to bless" with the oath.  So "counsel" and "promise to bless" and the "Abrahamic Covenant" are one and the same thing.  And, as we shall prove shortly, "the hope" in verse 11 and 18 are one and the same thing as these other three terms.  In other words, God's covenant with Abraham, which included the Abrahamic Seed Group, was a deliberate design.  It was not willy-nilly.  It was not haphazard.  It was not an afterthought.  It was not an accident.  It was God's deliberate plan, purpose and design.  It included everything necessary to deliver "blessings" to the Remnant.  Nothing in it is left to chance.  It cannot be frustrated.  It knows no disappointments.  It is the deliberate design of God, laid out on the canvas of his all-knowing mind and then erected on the foundation of his unchangeableness.  This covenant will not be moved forever.  This is the plan, purpose and design of the Abrahamic Covenant, given in the personal interest and for the benefit of Abraham and his heirs (Dative of Personal Interest).  God designed it (his counsel) "most supremely" for the benefit of the Abrahamic Seed Group.  No wonder our author deeply desired his readers to have the full-carrying assurance which consists of the Abrahamic Covenant.

     The fourth reason is found in the term "immutable."  Verse 17 declares that the Abrahamic Covenant is "immutable" for the heirs.  This word translates AMETATITHEMI, the combination of three different Greek words: A which is the Greek negative, META which means "to change" and TITHEMI which means "to place, put, stand or set." AMETATITHEMI, then, means "the negation of a change of place," or "unchangeableness."  In other words, God "placed" or "set" the Abrahamic Covenant, which included the Abrahamic Seed Group, in concrete, forever, as it were.  He meant for it never to be changed.  Consequently, the Seed Group, the Remnant, the heirs, are anchored to a covenant which absolutely, in no way, can or will ever be changed!

     In addition, the Definite Article is used with "immutability" or "unchangeableness." Its function here is to point the finger of particularization at our word, "unchangeableness;" separating it, distinguishing it and identifying this "unchangeableness" as unique from all other "unchangeableness" in the world.  Put differently, the "unchangeableness" of the Abrahamic Covenant has a particular uniqueness.  This covenant is "unchangeableness" in a way in which nothing else in the world is unchangeable.  The heirs, therefore, need never fear the shifting sands when their feet are squarely placed upon God's unique "unchangeableness," his covenant with Abraham which included his Seed Group.  No wonder our author strongly desires his readers to have diligence resulting in their full-carrying assurance which consists of the Abrahamic Covenant and no other kind: the covenant itself is the most unique "unchangeableness" in the world.

     The final term we examine here is "confirmed," the translation of MESITEUO.  This is the verb form of the word "mediator," and in this context simply means "to guarantee."  That is, God "guaranteed" the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant to both Abraham and his Seed Group with his oath.  Therefore the blessings (BARAK-EULOGIA) are as sure to us (heirs of promise) as God's word and oath is true.  No wonder our author insists upon the Abrahamic Covenant kind of full-carrying assurance and no other kind: it and it alone is guaranteed by God's oath.

Scholarship agrees that the oath covers and is directed to the heirs.  Consider the statements of the four commentators cited below.

 Moffatt maintains that the "oath in verse 17 that covers the heirs of what Abraham was promised is the same oath made to Abraham in verse 13."  "The oath is almost certainly that just mentioned" (JM p. 88).

 Poole says the oath God made to Abraham covers "believers to whom the promise is made as heirs...that they might know the promise was immutable, and should be punctually fulfilled,..." (W III p. 835).

 Kistemaker declares, "As God assured Abraham of the veracity of his Word and therefore swore with an oath, so also for the believers, called heirs of the promise, God confirms the promise with an oath" (SJK p. 173).  "Reading Genesis 22:16-17, we receive the impression that God gave the promise to Abraham, for he is the one who obtains the blessing.  I will surely bless you, God says to Abraham.  But the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes the Divine blessing applicable to all believers by calling them heirs of the promise.  That meant that God's promise to Abraham transcends the centuries and is (in Christ) as relevant today as it was in Abraham's time (Galatians 3:7, 9, 29).  The oath God swore to Abraham was meant for us to strengthen us in our faith" (SJK p. 174).

 McComiskey affirms, "The writer of Hebrews spoke of the oath made by God with Abraham and his descendants (6:13-15).  As he developed his argument he said the oath confirmed God's purposes to the 'heirs of what was promised' (v. 17).  Then with no observable transition, he included himself and his readers in the group he called the heirs of promise.  He affirmed that the same oath provided them with 'hope as an anchor for the soul' (v. 19).  He wrote, 'we who have fled... have this hope...' (vv. 18, 19).  He confirmed here an organic union with believers under the old covenant" (TEM p. 190).  He further states,  "In 6:13-20 the writer established the continuing validity of the oath sworn to Abraham.  He said of that oath that it was made so that 'we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged' (v. 18).  We observed earlier that 'we' in this verse included the writer as well as the believers he was addressing.  The Abrahamic Covenant has a continuing force" (TEM p. 166).

     Now that we have thoroughly documented from verse 17 that God gave the oath to guarantee the Abrahamic Covenant primarily to the heirs, we turn our attention now to the use the author made of the expressions "the promise" and "the oath" in verse 18.  In this use of the "promise" and the "oath," our author gives another demonstration why the heirs in verse 12 are continuously inheriting health and prosperity (BARAK-EULOGIA) in addition to salvation.  He calls both "the promise" and "the oath" "two immutable things."  "Immutable" translates AMETATITHEMI, the same word used in verse 17 and still means "unchangeable."  In this context then, this word means that both God's promise "to bless-BARAK-EULOGIA" (healing and prosperity in addition to salvation) and his oath which guarantees it (MESITEUO) can not be changed. (Remember what Paul said about this in Galatians 3.)  Now, in addition to Paul's statements, we see that both the covenant and the oath cannot be changed.  "Things" translates PRAGMA, meaning a finished act, a deed that is done, that which has been done or an accomplished fact.  And our author, here, applies PRAGMA to both "the promise" and "the oath," since both "the promise" to bless (BARAK-EULOGIA) and "the oath" guaranteeing it are finished, accomplished deeds and facts which can not be changed or "un-set" or "displaced."  They are "things" which are with us forever.

     From these two unchangeable things (the promise to bless backed by his oath), the author gleans something about the character of God and uses this characteristic as another great reason why the Abrahamic Seed Group is presently, continuously inheriting healing and prosperity in addition to salvation.  He expresses this characteristic of God with his statement "in which it was impossible for God to lie..." (v. 18).  "In which" stands in this sentence for two things (PRAGMA), i.e., "the promise" to bless and the "oath."  In other words, in these two things or by these two things, it is impossible for God to lie.  "Impossible" translates ADUNATOS, which combines the Greek negative A, with DUNATOS, which means "to be able" or "to be capable."  ADUNATOS, then, means "not capable of," hence, "unable, incapable or impossible." "To lie" translates PSEUDO, meaning "to deceive, mislead or lie."  Our English word "pseudo" comes from this Greek word.

     "God" translates THEOS, the regular Greek word for God or Deity.  In this place, however, no Definite Greek Article is used as a pointer to set "God" apart from all other "gods" as it usually is.  The context, however, enables us to know that "the particular God of the Abrahamic Covenant" is "the God" in view.  Then, why didn't the author use the Definite Article to set God apart from all other gods?  See the following discussion.

     When the Greek Definite Article is absent from a word in a context which indicates that the word is most definitely set apart from all others in its class, the writer or speaker is stressing the quality, nature or character of that word.  This is called the Anarthrous Use of the Article.  All Greek grammarians recognize this rule.  See the following statements from noted Greek authorities.

 Dana and Mantey say, "Sometimes with a noun which the context proves to be definite the article is not used.  This places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun..." (DM p. 149).

 Moulton declares, "...there are few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than the omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object" (M, I pp. 82, 83).

 Robertson affirms, "Qualitative force is best brought out in anarthrous nouns" (ATR p. 794).  He then lists seven Scriptures to demonstrate it: Mark 10:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10; 1 Corinthians 13:12; John 1:14; Romans 1:30; Ephesians 5:23 and Hebrews 12:7.

 Summers says, "...when the article is not used, the thing emphasized is quality of character" (RS p. 129). (See also WDC p.57; BW p. 67, 255, 257.)

      From the preceding discussion, we see at once that our author is stressing something about the quality, nature or character of God.  What is there, then, about God's character he wants us to see?