To review, chapter 1 set forth the exalted Christ, his current exaltation at the “right hand of God.” This was set “in the last days” (1.2) as they anticipated “the world about to come” (2.5) and the “salvation about to come” (1.14) in the “age about to come” (6.5). The “last days” were leading up to these things. These items, “salvation”, “the coming world” and the coming “age” are all rooted in the full establishment of the “better covenant” (7.22). The Torah (old covenant) was “being annulled” (7.18) and the priesthood was undergoing a change as well (7.12). It is within the transition of this change/ transformation that the theology of Hebrews was being worked out. Christ is “greater” than Moses and his house is greater. The promised “rest” offered in the new covenant is greater than the “rest” given to them under Joshua. The High Priest Melchizedek is greater than the Levitical High Priest. The tabernacle in heaven is greater than the tabernacle on earth. In chapter 8 we will see that this coming change is rooted in what to “soon” take place that would establish the preaching of the gospel. The gospel of Jesus announced the destruction of the old covenant and by that destruction, a setting free of the captives held by the Devil “who holds the power of the Death.” Israel was undergoing a new exodus and as such, they were being delivered from the bondage of slavery under the principalities and powers of Adam’s condemnation from God because Adam broke Torah (Rom. 5.12-28). This setting free was the “hope” set before them and is directly tied to the coming destruction of the old covenant symbols and system. Hebrews 8, as I will show, makes this explicitly clear.
Translation: Now a summary upon the things we are talking about: 1) We have such a high priest, who sat at the right of the throne of the majesty in the heavens; 2) A minister of the holy of holies and of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord erected, not man (for every high priest is appointed to ofer gifts and sacrifices, thus it is necessary that this priest have something to ofer, too). If, therefore, he were on earth, he would not be a priest, being that that are priests presently ofering the gifts according to Torah.
Now, what has been said so far is condensed down into a creedal formula (which we find in the Apostles’ Creed, for example, and affirm). There is a clear contrast going on between “things in heaven” and “things on earth.” He has made these deductions already that Christ is not of Levi, but of Judah (like David) and therefore cannot serve in the earthy tabernacle. The earthy tabernacle is contrasted with the heavenly tabernacle, which is here called “the true tabernacle.” There cannot be two “true” tabernacles, only one. An event was soon to take place that would demonstrate the reality of this situation and which tabernacle would be “shaken” and which one would “remain.” These are all points already covered as he summarizes the topics thus far. The present tenses are drawn out here in my translation to again emphasize the fact that this letter was written while the offerings in Jerusalem were still in operation. Jerusalem had not yet fallen. And, as such, the old covenant had not yet entirely vanished because it was still being carried out “according to Torah.” Therefore the readers have presented before them two systems: one of the earth and another of the heavens and it was now decision time as to which one was to be upheld and honored over the other.
Which (plural) are serving as an example and shadow of the heavenly things.
The plural refers not just the priests, but the them, the tabernacle, the offered gifts et al. Now, it may be supposed that the author here is merely arbitrarily imposing an allegorical hermeneutic upon the Scriptures in order to make a claim for his Christianity, but as we will see, he gets the principle of typology as a deduction from the Hebrew Scriptures.
as Moses has been warned (perfect verb form) while about (mello) to complete the tabernacle: “See, ” saith He, “thou shalt make all things according to the type (tupos – Greek) which was shown to you in the mountain” (Ex. 25.40).
Here is a logical deduction: if Moses was shown a vision of the tabernacle, then the tabernacle he built cannot be the same as the one he was shown. The one he was shown was not made with the hands of men, but Moses’ clearly was. Therefore, the earthy tabernacle is a “pattern”, “type” “shadow” or “example” of the heavenly, true tabernacle. And, if a tabernacle, then it must have a holy of holies, a priesthood, a ministry, etc. The priesthood of the heavenly tabernacle is not the Levitical priesthood, but the Melchizekian one. Yet, further, we may also include that this heavenly tabernacle never had a sacrificial ofering made in its courts. The only blood that was spilled was spilled in the earthy tabernacle of Moses. Jesus’ blood was the only blood ever spilled, or ever will be spilled in the heavenly tabernacle. The spilling of the blood of Jesus, the “life” of Jesus, was preparing a place for his people to enter, where he went, and where he was, his people were soon to follow. It follows hard on this that if the heavenly tabernacle was now being prepared then it is a new heavens unlike the previous heavens where no blood had ever been spilled. God was making a new heavens and it is plain here that “heavens” is in reference to the tabernacle/heavens. Note this: Jesus ascended, it says, “in the heavens” (8.1). But what is this “heavens” identified with here in the passage? “who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle.” Get this point: if the tabernacle on earth is a copy of “the heavens” (the tabernacle in heaven), then it follows that the tabernacle in the land of Israel represented, or typified, the heavens on the land. The tabernacle on the land was a heavenly derived pattern , and its removal, therefore, would be to “shake the heavens”.
I am currently working on my Ph.D. in Hebrew Lexicography from Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida. We are revamping an older lexicon done in the nineteenth century. One of the entries there is the Hebrew word, lh,ao (’ohel). This is the “tent of meeting” and was used for the “tabernacle.” Josephus and Philo both make the connection of heavenly derived imagery of the tabernacle as representing heaven on the land. It is plain that the tabernacle could equally stand for the “temple” (naos in Greek). We may note, too, that the Solomonic temple was derived from a vision that David received, thus paralleling the fact that both Moses and David saw visions. Moses’ is primarily called “the tabernacle” whereas David’s is called “the temple” or “the house of God.” I think it is in this reference that the Hebr. 3.1,2 we find Christ serving as “high priest” (3.1) in the “house” (3.2) and the conclusion: “we are that house.” The fact that the people of God are called “the house” blends nicely with the already established doctrine in Paul that the body of Christ is the temple/house of God. The people of God are now the tabernacle on earth as a pattern of the one which is in heaven, having replaced the former tabernacle on earth “made with hands.” However, the Spirit has joined together Jesus, who is the Temple as well, with the temple/house/people of God on
earth (“in the world”) and has made both “one.” This was never accomplished under the old covenant. These are blended metaphors between “house” “temple” “tabernacle” and “new Jerusalem.” As the tabernacle/people of God spread and increase throughout the world, it can be seen that Israel’s “tent pegs” are being stretched and enlarged (Is. 54.1 -ff). It’s a new heavens and a new land (inheritance).
and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned, 7 for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second. 8 For finding fault, He saith to them, ‘Lo, days come, saith the Lord, and I will complete with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant, 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of My taking them by their hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt — because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them, saith the Lord, — 10 because this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws into their mind, and upon their hearts I will write them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me for a people; 11 and they shall not teach each his neighbour, and each his brother, saying, Know thou the Lord, because they shall all know Me from the small one of them unto the great one of them, 12 because I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will remember no more;’ –
We can see here a clear exegetical deduction made from the text of the prophet Jeremiah. The first covenant and the second covenant are clearly not the same thing. This is taught by the phrase not according to the covenant. This is the first point: it is not the same covenant, but a different covenant. Since, then, the argument goes, a new covenant is mentioned, then something must have been found wanting in the first covenant. It was incomplete and was not able to perfect those under it because of Adam. Secondly, the new covenant is made with the divided nation of Israel, the house of Judah and the house of Israel (north and south). Therefore, the prophecy envisions the restoration of Israel. Here’s the point: if the new covenant has been enacted through the blood of Jesus, and the new covenant entails the restoration of Israel, then the restoration of Israel must have been occurring during the time of the writer’s letter. By announcing that the new covenant has come, though not yet fully established, the author is also announcing in the same breath the restoration/resurrection of Israel.
Now, although I do fully believe that “sons of Abraham” are made by faith and not nationality, we cannot ignore that national overtones here. Ethnic Israel is in mind first and foremost, then the nations that join unto her. Psalm 87 envisions a time when the nations would also be counted as “those born in Zion”: A PSALM OF THE SONS OF KORAH. A SONG. On the holy mount stands the city he founded; 2 the LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob. 3 Glorious things of you are spoken, O city of God. Selah 4 Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush- “This one was born there, ” they say. 5 And of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; for the Most High himself will establish her. 6 The LORD records as he registers the peoples, “This one was born there.” Selah 7 Singers and dancers alike say, “All my springs are in you.” But, I do not think that the main point here is Gentile inclusion, but ethnic Israel’s restoration, which, I must repeat, included Gentiles being counted as fellow Zionists. The point is, if the new covenant has been made and inaugurated, then so has Israel’s end time restoration “in the last days” (Isaiah 2.1-5; Hebr. 1.2).
13 in the saying ‘new, ‘ He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing.
Here we have the most complete statement of time. The Lord has said “new” and this adjective, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is a key word. “New” implies “old.” When the “new” comes the old is discontinued. Something “better” more “new and improved” has come along, a better formula, a better product . The Greek verb here for “he has made the first old” is pepalaioken. It is a perfect verb which denotes the completion of an action with enduring results. This is drawn out further by the complimentary verbs pala iou,menon kai. ghra,skon evggu.j avfanismou/Å The first of these verbs in this phrase is the same as the perfect verb already mentioned, but here it is not a present participle: that which is being made old. Thus, by saying “new” to Jeremiah, God declared the first covenant obsolete, and this obsolescence endured. That is to say, God was making it “old” by declaring “new.” The passive participle here is a divine passive, where God is the one performing the action on the subject, the old covenant. He is making it old, and has already declared it as old by saying “new.” Thus, there is clearly here an “already” and “not yet” tension. Hebrews 1.10-12 gives is the same verb: and, ‘Thou, at the beginning, Lord, the earth didst found, and a work of thy hands are the heavens; 11 these shall perish, and Thou dost remain, and all, as a garment, shall become old, 12 and as a mantle Thou shall roll them together, and they shall be changed, and Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.’ Here is the covenantal change that was taking place in the making old of the old covenant aeon/world/oikoumene and the announcement of the coming new aeon/world/oikoumene. The transition of the covenants marked the transition of the worlds from old to new.
The second major point to be gained from this text is that at the time of the writing, the old covenant had not yet been completely removed. Had it been already so thoroughly removed, the arguments against the old covenant in the letter to the Hebrews would be useless. The author here is writing before the removal of the old covenant world and system, and thus all the he had was a hope, not a reality. He had a prediction, but not a fact. His argument was not yet a historical fact, but it soon would be. It’s like telling people to get ready before 9/11 and you are saying this in 1998. Would they hear you? How could you prove your argument? It would only be a prediction.
Finally, when was this to take place? “That which is being made old and is presently aging is soon to vanish.” Folks, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist here to see that Jerusalem’s demise, so thoroughly apart of Jesus’ parables and ministry, was what was seen here. The removal of the old covenant is tied to the establishment of the Rest, the world to come, the age to come, the salvation to come, the inheritance to come, the kingdom to come, the second time coming of Messiah, and the resurrection of the dead. When the old had completely vanished, nothing but the new is left and that is what we, living on this side of the glorious ap
pearing of Christ to put away the old covenant entirely have now: all things.
Completed a M.A. in Christian Studies and a M.A. in Religion from Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, Florida (with combined credits in Hebrew exegesis from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida - and in Greek exegesis from Church of God School of Theology, Cleveland, Tennessee). Author of Misplaced Hope, and Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead. Also edited A Student's Hebrew Primer for Whitefield Theological Seminary. Samuel M. Frost co-founded Reign of Christ Ministries, and has lectured extensively for over 8 years at Preterist conferences, including the Evangelical Theological Society conference, of which he is currently a student-member. Samuel is ordained, and has functioned as Teaching Pastor at Christ Covenant Church in St. Petersburg, Florida (2002-2005). He helped host the popular debates between Don Preston and Thomas Ice (with Mark Hitchcock) and Don Preston and James B. Jordan. Samuel is widely regarded by many of his peers as being one of the foremost experts on prophecy, apocalypticism, and Preterist theology. He is currently working on a Doctor of Ministry in Theology from Vision International, Ramona, CA.
Samuel Frost owns and operates his own business and resides in Florida with his wife Ann Marie, and his children, Janet, Jacob, Hunter, and Olivia.
Hebrews 8
To review, chapter 1 set forth the exalted Christ, his current exaltation at the “right hand of God.” This was set “in the last days” (1.2) as they anticipated “the world about to come” (2.5) and the “salvation about to come” (1.14) in the “age about to come” (6.5). The “last days” were leading up to these things. These items, “salvation”, “the coming world” and the coming “age” are all rooted in the full establishment of the “better covenant” (7.22). The Torah (old covenant) was “being annulled” (7.18) and the priesthood was undergoing a change as well (7.12). It is within the transition of this change/ transformation that the theology of Hebrews was being worked out. Christ is “greater” than Moses and his house is greater. The promised “rest” offered in the new covenant is greater than the “rest” given to them under Joshua. The High Priest Melchizedek is greater than the Levitical High Priest. The tabernacle in heaven is greater than the tabernacle on earth. In chapter 8 we will see that this coming change is rooted in what to “soon” take place that would establish the preaching of the gospel. The gospel of Jesus announced the destruction of the old covenant and by that destruction, a setting free of the captives held by the Devil “who holds the power of the Death.” Israel was undergoing a new exodus and as such, they were being delivered from the bondage of slavery under the principalities and powers of Adam’s condemnation from God because Adam broke Torah (Rom. 5.12-28). This setting free was the “hope” set before them and is directly tied to the coming destruction of the old covenant symbols and system. Hebrews 8, as I will show, makes this explicitly clear.
Translation: Now a summary upon the things we are talking about: 1) We have such a high priest, who sat at the right of the throne of the majesty in the heavens; 2) A minister of the holy of holies and of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord erected, not man (for every high priest is appointed to ofer gifts and sacrifices, thus it is necessary that this priest have something to ofer, too). If, therefore, he were on earth, he would not be a priest, being that that are priests presently ofering the gifts according to Torah.
Now, what has been said so far is condensed down into a creedal formula (which we find in the Apostles’ Creed, for example, and affirm). There is a clear contrast going on between “things in heaven” and “things on earth.” He has made these deductions already that Christ is not of Levi, but of Judah (like David) and therefore cannot serve in the earthy tabernacle. The earthy tabernacle is contrasted with the heavenly tabernacle, which is here called “the true tabernacle.” There cannot be two “true” tabernacles, only one. An event was soon to take place that would demonstrate the reality of this situation and which tabernacle would be “shaken” and which one would “remain.” These are all points already covered as he summarizes the topics thus far. The present tenses are drawn out here in my translation to again emphasize the fact that this letter was written while the offerings in Jerusalem were still in operation. Jerusalem had not yet fallen. And, as such, the old covenant had not yet entirely vanished because it was still being carried out “according to Torah.” Therefore the readers have presented before them two systems: one of the earth and another of the heavens and it was now decision time as to which one was to be upheld and honored over the other.
Which (plural) are serving as an example and shadow of the heavenly things.
The plural refers not just the priests, but the them, the tabernacle, the offered gifts et al. Now, it may be supposed that the author here is merely arbitrarily imposing an allegorical hermeneutic upon the Scriptures in order to make a claim for his Christianity, but as we will see, he gets the principle of typology as a deduction from the Hebrew Scriptures.
as Moses has been warned (perfect verb form) while about (mello) to complete the tabernacle: “See, ” saith He, “thou shalt make all things according to the type (tupos – Greek) which was shown to you in the mountain” (Ex. 25.40).
Here is a logical deduction: if Moses was shown a vision of the tabernacle, then the tabernacle he built cannot be the same as the one he was shown. The one he was shown was not made with the hands of men, but Moses’ clearly was. Therefore, the earthy tabernacle is a “pattern”, “type” “shadow” or “example” of the heavenly, true tabernacle. And, if a tabernacle, then it must have a holy of holies, a priesthood, a ministry, etc. The priesthood of the heavenly tabernacle is not the Levitical priesthood, but the Melchizekian one. Yet, further, we may also include that this heavenly tabernacle never had a sacrificial ofering made in its courts. The only blood that was spilled was spilled in the earthy tabernacle of Moses. Jesus’ blood was the only blood ever spilled, or ever will be spilled in the heavenly tabernacle. The spilling of the blood of Jesus, the “life” of Jesus, was preparing a place for his people to enter, where he went, and where he was, his people were soon to follow. It follows hard on this that if the heavenly tabernacle was now being prepared then it is a new heavens unlike the previous heavens where no blood had ever been spilled. God was making a new heavens and it is plain here that “heavens” is in reference to the tabernacle/heavens. Note this: Jesus ascended, it says, “in the heavens” (8.1). But what is this “heavens” identified with here in the passage? “who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle.” Get this point: if the tabernacle on earth is a copy of “the heavens” (the tabernacle in heaven), then it follows that the tabernacle in the land of Israel represented, or typified, the heavens on the land. The tabernacle on the land was a heavenly derived pattern , and its removal, therefore, would be to “shake the heavens”.
I am currently working on my Ph.D. in Hebrew Lexicography from Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida. We are revamping an older lexicon done in the nineteenth century. One of the entries there is the Hebrew word, lh,ao (’ohel). This is the “tent of meeting” and was used for the “tabernacle.” Josephus and Philo both make the connection of heavenly derived imagery of the tabernacle as representing heaven on the land. It is plain that the tabernacle could equally stand for the “temple” (naos in Greek). We may note, too, that the Solomonic temple was derived from a vision that David received, thus paralleling the fact that both Moses and David saw visions. Moses’ is primarily called “the tabernacle” whereas David’s is called “the temple” or “the house of God.” I think it is in this reference that the Hebr. 3.1,2 we find Christ serving as “high priest” (3.1) in the “house” (3.2) and the conclusion: “we are that house.” The fact that the people of God are called “the house” blends nicely with the already established doctrine in Paul that the body of Christ is the temple/house of God. The people of God are now the tabernacle on earth as a pattern of the one which is in heaven, having replaced the former tabernacle on earth “made with hands.” However, the Spirit has joined together Jesus, who is the Temple as well, with the temple/house/people of God on
earth (“in the world”) and has made both “one.” This was never accomplished under the old covenant. These are blended metaphors between “house” “temple” “tabernacle” and “new Jerusalem.” As the tabernacle/people of God spread and increase throughout the world, it can be seen that Israel’s “tent pegs” are being stretched and enlarged (Is. 54.1 -ff). It’s a new heavens and a new land (inheritance).
and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned, 7 for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second. 8 For finding fault, He saith to them, ‘Lo, days come, saith the Lord, and I will complete with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant, 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of My taking them by their hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt — because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them, saith the Lord, — 10 because this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws into their mind, and upon their hearts I will write them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me for a people; 11 and they shall not teach each his neighbour, and each his brother, saying, Know thou the Lord, because they shall all know Me from the small one of them unto the great one of them, 12 because I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will remember no more;’ –
We can see here a clear exegetical deduction made from the text of the prophet Jeremiah. The first covenant and the second covenant are clearly not the same thing. This is taught by the phrase not according to the covenant. This is the first point: it is not the same covenant, but a different covenant. Since, then, the argument goes, a new covenant is mentioned, then something must have been found wanting in the first covenant. It was incomplete and was not able to perfect those under it because of Adam. Secondly, the new covenant is made with the divided nation of Israel, the house of Judah and the house of Israel (north and south). Therefore, the prophecy envisions the restoration of Israel. Here’s the point: if the new covenant has been enacted through the blood of Jesus, and the new covenant entails the restoration of Israel, then the restoration of Israel must have been occurring during the time of the writer’s letter. By announcing that the new covenant has come, though not yet fully established, the author is also announcing in the same breath the restoration/resurrection of Israel.
Now, although I do fully believe that “sons of Abraham” are made by faith and not nationality, we cannot ignore that national overtones here. Ethnic Israel is in mind first and foremost, then the nations that join unto her. Psalm 87 envisions a time when the nations would also be counted as “those born in Zion”: A PSALM OF THE SONS OF KORAH. A SONG. On the holy mount stands the city he founded; 2 the LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob. 3 Glorious things of you are spoken, O city of God. Selah 4 Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush- “This one was born there, ” they say. 5 And of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; for the Most High himself will establish her. 6 The LORD records as he registers the peoples, “This one was born there.” Selah 7 Singers and dancers alike say, “All my springs are in you.” But, I do not think that the main point here is Gentile inclusion, but ethnic Israel’s restoration, which, I must repeat, included Gentiles being counted as fellow Zionists. The point is, if the new covenant has been made and inaugurated, then so has Israel’s end time restoration “in the last days” (Isaiah 2.1-5; Hebr. 1.2).
13 in the saying ‘new, ‘ He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing.
Here we have the most complete statement of time. The Lord has said “new” and this adjective, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is a key word. “New” implies “old.” When the “new” comes the old is discontinued. Something “better” more “new and improved” has come along, a better formula, a better product . The Greek verb here for “he has made the first old” is pepalaioken. It is a perfect verb which denotes the completion of an action with enduring results. This is drawn out further by the complimentary verbs pala iou,menon kai. ghra,skon evggu.j avfanismou/Å The first of these verbs in this phrase is the same as the perfect verb already mentioned, but here it is not a present participle: that which is being made old. Thus, by saying “new” to Jeremiah, God declared the first covenant obsolete, and this obsolescence endured. That is to say, God was making it “old” by declaring “new.” The passive participle here is a divine passive, where God is the one performing the action on the subject, the old covenant. He is making it old, and has already declared it as old by saying “new.” Thus, there is clearly here an “already” and “not yet” tension. Hebrews 1.10-12 gives is the same verb: and, ‘Thou, at the beginning, Lord, the earth didst found, and a work of thy hands are the heavens; 11 these shall perish, and Thou dost remain, and all, as a garment, shall become old, 12 and as a mantle Thou shall roll them together, and they shall be changed, and Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.’ Here is the covenantal change that was taking place in the making old of the old covenant aeon/world/oikoumene and the announcement of the coming new aeon/world/oikoumene. The transition of the covenants marked the transition of the worlds from old to new.
The second major point to be gained from this text is that at the time of the writing, the old covenant had not yet been completely removed. Had it been already so thoroughly removed, the arguments against the old covenant in the letter to the Hebrews would be useless. The author here is writing before the removal of the old covenant world and system, and thus all the he had was a hope, not a reality. He had a prediction, but not a fact. His argument was not yet a historical fact, but it soon would be. It’s like telling people to get ready before 9/11 and you are saying this in 1998. Would they hear you? How could you prove your argument? It would only be a prediction.
Finally, when was this to take place? “That which is being made old and is presently aging is soon to vanish.” Folks, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist here to see that Jerusalem’s demise, so thoroughly apart of Jesus’ parables and ministry, was what was seen here. The removal of the old covenant is tied to the establishment of the Rest, the world to come, the age to come, the salvation to come, the inheritance to come, the kingdom to come, the second time coming of Messiah, and the resurrection of the dead. When the old had completely vanished, nothing but the new is left and that is what we, living on this side of the glorious ap
pearing of Christ to put away the old covenant entirely have now: all things.
Related Posts
Hebrews 7 .::. Hebrews 3 .::. Hebrews 9 .::. Hebrews 2 .::. Hebrews 4About Sam
Completed a M.A. in Christian Studies and a M.A. in Religion from Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, Florida (with combined credits in Hebrew exegesis from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida - and in Greek exegesis from Church of God School of Theology, Cleveland, Tennessee). Author of Misplaced Hope, and Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead. Also edited A Student's Hebrew Primer for Whitefield Theological Seminary. Samuel M. Frost co-founded Reign of Christ Ministries, and has lectured extensively for over 8 years at Preterist conferences, including the Evangelical Theological Society conference, of which he is currently a student-member. Samuel is ordained, and has functioned as Teaching Pastor at Christ Covenant Church in St. Petersburg, Florida (2002-2005). He helped host the popular debates between Don Preston and Thomas Ice (with Mark Hitchcock) and Don Preston and James B. Jordan. Samuel is widely regarded by many of his peers as being one of the foremost experts on prophecy, apocalypticism, and Preterist theology. He is currently working on a Doctor of Ministry in Theology from Vision International, Ramona, CA. Samuel Frost owns and operates his own business and resides in Florida with his wife Ann Marie, and his children, Janet, Jacob, Hunter, and Olivia.