The Hebrew Epistle

 

 

Rex Banks

 

 

 

Lesson 22

 

Authorship

 

The Holy Spirit inspired the Hebrew epistle, but nowhere is the human writer identified.  Many good conservative scholars favour Pauline authorship, while equally good conservative scholars argue that Hebrews was penned by some other inspired man.  From about 400 AD, this Epistle was usually entitled “The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews,” but the most ancient and reliable title is simply “To the Hebrews.”  The debate about authorship has gone on since the days of the early church fathers.  We can only touch the hem of the garment here, but the following are among some of the main points at issue:  

 

 

The testimony of history

 

(1)          In the East, Pauline authorship was accepted by the church from an early date.  Eusebius has the following on Clement of Alexandria:

 

“He (Clement) says (in the Stromata) that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts” (Church History 6.14.2).

 

According to Eusebius, Clement (who died about 215 AD) is passing on information from “the blessed presbyter” Pantaenus, a famous Oriental student of Scripture and head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria who died about 200 AD.

 

Elsewhere, Eusebius has the following on Origen (185-253 AD) who was also from Alexandria: 

 

“In addition he (Origen) makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it:  ‘That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech’ that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.

 

Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.

 

Farther on he (Origen) adds:  ‘If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher.  Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this.  For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s.

 

But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows.  The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.  But let this suffice on these matters” (Church History 25.11-14).  

 

So according to Eusebius, Origen’s view was that of “the ancients.”  Origen elsewhere treats Hebrews as Pauline.  In his De Principiis for example, he says:  “There are certain holy angels of God whom Paul terms ‘ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation’” (1.5.1).  Eusebius himself received the letter as one of Paul’s, although he states that some denied Pauline authorship.

 

“Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.  It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul” (Church History 3.3.5).

 

After Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria and all the church writers of Egypt, Syria and the east generally seem to have accepted Pauline authorship of Hebrews.  The earliest text of Hebrews that we have, the Chester Beatty papyrus (P 46) has Hebrews in the body of Paul’s writings immediately after the Roman epistle.  Again, this likely reflects the conclusion in the East.  In 367 AD, Athanasius, then “bishop of Alexandria” wrote the following in his so called Festal Letter:

 

“In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order:  the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy, one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon.”

 

Other evidence supports the conclusion that in the East, Pauline authorship was accepted by the church from an early date.

 

“The Pauline tradition persisted in Alexandria, and by the 4th century it was accepted without any of the qualifications made by Clement and Origen.  It had also in the same period spread over the other eastern churches, both Greek and Syrian” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia). 

 

(2)          In the West, Pauline authorship of Hebrews was, early on, denied or doubted.  This is despite the fact that the earliest traces of the epistle are found in the writings of Clement of Rome.  Ireneaus (ca 180 AD) and Hippolytus (d ca 236 AD) denied Pauline authorship.  Because of the condition of the Muratorian canon, we cannot be sure that it makes no mention of Hebrews, but it was not included among the apostle’s letters.  About 190-200 AD, Tertullian of Carthage ascribed the letter to Barnabas. He writes:

 

“For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas.  …And, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the Churches than that apocryphal “Shepherd” of adulterers.  Warning, accordingly, the disciples to omit all first principles, and strive rather after perfection, and not lay again the foundations of repentance from the works of the dead, he says:  ‘For impossible it is that they who have once been illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have participated in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the word of God and found it sweet, when they shall - their age already setting - have fallen away, should be again recalled unto repentance, crucifying again for themselves the Son of God, and dishonoring Him’” (On Modesty 20). 

 

Caius of Rome, from about the same time, is said by Eusebius to have denied Pauline authorship.  Eusebius also tells us that in his day (ca 325 AD) some in the church at Rome did not attribute it to Paul.  About 50 years later, Ambrosiaster excluded Hebrews from Paul’s epistles, (but accepted it as part of the canon). Thus in those early years, tradition in the West and East differed.

 

(3)          By late in the 4th century however, Western churches generally acknowledged Pauline authorship and this appears to have been due to the influence of Jerome and Augustine.  Jerome wrote: 

 

“(Paul) wrote nine epistles to seven churches:  to the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Galatians one, to the Ephesians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to the Thessalonians two; and besides these to his disciples, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one.  The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his, on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement afterwards bishop of the church at Rome, who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Paul in his own language, though to be sure, since Paul was writing to Hebrews and was in disrepute among them he may have omitted his name from the salvation on this account.  He being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek and this is the reason why it seems to differ from other epistles of Paul.  Some read one also to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by everyone” (On Illustrious Men 5).

 

However:

 

“Despite such weighty support for Pauline authorship, Western synods initially preserved some distinction between Hebrews and the generally recognised Paulines.  Both the Synod of Hippo (A.D 393) and the Third Synod of Carthage (397) enumerate, ‘Of Paul the apostle thirteen epistles; of the same to the Hebrews, one.’  By the Sixth Synod of Carthage (419), fourteen are ascribed to Paul” (Carson et al).

 

From about the time of the sixth Synod of Carthage until the Reformation (when Erasmus, Luther, Calvin and other reformers dissented), Pauline ascription became traditional in the West and East.

 

(4)          Those who favour Pauline authorship generally emphasize the early Eastern tradition, and argue that the Western churches “matured” and ultimately accepted Pauline authorship.  Those who oppose Pauline authorship remind us of the early Western tradition, and of the fact that according to Augustine, Jerome and he were persuaded, not by literary considerations by the “prestige of the Eastern churches.”

 

The question of style and language

 

Earlier we recorded Origen’s comment that Hebrews “is not rude like the language of the apostle” and the question of style has always featured prominently in any discussion of authorship.  As we have seen, Clement explains the non-Pauline style of the letter by saying that Luke “translated (Hebrews) carefully and published it for the Greeks”.

 

The following from Marcus Dods is typical of those who deny Pauline authorship:

 

“The bare reading of the Epistle suffices to convince us that the Pauline authorship may be set aside as incredible.  The style is not Paul’s, and this Apostle although using an amanuensis, undoubtedly dictated all his letters.  The Epistle to the Hebrews reveals a literary felicity not found elsewhere in the New Testament.  The writer is master of his words, and perfectly understands how to arrange each clause so that every word shall play its full part in conveying with precision the meaning intended.  He knows how to build up his sentences into concise paragraphs, each of which carries the argument one stage nearer to its conclusion.  He avoids all irrelevant digression.  His earnestness of purpose never betrays him into carelessness of language, but only serves to give edge and point to its exact use.  In all this he markedly and widely differs from the tempestuousness of Paul.  As Farrar says:  ‘The writer cites differently from St. Paul; he writes differently; he argues differently; he thinks differently; he declaims differently; he constructs and connects his sentences differently; he builds up his paragraphs on a wholly different model.  St. Paul is constantly mingling two constructions, leaving sentences unfinished, breaking into personal allusion, substituting the syllogism of passion for the syllogism of logic.  This writer is never ungrammatical, he is never irregular, he is never personal, he never struggles for expression; he never loses himself in a parenthesis; he is never hurried into an anacoluthon.  His style is the style of a man who thinks as well as writes in Greek; whereas St. Paul wrote in Greek but thought in Syriac’” (Expositors Greek Testament).

 

Typically, opponents of Pauline authorship point out that Hebrews contains over 150 hapax legomena (words occurring only once), but it is clear from our study of other letters that this is not a persuasive argument.  Additionally:

 

“Paul’s formula of quotation is, “It is written” or “The scripture saith”; that of Hebrews, “God,” or “The Holy Spirit” or “One somewhere saith.”…  (His) characteristic terms, “Christ Jesus,” and “Our Lord Jesus Christ,” are never found in Hebrews; and “Jesus Christ” only 3 times (Heb 10:10; Heb 13:8; Heb 13:21), and “the Lord” (for Christ) only twice (Heb 2:3; Heb 7:14) - phrases used by Paul over 600 times (Zahn)” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).

 

Opponents also make the point that the Hebrew writer makes different use of particles, rhetorical questions and such like. 

 

Defenders of Pauline authorship respond that “style and vocabulary should never be the decisive factor in settling questions of authorship” (Hewitt).  Differences in style between Deuteronomy and Leviticus do not prove that Moses did not write both, the argument goes, and differences between the fourth Gospel and the book of Revelation do not prove that John is not the author of both.  They argue that different circumstances and subject matter can account for these differences.  They point out that for the most part, Hebrews is a “midrash” (a sermon in written form) or treatise and that this would account for it’s more elevated and oratorical style.  Moreover, the argument goes, the “letter” section of the book, especially chapter 13, is similar to Paul’s letters (cf Heb 13:18, 20, 23, 25; Rom 15:30; 2 Cor 1:11; Phile 22; Phil 1:24-25; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess 3:18 etc.).  Examples of literary parallels between Hebrews and Paul’s letters include the following:  Heb 2:14 and 1 Cor 12:4-11; Heb 2:8 and 1 Cor 15:27; Heb 2:14 and 1 Cor 15:26; Heb 5:14 and 1 Cor 2:6; Heb 6:3 and 1 Cor 16:7; Heb 10:33 and 1 Cor 4:9.  A comparison between Heb 3:7-19; 12:18-25 and 1 Cor 10:1-11 reveals some similarity of typology, but admittedly these “parallels” are not close.  

 

 

The absence of Paul’s name

 

(1)          Some opponents of Pauline authorship argue that in his epistles, the apostle identified himself by name and that the absence of his name here proves that Paul was not the author.

 

(2)          Some who defend Pauline authorship respond that Paul wisely refrained from signing the epistle so that prejudiced Jewish brethren who were suspicious of him would not be hindered from reading the letter.  No one else, they say, would have had a sufficient reason for not doing so.  Eusebius has the following in his Church History:

 

“But he (Clement) says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name.

 

Farther on he (Clement) says:  “But now, as the blessed presbyter (Pantaenus) said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance” (Church History 6.14.3, 4).

 

 

The argument based on Heb 2:3-4

 

“After (the word) was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will”

(Heb 2:3-4). 

 

(1)          The writer states that matters relating to salvation have been handed down to “us” by those who heard Christ, including himself and his readers among those who received authoritative traditions concerning Jesus from the original eyewitnesses.  Yet Paul claimed that his message was directly from the Lord (Gal 1:12-20; Eph 3:2-4).  This is proof positive, according to some, that Paul could not have been the author.

 

(2)          Various responses have been made to this argument.  Some point out that although apostolic authority was not conferred on Paul by Ananias, still it can be said that he “confirmed” the “great salvation” to Paul when the latter was baptized (Acts 9:17-19).  Also, “untimely born” Paul (1 Cor 15:8) was not an eyewitness as were the other apostles.  Some argue that in Heb 2:3-4, Paul may simply be identifying himself with his readers as, for example, in Heb 6:1-3 where no one takes “we” and “us” to mean that the writer numbered himself among the immature.

 

 

The argument based on Heb 13:23

 

“Take notice that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you” (Heb 13:23).

 

(1)          Some argue that this verse seems to prove that Paul is not the author.  The writer hopes to be “restored” to them.  Thus, he has been to them before and they know Timothy.  Nowhere else is Timothy’s imprisonment recorded and it does not seem to fit into the period of Paul’s lifetime.  But by the time 2 Timothy is written, Paul is in prison again and he does not anticipate release, but death (2 Tim 14:6).  Therefore, he would not speak of being restored to his readers.

 

(2)          Others respond by pointing out that Timothy was Paul’s constant companion and ask, “Could anyone but Paul have spoken for Timothy in this way?”  Some suggest that Timothy’s imprisonment is best viewed in connection with his ministry to Paul in Rome.

 

 

The argument based upon Old Testament quotations

 

When quoting the Old Testament, “the writer to the Hebrews uses the Septuagint Version throughout except possibly at Heb 10:30, whereas Paul employs both the Heb. text and the Septuagint” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary).  For example, in Heb 10:5, the writer follows the Septuagint (“A body Thou hast prepared for Me”) rather than the Hebrew (“You have opened My ears.”).  It is held by some that this makes Pauline authorship unlikely since the apostle would not readily depart from his usual practice.  Some argue that the writer was likely a Hellenist who was not familiar with the Hebrew text. 

 

 

The argument based on Heb 13:24

 

“Greet all of your leaders and all the saints.  Those from Italy greet you” (Heb 13:24). 

 

From Acts 28:30 we learn of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome for a two year period.  Jews were the first to come to him.  Some argue that it makes sense to view Paul as the writer of this epistle and the recipients as those whom he came to know during this time.

 

 

 

 

 

Concluding comments

 

Various other points could be mentioned, but in conclusion, we note that that this book was not anonymous to the original readers; they knew the author (Heb 13:18-24).  It will not do to say that because Hebrews concentrates on Christ’s present priestly ministry while Paul’s writings have very little to say about the present work of Christ, Paul could not have written this epistle.  At the same time, it is clear that there exists marked differences of style, grammar and form between this and Paul’s undisputed letters.

 

As we have seen, Origin made a distinction between the thoughts of the letter and its grammatical form, and tells us that “the ancients” took the former to be from Paul and the latter to be the work of an unknown writer (eg Luke, Clement of Rome).  He says:

 

“That the verbal style of the Epistle entitled ‘to the Hebrews’ is not rude like the language of the Apostle who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech,’ that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.  “One guess” which seems to me to be as good as any other is that the thoughts are those of Paul (guided by the Holy Spirit) while the final form of the epistle shows the influence of an individual “well-versed in the study of the Septuagint…(with)…a copious vocabulary...(who) was the master of a fine rhetorical style, completely different from Paul’s” (F. F. Bruce).

 

Luke would seem to be as good a candidate as any.

 

The use of the first person plural in the book of Hebrews may add weight to the argument that this book is the fruit of a combined effort.  Daniel B. Wallace has: 

 

“The letter to the Hebrews is typically regarded as employing only two types of first person plurals:  epistolary and inclusive.  (For potential epistolary plurals, note , e.g. , 2:5; 5:11; 6:9, 11; 8:1; 9:5; 13:18, 23; for inclusive we, cf. 2:1, 3; 3:6; 4:2, 11, 13, 14; 7:26; 10:10, 19; 12:1).  The second category is without dispute:  The author clearly and often associates himself with the audience.  But whether the epistolary plural is used is more difficult to assess.  For one thing, this letter is unlike other NT letters:  In every other letter the author uses ‘I’ before getting half way through.  But the situation is different in Hebrews:  The first person singular does not appear until chapter 11 (v 32), and then in only three more verses (13:19, 22, 23).  This is very unusual and suggests the possibility that Hebrews was actually written by at least two persons with one being the better known to the audience.  Cf. Also Rom 3:28; 2 Cor 4:1-6; 5:11-16; 11:6, 12, 21” (Grammar). 

 

Origin wisely commented:  “Who wrote the epistle God only knows certainly.”

 

 

Composition: Date, Place and Circumstances

 

(1)          There is good external evidence for the early existence of the Hebrew Epistle.  The writings of Polycarp (b ca 70 AD) may contain echoes of Hebrews.  In his Letter to the Philippians, he urges his readers to “serve him with fear and all reverence” (6.3 cf Heb 12:28).  Elsewhere in the same letter he speaks of Jesus as “the eternal High Priest” himself, the Son of God” (cf Heb 6:20; 7:3).  However, in both Polycarp and Justin Martyr, the echoes are quite vague and uncertain.  

 

1st Clement is traditionally ascribed to Clement of Rome and was probably written before the death of Domitian in 96 AD.  This letter, addressed to the Corinthians, makes copious use of the Hebrew Epistle as the following examples show: 

 

“Through Him let us look steadfastly unto the heights of the heavens; through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent visage; through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened; through Him our foolish and darkened mind springeth up unto the light; through Him the Master willed that we should taste of the immortal knowledge Who being the brightness of His majesty is so much greater than angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name” (1 Clem 36:2).

 

“For so it is written Who maketh His angels spirits and His ministers aflame of fire” (36:3).

 

“(But) of His Son the Master said thus, Thou art My Son, I this day have begotten thee.  Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession” (36:4).

 

“And again He saith unto Him Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet” (36:5). 

 

Clearly then the Hebrew epistle was known before 96 AD.  Timothy is still alive (13:23) and tradition places his death at about 94 AD.  Given its subject matter (the continuity between Old and New Testaments), the fact that it was not included in Marcion’s canon is easily explained, while the corrupt state of the Muratorian fragment may explain its absence from this list.

 

(2)          But while the Epistle was in existence at an early date, it is evident that quite some time had elapsed since Acts 2 and Pentecost.  This is suggested by the fact that the addressees should be mature in the faith, well able to teach others by now (“by this time you ought to be teachers...” - 5:12).  Moreover, quite some time earlier they had been persecuted for the faith (Heb l0:32-33) and they seem to be second generation Christians (“it was confirmed to us by those who heard...” – 2:3).  Perhaps 13:7 indicates that some of their leaders had died.

 

(3)          The temple was destroyed in 70 AD but it seems likely that the temple was standing when the letter was written.  In support of his contention that the Levitical system had been replaced, the author of the Letter of Barnabas later points out that “because (the Jews) went to war (the Temple) was pulled down by their enemies” (16:4) and surely if the Hebrew writer had lived after the destruction of Jerusalem he would have employed the same argument.  

 

Note the use of the present tense in passages such as 8:4; 9:6-9 and 10:11.  (In this context 10:1 may also be significant).  This use of the present is not conclusive and our author could be using the “literary present” for the sake of vividness.  However it is more likely that the temple is still standing, since Judaism is alive and well. 

“The frequent allusions in it to Judaism, with its ritual, as a still existing system, are such as to render highly improbable any date after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70.  It is true that the mere use of verbs in the present with reference to the temple services would not be in itself conclusive…  But we observe, further, the pervading tone of warning to the readers against being drawn back into Judaism, as though they were still surrounded by their old associations, and the total absence of reference to any breaking up of the ancient polity, such as might have been certainly expected if the event had taken place.  Thus we may safely take the above date, A.D. 70, as a terminus ad quem…” (J. Barmby Pulpit Commentary).

 

Again, “the day approaching” (10:25) seems most likely to be the destruction of the city (typical of Judgement day).

 

(4)          From 12:4 it would appear that the addressees had not yet suffered martyrdom but some lesser forms of persecution (“you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood”).  The Neronian persecutions occurred in 64-65 AD.  Whether the recipients suffered from this persecution directly (ie the Rome destination view) or not, it is unlikely that this would have gone unmentioned in such a letter.

 

(5)          The evidence seems to favour a date sometime in the 60s of the first century, and clearly our decision on this will, in large measure, depend upon our decision as to authorship, addressees and destination. 

 

 

Addressees

 

Some details are clear, others less so.  Again, where uncertainties exist, our understanding of the epistle is not affected by them.

 

(1)          Evidently the epistle is addressed to a particular church.

 

“The identity of the first readers of Hebrews, like the author, is unknown.  Nevertheless they were evidently part of a particular community.  This appears from several considerations.  The readers had a definite history and the writer referred to their “earlier days” (Heb. 10:32-34); he knew about their past and present generosity to other Christians (6:10); and he was able to be specific about their current spiritual condition (5:11-14).  Moreover, the author had definite links with them and expressed his intention to visit them, perhaps with Timothy (13:19, 23).  He also requested their prayers (13:18)” (Zane C. Hodges, The Bible Knowledge Commentary).

 

(2)          Note too, the personal references and standard epistolary at the conclusion of the letter (13:22-25) as well as personal references at 5:12; 5:9; 10:32 and 12:4.  Thus, the letter appears to have been sent originally to a particular church despite the absence of an introduction and the fact that it does resemble a treatise or Midrash.

 

(3)          Much evidence points to the fact that the recipients were Jewish Christians.  On the one hand there is no reference to Gentiles, the Gentile controversy, circumcision or things sacrificed to idols while on the other hand, there is a mass of details which relate to the Old Testament Temple services, animal sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood etc.  True, there were Gentile Christians familiar with the Old Testament and who accepted it as a revelation from God.  However, it is important to keep in mind that the Gentile Christian only accepted the Old Testament because of his acceptance of the Gospel.  If he gave up Christianity, he would also give up the Old Testament.  However, the Hebrew epistle is addressed to Christians whose loyalty to the Gospel may be on the wane but who accepted without reservation the authority of the Old Testament.  Indeed the emphasis is upon the superiority of the new covenant over the old, a fact which weak Jewish Christians would need to remember.  Moreover, the Hebrew writer is clearly challenging the notion that the Mosaic regulations were final (7:11), while reference to the “elementary teachings” such as ritual washings (6:1-2) also suggests a background in Judaism.

 

Not everyone is convinced by this argument.  Goodspeed protests:

 

“But the writer’s Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, manifestly gained from the reading of the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, and his polished Greek style would be a strange vehicle for a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood.”

 

(4)          Some remind us that, according to Clement, Hebrews was “written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language.”  Clearly if this is the case, the recipients were Jewish.  Others respond that all the evidence points to a Greek original.  For example, the writer makes certain arguments which only work if certain Old Testament quotations are taken from the Greek Old Testament.  (With the help of a good commentary study, such passages as Heb 1:10-12; Heb 2:7 and 12:26).  Of course, none of this is decisive because a Greek original does not rule out a Jewish audience.

 

(5)          In my view, the evidence favours the view that the recipients were Jewish Christians.  Where were they living?  Some argue that the recipients were Jews living in Jerusalem (or at least Palestine) while others argue that they were Hellenistic Jews living outside Palestine (possibly Rome, Alexandria in Egypt etc).  Consider the following points:

 

·        The Jerusalem/Palestine advocates argue that although it is unlikely that the title was placed on the book by the writer, nevertheless, it was placed there at an early period and all ancient manuscripts carry it.  They further argue that the term “Hebrew” was employed to denote Jews in Palestine as opposed to foreign Jews called “Hellenists” (cf Acts 5:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5).  In support of this contention, they point out that according to Eusebius the “whole church” at Jerusalem “consisted then of believing Hebrews” (Church History 4.5.2).  Opponents of this view reply that the title may simply have reflected the editor’s opinion.  They contend that it is not likely that the Hebrew-Hellenist distinction is reflected in the title.

 

·        The “destination Rome” advocates refer to 13:24 (“Those from Italy greet you”) and argue that the writer was outside Rome sending greetings back to Rome from Italian friends who were, like the writer, outside Rome at the time.  Moreover, the first known use of the book was by Clement of Rome.  Timothy (13:24) was known to the Roman church (Col 1:1; Phile 1) and 10:32 could be explained by Claudius’ edict in 59 AD, or Nero’s persecution.  Opponents of the “destination Rome” view reply that 13:24 could mean that the writer was in Italy sending greetings from Christians in that city.  Also, they say Clement’s references occur over three decades from the time of composition and thus, ample time had elapsed for the letter to get to Rome.

 

·        Jerusalem/Palestine advocates argue that in view of the fact that the addressees were very familiar with the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic economy, Palestine is the best choice.  There and there alone were the ceremonial requirements of the Law followed diligently.  Outside Palestine there were no daily sacrifices, Temple services etc.  Opponents of this view respond by arguing that the book says much about the Tabernacle, but not about the Temple.  Although priesthood and ritual are associated with both, in this letter, allusion is to the Tabernacle rather than to the Temple.  They reason that this would be unlikely if the letter was sent to Jews in Jerusalem.  In my view, this argument overlooks the fact that detailed instructions are given in Scripture concerning the pattern of the Tabernacle, and these instructions provided the basic pattern for the Temples.  

 

·        Jerusalem advocates believe that 10:32-34 applies well to Palestine Christians, but prior to the date of this epistle, to no other known situation.  We read:  “But remember the former days, when after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated.  For you showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one” (note Acts 8:1 and Acts 12).  From Acts 18:12-17 and 19:35-41, it would appear that prior to Nero (64 AD), Rome did not persecute Christians outside Judea.  On the other hand, the counterclaim is made that 6:10 and 10:34 does not fit the Jerusalem church which is pictured in Acts and epistles as more of a recipient than a giver.

 

·        Jerusalem opponents cite 2:3 and argue that to no church on earth would it be so inappropriate to say that they had received the gospel at second hand.  The latest reasonable date for the epistle would still not be so late that there were no members of the Jerusalem church alive who had seen and heard Jesus for themselves.

 

·        The testimony of history favours the Jerusalem destination theory.  Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Euthalius, Chrysostom, Theodoret and others express the view that the epistle was sent to Palestinian Jews.  Opponents argue that since Clement was clearly wrong in affirming that the letter was composed in the Hebrew language, such testimony is suspect.

 

·        Although the Tabernacle rather than the Temple is the focal point, still, it is held by some that only in Jerusalem would the various rituals be constantly before Jewish Christians.  It is held that in 9:6, although the historical present may be in use, it is more likely that the reference is to services still being performed in the temple.  In similar vein, it is argued that in 13:12-14 where reference is to a “city” and a “gate,” the writer assumes familiarity with both.  These are references to the city of Jerusalem and the gate through which Christ passed on the way to the cross.

 

(6)          Much more could be said but in my view the destination Jerusalem view is likely correct and the letter was probably written from Rome.  It is thought that James, the Lord’s brother who played a leading role in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15; 21; Gal 1 and 2) was martyred in about 62 AD, and perhaps this letter is written to encourage those who, deprived of his leadership, were in danger of losing their faith.  However, the question of destination in no real way affects our understanding of the epistle.

 

 

Purpose, Theme and Characteristics

 

 

Exhortation not to return to Judaism

 

The writer addresses a “word of exhortation” (parakleseos, encouragement – 13:22) to Hebrew Christians, encouraging them not to succumb to the temptation to return to Judaism at a time when they are suffering for their faith in Christ.  From the letter we learn that the situation of these Jewish Christians was as follows:

 

·        They had learned of Jesus but evidently had not seen or heard Him in person (2:3).

 

·        They had suffered persecution (10:32), abuse, prison, loss of property, but had not yet been called upon to die for their faith (“you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin” – 12:4).

 

·        They had given evidence of their faith in past service and care of the persecuted.  The writer speaks of their “work of love” (6:10) and remembers a time when they “showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of...(their) property” (10:34).

 

·        They had, however, stopped growing in Christ and even slipped back (“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God” – 5:11-14).  Fear may have lead to their absenting themselves from regular assemblies (“not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some” – 10:25).

 

·        They were evidently weary of carrying the burden of shame associated with their having left Judaism.  In 13:13, the writer speaks of going outside the camp (of Judaism), stressing that there was a price to pay (“bearing His reproach”/”the stigma that He bore” - NEB).  Rejection, disgrace and scorn followed when the Jewish Christian left Judaism for Christ.

 

·        They were in danger of deserting the pure gospel for “varied and strange teachings” (13:7-9).  NIV has “Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings.  It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods” and although there is nothing corresponding to “ceremonial” in the text, it likely captures the idea.

 

The writer addresses this “word of exhortation” (13:22) to them encouraging them not to return to Judaism.  Keep in mind that Judaism was recognized by Rome but Christianity was not and a return to the former would alleviate the threat of persecution.  Too, the rites and ceremonies of Judaism were impressive, and a return would mean that they were no longer alienated from their fleshly kinsmen.

 

 

Warnings against apostasy

 

In light of the very real danger of apostasy, a number of urgent warnings are issued throughout the letter.  Among them the following:

 

·        Be careful not to “drift away” from the great salvation offered through Christ (2:1-3).  These brethren must “pay much closer attention” to what they had heard (ie the truth of the Gospel communicated through the Son) because there is no “escape” (2:3) for those who do drift away.  The point of 2:2 is that “to treat it lightly, therefore, must expose one to sanctions more awful than those which safeguarded the law” (Bruce).

 

·        Be careful lest they be “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (3:13) like the generation which perished in the wilderness.  In particular, note the conditional sentences in 3:6, 14.  Christians are Christ’s house “if (note the condition)...(they) hold fast...(their) confidence...” and have “become partakers of Christ if (note the condition)...(they) hold fast the beginning of their assurance firm until the end.”

 

·        Be careful lest they fall through disobedience (4:11).  Verse 12 (“For the word of God is living and active...”) is designed to show that disobedience cannot escape God’s notice.  God’s word is “living and active” - ie dynamic.  It accomplishes that which God intends (Isa 55:11).  It is from a living God (Acts 7:38; 1 Pet 1:23).  Being “sharper than any two-edged sword” it “lays bare self-delusions and moral sophisms” (Vincent).

 

·        Beware lest they endanger themselves by failing to grow in Christ (“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God” – 5:12).  Spiritual babes are easily tossed about by winds of doctrine, trickery etc (Eph 4:14).

 

·        Beware of falling away (6:4-8) and “sinning wilfully” (10:26).  Here, sinning wilfully “has reference to a wilful abandonment of Christianity for Judaism.  Thus it simply means to keep on sinning.  One violates these instructions when he wilfully returns to his old life after obeying the gospel” (T. B. Crews: Hebrews, Denton Lectureship).

·        Beware lest they refuse “Him (Jesus) who warns from heaven” (12:25).  Those who “refused” God (ie Israel in the wilderness), who “warned them on earth” (ie at Sinai) “did not escape,” their bodies falling in the desert.  God now “warns from heaven” (not earthly Sinai) in speaking through His glorified Son.  Far worse consequences result from refusing to heed the latter (cf 2:1 ff).

 

These warnings punctuate the Hebrew epistle in connection with the writer’s central theme below.

 

 

Superiority of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

 

“The general theme of Hebrews is not in dispute:  the unqualified supremacy of God’s son, Jesus Christ, a supremacy that brooks no challenge, whether from angelic or human beings” (Carsen et al).

 

This theme is not developed in some theoretical or abstract manner, but with the deliberate intention of warning these Hebrew Christians not to desert Christ and the fulness of the gospel by returning to Judaism, a religious system which had simply functioned to prepare the world for Jesus and the full and final revelation of God’s will.  In 1:1-10:18 the writer sets forth the theological basis for Christ’s superiority over all that went before Him in a series of significant comparisons:

 

 

Christ is a better revelator than the Old Testament prophets (1:1-4)

 

In these rich verses we are told that Old Testament revelation was progressive and fragmentary (Gen 12:1-3; 49:10; Deut 18:18; Psa 22:11-21; Isa 53 etc).  Only gradually and progressively did God’s plan unravel, and through many different spokesmen.  Secondly, the revelations differed in content and form - in storm and thunder (Ex 19:19), in dreams (Gen 28:12), in visions (Isa 6:l ff), symbols (Amos 8:1) etc.  This same God has spoken “in these last days” (Heb1: 2), meaning in the period of the Christian dispensation.  He has spoken “in His Son” (as opposed to “in the prophets”).  There is no definite article (“the”) or possessive pronoun (“His”) in the Greek text here which “fixes attention upon the nature and not upon the personality...  (He is) one who has this character that He is Son (Westcott)” (Reineker and Rogers Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament).  Thus Christians have in Christ a revelator who is infinitely superior to the human spokesmen of the Old Testament.  

 

 

Christ is better than the angels (1:4-2:4)

 

This superiority is particularly emphasized by a series of seven Old Testament quotations (1:5-14) which speak (among other things) of Christ’s uniqueness, His reception of worship from the angels, His possession of the throne of the universe and His role in creation.  All stress His superiority to angels.

 

 

 

Christ is better than Moses (3:1-6)

 

Moses was deliverer and mediator and was faithful in the discharge of all his appointed duties (Num 12:7), “in all His (God’s) house.”  Here “oikos” is the nation of Israel, God’s ancient dwelling place (Ex 25:8; 40:34).  On the other hand, as God Himself, Jesus Christ is builder of all things, including the house, (nation) of Israel.  Therefore Jesus is counted worthy of more glory than Moses as the builder and has more honour than the product of his hands.  In God’s “house” (ie the nation of Israel), Moses was faithful (v 2) “as a servant.”  The word “therapon,” translated “servant,” occurs only here in the New Testament.  “It denotes an honoured servant, one who is far above a slave but still a servant” (Morris).  It was “...an office which was honourable and dignified” (Reineker and Rogers Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament) but not comparable to Christ’s being a “Son over His House” the church.

 

 

Christ is better than Joshua (4:1-13)

 

Joshua took the children of Israel into the “rest” of Canaan, but centuries after the death of Moses and Joshua, David (Psa 95:7) wrote urging his contemporaries not to harden their hearts against God’s voice and thereby forfeit promised rest.  From 4:8 it is evident that the “rest” of Canaan to which Joshua led the people did not exhaust the divine promise.  Heaven, not Canaan, is the final rest, the better rest of which Christians have a foretaste in Christ (Matt 11:28-29).

 

 

Christ is better than Aaron (4:14-7:28)

 

In Christ we have a great high priest who can “sympathize with our weaknesses,” a fact which encourages us to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace” (4:15-16).  Like Aaron, Christ was “called by God” to be high priest (5:4), but unlike Aaron, Christ was “a Son” and His high priesthood was “according to the order of Melchizedek” (5:8, 10).  The superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood over the Aaronic priesthood is seen in the fact that Abraham (and in Abraham, Levi) paid tithes to Melchizedek (7:1-10).  What’s more, “perfection” was not possible through the Levitical priesthood (7:11-14).  Christ’s “indestructible life” (7:15-19), the divine oath that Jesus will be priest forever (7:20-22), the permanence of Christ’s priesthood (7:23-25) and the superior character of Jesus (7:26-28), all demonstrate that Christ’s priesthood is better than that of Aaron.

 

 

Christ’s ministry is better than the ministry of the old covenant (8:1-10:18)

 

After having touched upon the ways in which Christ’s ministry is superior (8:1-6), the Hebrew writer develops his argument by explaining this superiority in terms of:

 

 

·        Covenant provisions (8:7-13)

 

Members of the new covenant are characterized by the fact that God’s laws are written upon their hearts (8:10), by personal knowledge of God (8:11), and by the fact that they are recipients of divine mercy (8:12).

 

·        Sanctuaries (9:1-12)

 

Central to the former covenant was “the earthly sanctuary” (9:1) and the “gifts and sacrifices” associated with it, which were unable to “make the worshiper perfect in conscience” (9:9-10).

 

Central to the better covenant is the fact that Christ entered “the holy place” (v 12), ie heaven, “having obtained eternal redemption” by virtue of His shed blood (9:13).

 

·        Sacrifices

 

Whereas under the old covenant the “copies of the things in the heavens” (9:23) were cleansed with animal blood, Christ’s sacrifice purified “the heavenly things themselves” (9:23) and He did it “once for all” (10:1-18, especially v10).

 

In light of Christ’s superiority, the warnings against drifting away etc and returning to Judaism are given a heightened urgency.  How absurd and how dangerous to forsake the substance for the shadow, full and final revelation for that which was preparatory (12:26-29).  Clearly too, in stressing the doctrine of Christ’s priestly office and mediatorial work, the Hebrew letter provides us with valuable information about Christ’s present work at the right hand of God, information which we would otherwise not possess.  In fact, the main focus of this Epistle is upon Christ’s priesthood and present ministry.  Elsewhere His priesthood is implied (eg Revelation where His garb and sash are high-priestly), but only in Hebrews is He called Priest.

 

 

Motivation to Persevere

 

Christ’s humanity, His sympathy for man, His oneness with man, His sufferings on behalf of man and His accomplishments for man are also offered as encouragements to perseverance.  In 2:5-18, Christ’s humanity is the means by which man’s lost dominion is regained (2:9) while the role of Christ’s humiliation and incarnation in “bringing many son to glory” (2:10-18, especially v 10) is explained.  Moreover, we are reminded that in Christ we have a high priest who “has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (4:15) and we are encouraged to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace” (4:16).  A timely reminder to those who are fearful and wavering in their faith.

 

 

 

 

 

Examples of the Faith

 

Also encouraging to those who “have need of endurance” (10:36) is the reminder of how God’s people in the past had been victorious over suffering and even death because of their faith in the promises of God.  This is the theme of chapter 11, sometimes (very appropriately) called “The Hall of Faith” chapter.  Faith is the “assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (11:1) and it was the means by which “men of old gained (divine) approval” (11:2).  Such Old Testament heroes as Abel, Enoch, Noah etc. “gained approval through their faith” but “did not receive what was promised” (11:39), namely the realization of those promises in Christ.  How much more reason then, for these Hebrew Christians who know the risen Christ to stand firm.

 

 

Discipline has a Purpose

 

These despondent saints are reminded that just as Christ’s sufferings had a purpose, so too the sufferings of Christ’s people have a purpose (12:1-17).  Christians are to accept problems and trials as God’s method of training and disciplining those who are his beloved sons and daughters (“whom the Lord loves He disciplines” - 12:6).  Discipline is proof of son ship (12:7) and the aim of that discipline is “that we may share His holiness” (12:10).  While painful at the time, discipline yields to those who have been “trained” by it, “the peaceful fruit of righteousness” or a “harvest of righteousness and peace” (12:11).  On this basis, the exhortation is given:  “strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble” (12:12) and do not despise the blessings of Christ (12:15-17).

 

“In a final, sweeping comparison the old revelation, with all its repellent, material aspects, is contrasted with the new - heavenly, ideal, and eternal, 12:18-29.  Theirs is a kingdom that cannot be shaken.  Varied exhortations - to hospitality, charity, morality - with personal matters and farewells complete the letter, 13:1-25.  The Christians must be hospitable and charitable.  They must keep the marriage relation sacred and be free from avarice” (Goodspeed).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outline

 

(1)          Christ’s Superiority (Heb 1:1-10:18).

 

Christ is superior to the Old Testament Prophets (Heb 1:1-3).

Christ is superior to Angels (Warning:  “Do not drift” – Heb 1:4-2:18).

Christ is superior to Moses (Heb 3:1-6).

Christ is superior to Joshua (Warning:  “Do not become hardened by sin” and

“Do not fall through disobedience” – Heb 3:7-4:13).

Christ is superior to Aaron (Warning:  “Do not fail to grow” and “Beware of  

falling away” - Heb 4:14-7:28).

Christ is superior to the Old Covenant (Heb 8:1-10:18).

 

(2)          Exhortations (Heb 10:19-39).

 

(Warning:  “Beware of wilful sin”).

 

(3)          Remain Faithful (Heb 11-12).

 

Examples of the Old Testament Faithful (Heb 11).

Discipline Has a Purpose (Heb 12:1-17).

Motivation for Persevering (Warning:  “Beware of refusing Him who warns 

from heaven” – Heb 12:18-29).

 

(4)          Conclusion (Heb13).

 

Practical Principles for the Christian Life (Heb 13:1-17).

Request for Prayer (Heb 13:18-19).

Prayer for Them (Heb 13:20-21).

Personal (Heb 13:22-23).

Final Greetings (Heb 13:24-25).