Hebrews

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE

[1] [2]

[3] [4]

[5] [6]

[7] [8]

[13]

INTRODUCTION

CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.--CLEMENT

OF ROME, at the end of the first century

(A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of

the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the

term "Scripture," which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of

the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but

certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged

Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the

writer, CLEMENT'S adoption of extracts from it is

virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age.

JUSTIN MARTYR quotes it as

divinely authoritative, to establish the titles "apostle," as well as

"angel," as applied to the Son of God. CLEMENT OF

ALEXANDRIA refers it expressly to Paul, on the

authority of Pantænus, chief of the Catechetical school in

Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus

is termed in it the "apostle" sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through

humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being

apostle to the Gentiles. CLEMENT also says that

Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to

put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally

written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it

into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that

of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing

Greek Epistle as Paul's words. ORIGEN

similarly quotes it as Paul's Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he

regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as "more Grecian,"

but the thoughts as the apostle's; adding that the "ancients who have

handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good

reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the

actual writer" (that is, probably "transcriber" of the apostle's

thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third

century, TERTULLIAN ascribes it to Barnabas.

IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in

EUSEBIUS, as quoting from this Epistle, though

without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius,

the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen

Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included,

there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the

second century, or beginning of the third, published by MURATORI, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the

Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul's till a considerable time

after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also,

NOVATIAN OF

ROME,

CYPRIAN OF

CARTHAGE, and

VICTORINUS, also of the

Latin Church. But in the fourth century, HILARY OF

POITIERS

(A.D. 368),

LUCIFER OF

CAGLIARI

(A.D. 371),

AMBROSE OF

MILAN (A.D. 397) and other Latins, quote it as

Paul's; and the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D.

419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.

As to the similarity of its style to that of Luke's

writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul.

CHRYSOSTOM, comparing Luke and Mark, says, "Each

imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than

river fulness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style."

Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and

familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in

this Epistle than in Luke's writings. There is no clear evidence

for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom ALFORD upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for

the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of

thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and

Paul, from his Hebræo-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and

Tarsus, would be familiar with PHILO'S modes of

thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his

Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely

that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the

Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really

been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a

characteristic of Apollos' at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in

words unadorned by man's wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to

the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek

Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and

wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their

attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no

such danger. And his Hebræo-Grecian education would enable him to

write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek

philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint

translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between

the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations

from the Old Testament, excepting two

(Heb 10:30; 13:5),

are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities

of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the

Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the

original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the

Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays

on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and

rhythmically constructed periods. CALVIN

observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew,

Heb 9:15-17

would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double

meaning of the Greek "diathece," a "covenant," or a

"testament," whereas the Hebrew "berith" means only

"covenant."

Internal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so

fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to

Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to

it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare

2Co 3:6-18;

Ga 3:23-25; 4:1-9, 21-31,

wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely

sanctioned application--a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the

Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in

Heb 1:3,

&c., as in other Epistles of Paul

(Php 2:6;

Col 1:15-20),

as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering

of Himself for man's sake similarly, compare

Heb 2:9,

with 2Co 8:9;

Php 2:7, 8.

Also His final exaltation, compare

Heb 2:8; 10:13; 12:2,

with 1Co 15:25, 27.

The word "Mediator" is peculiar to Paul alone, compare

Heb 8:6,

with Ga 3:19, 20.

Christ's death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by

the Jewish sacrifices, compare

Ro 3:22-26;

1Co 5:7,

with Heb 7:1-10:39.

The phrase, "God of Peace," is peculiar to Paul, compare

Heb 13:20;

Ro 15:33;

1Th 5:23.

Also, compare

Heb 2:4,

Margin,

1Co 12:4.

Justification, or "righteousness by faith." appears in

Heb 11:7; 10:38,

as in

Ro 1:17; 4:22; 5:1;

Ga 3:11;

Php 3:9.

The word of God is the "sword of the Spirit," compare

Heb 4:12,

with Eph 6:17.

Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that

is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as

full-grown men, require strong meat, compare

Heb 5:12, 13; 6:1,

with 1Co 3:1, 2; 14:20

Ga 4:9;

Col 3:14.

Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by

Christ, compare

Heb 10:19,

with Ro 5:2;

Eph 2:18; 3:12.

Afflictions are a fight,

Heb 10:32;

compare

Php 1:30;

Col 2:1.

The Christian life is a race,

Heb 12:1;

compare

1Co 9:24;

Php 3:12-14.

The Jewish ritual is a service,

Ro 9:4;

compare

Heb 9:1, 6.

Compare "subject to bondage,"

Heb 2:15,

with Ga 5:1.

Other characteristics of Paul's style appear in this Epistle; namely, a

propensity "to go off at a word" and enter on a long parenthesis

suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar

sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals

to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by "and again," compare

Heb 1:5; 2:12, 13,

with Ro 15:9-12.

Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare

Heb 2:8,

with 1Co 15:27;

Eph 1:22.

Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the

Septuagint, and with the addition "saith the Lord," not found in

the Hebrew, in

Heb 10:30;

Ro 12:19.

The supposed Alexandrian (which are rather Philon-like) characteristics

of the Epistle are probably due to the fact that the Hebrews were

generally then imbued with the Alexandrian modes of thought of

Philo, &c., and Paul, without coloring or altering Gospel truth "to the

Jews, became (in style) as a Jew, that he might win the Jews"

(1Co 9:20).

This will account for its being recognized as Paul's Epistle in the

Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches unanimously, to the Hebrews of whom

probably it was addressed. Not one Greek father ascribes the Epistle to

any but Paul, whereas in the Western and Latin churches, which it did

not reach for some time, it was for long doubted, owing to its

anonymous form, and generally less distinctively Pauline style. Their

reason for not accepting it as Paul's, or indeed as canonical, for the

first three centuries, was negative, insufficient evidence for

it, not positive evidence against it. The positive evidence is

generally for its Pauline origin. In the Latin churches, owing to their

distance from the churches to whom belonged the Hebrews addressed,

there was no generally received tradition on the subject. The Epistle

was in fact but little known at all, whence we find it is not mentioned

at all in the Canon of Muratori. When at last, in the fourth

century, the Latins found that it was received as Pauline and canonical

on good grounds in the Greek churches, they universally acknowledged it

as such.

The personal notices all favor its Pauline authorship, namely, his

intention to visit those addressed, shortly, along with Timothy, styled

"our brother,"

Heb 13:23;

his being then in prison,

Heb 13:19;

his formerly having been imprisoned in Palestine, according to

English Version reading,

Heb 10:34;

the salutations transmitted to them from believers of Italy,

Heb 13:24.

A reason for not prefixing the name may be the rhetorical character of

the Epistle which led the author to waive the usual form of epistolary

address.

DESIGN.--His aim is to show the superiority of

Christianity over Judaism, in that it was introduced by one far higher

than the angels or Moses, through whom the Jews received the law, and

in that its priesthood and sacrifices are far less perfecting as to

salvation than those of Christ; that He is the substance of which the

former are but the shadow, and that the type necessarily gives place to

the antitype; and that now we no longer are kept at a comparative

distance as under the law, but have freedom of access through the

opened veil, that is, Christ's flesh; hence he warns them of the danger

of apostasy, to which Jewish converts were tempted, when they saw

Christians persecuted, while Judaism was tolerated by the Roman

authorities. He infers the obligations to a life of faith, of which,

even in the less perfect Old Testament dispensation, the Jewish history

contained bright examples. He concludes in the usual Pauline mode,

with practical exhortations and pious prayers for them.

HIS MODE OF ADDRESS is in it hortatory rather than

commanding, just as we might have expected from Paul addressing the

Jews. He does not write to the rulers of the Jewish Christians,

for in fact there was no exclusively Jewish Church; and his Epistle,

though primarily addressed to the Palestinian Jews, was intended to

include the Hebrews of all adjoining churches. He inculcates obedience

and respect in relation to their rulers

(Heb 13:7, 17, 24);

a tacit obviating of the objection that he was by writing this Epistle

interfering with the prerogative of Peter the apostle of the

circumcision, and James the bishop of Jerusalem. Hence arises his

gentle and delicate mode of dealing with them

(Heb 13:22).

So far from being surprised at discrepancy of style between an Epistle

to Hebrews and Epistles to Gentile Christians, it is just what we

should expect. The Holy Spirit guided him to choose means best suited

to the nature of the ends aimed at. WORDSWORTH

notices a peculiar Pauline Greek construction,

Ro 12:9,

literally, "Let your love be without dissimulation, ye abhorring

. . . evil, cleaving to . . . good," which is found

nowhere else save

Heb 13:5,

literally, "Let your conversation be without covetousness, ye being

content with," &c. (a noun singular feminine nominative absolute,

suddenly passing into a participle masculine nominative plural

absolute). So in quoting Old Testament Scripture, the writer of the

Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as a Jew writing to Jews would,

"God spoke to our fathers," not, "it is written." So

Heb 13:18,

"We trust we have a good conscience" is an altogether Pauline sentiment

(Ac 23:1; 24:16;

2Co 1:12; 4:2;

2Ti 1:3).

Though he has not prefixed his name, he has given at the close his

universal token to identify him, namely, his apostolic salutation,

"Grace be with you all"; this "salutation with his own hand" he

declared

(2Th 3:17, 18)

to be "his token in every Epistle": so

1Co 16:21, 23;

Col 4:18.

The same prayer of greeting closes every one of his Epistles,

and is not found in any one of the Epistles of the other apostles

written in Paul's lifetime; but it is found in the last book of the New

Testament Revelation, and subsequently in the Epistle of

CLEMENT OF ROME. This proves

that, by whomsoever the body of the Epistle was committed to writing

(whether a mere amanuensis writing by dictation, or a companion of Paul

1Co 12:10,

transfusing Paul's Spirit-taught sentiments into his own Spirit-guided

diction), Paul at the close sets his seal to the whole as really his,

and sanctioned by him as such. The churches of the East, and Jerusalem,

their center, to which quarter it was first sent, received it as Paul's

from the earliest times according to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 349). JEROME, though bringing

with him from Rome the prejudices of the Latins against the Epistle to

the Hebrews, aggravated, doubtless, by its seeming sanction of the

Novatian heresy

(Heb 6:4-6),

was constrained by the force of facts to receive it as Paul's, on the

almost unanimous testimony of all Greek Christians from the earliest

times; and was probably the main instrument in correcting the past

error of Rome in rejecting it. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church

is peculiarly valuable, for it was founded by Mark, who was with Paul

at Rome in his first confinement, when this Epistle seems to have been

written

(Col 4:10),

and who possibly was the bearer of this Epistle, at the same time

visiting Colosse on the way to Jerusalem (where Mark's mother lived),

and thence to Alexandria. Moreover,

2Pe 3:15, 16,

written shortly before Peter's death, and like his first Epistle

written by him, "the apostle of the circumcision," to the

"Hebrew" Christians dispersed in the East, says, "As our beloved

brother Paul hath written unto you"

(2Pe 3:15),

that is, to the Hebrews; also the words added, "As also in all

his Epistles"

(2Pe 3:16),

distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest; then he

further speaks of it as on a level with "other Scriptures," thus

asserting at once its Pauline authorship and divine inspiration. An

interesting illustration of the power of Christian faith and love;

Peter, who had been openly rebuked by Paul

(Ga 2:7-14),

fully adopted what Paul wrote; there was no difference in the Gospel of

the apostle of the circumcision and that of the apostle of the

uncircumcision. It strikingly shows God's sovereignty that He chose as

the instrument to confirm the Hebrews, Paul, the apostle of

the Gentiles

(Ro 11:13);

and on the other hand, Peter to open the Gospel door to the

Gentiles

(Ac 10:1,

&c.), though being the apostle of the Jews; thus perfect unity

reigns amidst the diversity of agencies.

Rome, in the person of CLEMENT OF

ROME, originally received this

Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by

the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her

error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as

Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for

three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the

Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that

Rome is not the Catholic Church.

It plainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which

would have been mentioned in the Epistle had that event gone before,

compare

Heb 13:10;

and probably to churches in which the Jewish members were the more

numerous, as those in Judea, and perhaps Alexandria. In the latter city

were the greatest number of resident Jews next to Jerusalem. In

Leontopolis, in Egypt, was another temple, with the arrangements of

which, WIESELER thinks the notices in this Epistle

more nearly corresponded than with those in Jerusalem. It was from

Alexandria that the Epistle appears first to have come to the knowledge

of Christendom. Moreover, "the Epistle to the Alexandrians," mentioned

in the Canon of Muratori, may possibly be this Epistle to the

Hebrews. He addresses the Jews as peculiarly "the people of God"

(Heb 2:17; 4:9; 13:12),

"the seed of Abraham," that is, as the primary stock on which Gentile

believers are grafted, to which

Ro 11:16-24

corresponds; but he urges them to come out of the carnal earthly

Jerusalem and to realize their spiritual union to "the heavenly

Jerusalem"

(Heb 12:18-23; 13:13).

The use of Greek rather than Hebrew is doubtless due to

the Epistle being intended, not merely for the Hebrew, but for the

Hellenistic Jew converts, not only in Palestine, but elsewhere; a view

confirmed by the use of the Septuagint. BENGEL thinks, probably (compare

2Pe 3:15, 16,

explained above), the Jews primarily, though not exclusively,

addressed, were those who had left Jerusalem on account of the war and

were settled in Asia Minor.

The notion of its having been originally in Hebrew arose

probably from its Hebrew tone, method, and topics. It is

reckoned among the Epistles, not at first generally

acknowledged, along with James, Second Peter, Second and Third

John, Jude, and Revelation. A beautiful link exists between these

Epistles and the universally acknowledged Epistles. Hebrews

unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel

fulfilment. James is the link between the highest doctrines of

Christianity and the universal law of moral duty--a commentary on the

Sermon on the Mount--harmonizing the decalogue law of Moses, and the

revelation to Job and Elias, with the Christian law of liberty. Second

Peter links the teaching of Peter with that of Paul. Jude links the

earliest unwritten to the latest written Revelation. The two shorter

Epistles to John, like Philemon, apply Christianity to the minute

details of the Christian life, showing that Christianity can sanctify

all earthly relations.