THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The question of the authorship of this Epistle is one of the most
fascinating problems raised by the criticism of the New Testament. It
does not in the least involve any charge of forgery, such as is
involved in a consideration of St. John's Gospel or of St. Paul's
Epistle to the Ephesians. Nor does it involve the fact of an author
absorbing the work of a previous writer, such as we find in the case of
St. Luke. The work is one complete and original composition of great
finish and perfection, and yet this perfect work contains hardly a hint
as to its author. The title which is placed above it in our Bibles
deserves serious consideration, as it represents an opinion which was
held in many parts of Christendom in the 4th century, and in some parts
of Christendom even in the 2nd century. But it by no means represents
the universal judgment of the Church, and is contradicted by good
evidence, both external and internal. A remarkable divergence of
opinion on the subject existed between the Churches of the east and
those of the west.
Alexandria appears to have been the first centre of the belief that
this Epistle was written by St. Paul. We find that about A.D. 170,
Pantaenus, the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria,
attributed it to St. Paul. His successor Clement agrees with this, but
states that it was written in Hebrew and translated by St. Luke into
Greek--a statement which implies that scholars were conscious that the
style of Hebrews is not {209} the style ordinarily used by St. Paul.
In A.D. 240, Origen, the successor of Clement, defends the Pauline
authorship--a defence which shows that the authorship was disputed. In
A.D. 245 Origen had learnt to doubt the validity of his former defence,
and states that the writer was a disciple of Paul, but "who wrote the
Epistle God only knows." In A.D. 269 the famous heretic Paul of
Samosata quoted Hebrews as the work of St. Paul in a letter read at the
Synod of Antioch which deposed him from his bishopric. Early in the
next century Eusebius quotes the Epistle as by St. Paul, but he shows
the same perplexity as Clement of Alexandria, for he thinks that it was
translated from the Hebrew, possibly by Clement of Rome. After the
time of Eusebius the Greek Fathers all ascribe it to St. Paul. We can
therefore sum up the evidence of the Greek Churches by saying that
though it mostly favours one theory, it is not so cogent as to remove
all our suspicions.
Moreover, the complete absence of references to this Epistle in the
extant writings of Irenaeus[1] almost compels us to ask if the Greek
Churches of Southern Gaul and Asia Minor regarded this Epistle as
Pauline. Irenaeus might naturally omit to quote a short and
comparatively unimportant Epistle, but his omission of a long Epistle,
well adapted to his arguments, inclines us to place him in a rank
opposite to his contemporary, Clement of Alexandria. A Greek writer of
the 6th century actually says that Irenaeus, in a passage now lost,
denied that St. Paul wrote the Epistle.[2]
The Latin Churches of the west seem to have been for three centuries
under the conviction that this Epistle was not by St. Paul. It is
quoted by Clement of Rome, A.D. 95, a fact which {210} alone is
sufficient to prove its early date and its sacred character. But
Clement makes no statement as to its authorship. Caius of Rome, A.D.
200, excludes it from the list of St. Paul's Epistles, and the same
hesitation with regard to it existed in the great Latin-speaking Church
of Carthage. St. Cyprian, A.D. 250, does not include Hebrews among St.
Paul's Epistles. No Latin Father attributes it to St. Paul before
Hilary of Poictiers in A.D. 368, and Hilary was in close contact with
the East. At the end of the 4th century St. Jerome shows distinct
hesitation in attributing it to St. Paul, and it was not commonly
attributed to him in the west until the time of St. Augustine, who died
in 432.
Internal evidence agrees with the external evidence in making it very
difficult for us to believe that St. Paul wrote Hebrews.
(1) The Greek is more elegant than that of St. Paul's Epistles. The
styles are widely different. That of St. Paul is abrupt and vehement
like a mountain-torrent, that of Hebrews is calm and smooth like a
river running through a meadow.
(2) The quotations are very unlike St. Paul's. They are all from the
Greek version of the Old Testament, with the exception of that in x.
30, which occurs in the same form in Rom. xii. 19. It had probably
taken this shape in popular use. The quotations are introduced by
phrases such as "God saith," or "the Holy Spirit saith." But St. Paul
often shows a knowledge of the Hebrew when he makes quotations, and he
uses such phrases as "it is written," or "the Scripture saith," or
"Moses saith."
(3) There is no salutation such as is usual in St. Paul's Epistles.
(4) In Hebrews the incarnate Son is called "Jesus," or "Christ," or
"the Lord." In St. Paul's Epistles we find fuller titles employed,
such as "our Lord Jesus Christ."
(5) The theological differences are important. The teaching of the
author harmonizes with that of St. Paul, but throughout the Epistle we
feel that the truths of Christianity are being expounded to us by one
whose personal history is different {211} from that of St. Paul. The
author starts from the fact of the perfection of Christ's sacrifice,
and in his doctrine about the Law he looks at it from that fact. St.
Paul, on the other hand, starts from the doctrine of justification by
faith, and looks at the Law from the point of that doctrine. Again,
the author takes a general view of faith as heroic belief in unseen
facts; while St. Paul, though he sometimes does the same, prefers to
use the word "faith" in the sense of devoted, personal, adhesion to
Christ.
(6) In ii. 3, 4 the author seems to imply that he had not personally
seen the Lord.
Many conjectures have been made as to the real author. Few of these
conjectures deserve serious consideration. Luther suggested Apollos,
and the suggestion has been accepted by many writers. In favour of it
are: (1) he was a friend of St. Paul; (2) he was "mighty in the
Scriptures," and Hebrews deals with the Old Testament in a masterly
way; (3) he was an Alexandrian Jew, and Hebrews was plainly written by
a Jew, and apparently by one acquainted with Philo and other
Alexandrian authors.[3] Against this theory is the complete absence of
traditional support, and the fact that Apollos was taught by Aquila and
Priscilla, whereas the author of Hebrews implies that he was taught by
a personal disciple of Christ. On the whole, _St. Barnabas_ seems to
have the best claim. Tertullian not only speaks of it as the work of
Barnabas, but also shows by his words that the Church of North Africa
regarded it as his work.[4] He is not, therefore, making a conjecture,
but assuming a tradition. His evidence is the more valuable, because
the Church of North Africa was important and was in close contact with
Rome, where the Epistle was venerated at least as early as A.D. 95. In
favour {212} of the tradition we can note: (1) St. Barnabas was an
influential companion of St. Paul; (2) he was a Levite, and would be
interested in Levitical worship; (3) he was a native of Cyprus, which
was in close communication with Alexandria; (4) he had been in the
regions to which the Epistle was probably addressed.
Against the theory that St. Barnabas was the author, it is said that
the author makes surprising errors with regard to the Temple ritual,
which St. Barnabas was not likely to do. The so-called "errors" are:
(a) the high priest sacrificing _daily_ (vii. 27; x. 11)--but the high
priest was free to do this; (b) the pot of manna and Aaron's rod placed
_in the ark_ (ix. 4), though not so described in 1 Kings viii. 9--but
in the tabernacle they were at least close to the ark (Exod. xvi. 34;
Numb. xvii. 10); (c) the altar of incense is said to belong to the
_holiest place_ (ix. 4)--but it did belong to it in the sense of
sanctifying the approach to it, though it was placed outside it: see 1
Kings vi. 22. No one can reasonably say that these statements are of
such a nature as to prove that the Epistle was not written by a Levite.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
The title says "To the Hebrews." The character of the Epistle suggests
this. It was plainly written for Jewish Christians, and apparently for
some particular community of them (v. 11, 12; vi. 9, 10; x. 32-34;
xiii. 1, 7, 19, 23). Which community, it is difficult to say. The
Jewish Christians of Rome have been suggested, and in support of this
the reference to Italian Christians (xiii. 24) has been quoted. It is
a strange fact that this theory about the destination of the Epistle is
favoured by some critics who assign it to a late date. For if it was
really written to Rome, the date must be early. It is almost
inconceivable that the author should have said, "Ye have not yet
resisted unto blood," to the Christians of _Rome_ after the persecution
of A.D. 64-65. Some town in Syria or Palestine is more likely than
Rome, and Antioch seems a probable destination for the Epistle. The
community must have been {213} familiar with Greek, and at the same
time must have been under strong temptations to relapse into Judaism.
They had for the sake of Christ left the warm social life of Judaism.
They felt isolated and depressed. The splendour of the temple worship
and the zeal of Jewish patriotism were luring them back to their old
religion. They felt that they had perhaps deserted a magnificent
reality for a shadowy hope. Such circumstances fit with the theory
that the community dwelt in Palestine or Syria, and the same theory is
supported by the fact that these Christians had been converted long ago
(v. 12), and had heard the apostles (ii. 3).
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
Probably from Italy, as shown by xiii. 24. The date may be put about
A.D. 66. A generation of Christians had passed away (xiii. 2). The
doom of Jerusalem was approaching (x. 25; viii. 13; xiii. 13). The
frequent reference to the Levitical worship, as exerting an attractive
force, must imply that the temple was still standing. The Epistle must
therefore be earlier than 70.
It is true that the references to the Levitical worship are sometimes
more appropriate to the ancient tabernacle than to the temple, and this
fact is urged by those who maintain that the temple was already
destroyed when the Epistle was written. But this is no answer to the
fact that the Jewish worship is throughout assumed to be in existence.
The author is not opposing the propaganda of Jewish rabbis or the
attractions of synagogues which were connected with the temple by
tradition only. He is opposing a great living system with its
priesthood and its ritual. And in order to criticize Judaism he deals
with the _tabernacle_, concerning which the Old Testament gave definite
directions. This was a more effective method than discussing the
temple which superseded the tabernacle.
[Sidenote: Character and contents.]
Hebrews is marked by a complete unity of argument. Though the thread
of the argument is sometimes dropped for the sake of practical
exhortation, it is soon resumed and logically carried on.
{214}
Christ as the Son of God is a manifestation of God superior to all
other manifestations. He is far above the prophets, and above the
angels, who neither created the material world nor have the "world to
come" subject unto them. He towers above Moses, who was only a servant
and a stone in the house of God, for He is the Son, and built the
house. He is above Joshua; for He has won a rest for the people of
God, of which the rest of Canaan was a mere type. Neither under Joshua
nor under David did the people of God reach the ideal sabbath rest
which God has promised (i.-iv. 13).
Christ as High Priest is above the Aaronic priesthood, for He is "after
the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. ex. 4) (iv. 14-v. 10). Then the writer,
before giving the full interpretation of Christ's high priesthood,
makes a digression to urge the need of greater spiritual insight on the
part of his readers (v. 11-vi. 12). They can be sure of God's blessing
if they have faith and patience (vi. 13-20). The unique position of
Melchizedek is then expounded. In Gen. xiv. nothing is said of
Melchizedek's descent or of his death. Thus he stands forth in
contrast to the Levitical priests whose descent is described, and who
die and are succeeded by others. He was also superior to those
priests, because Levi, in the person of his father Abraham, paid tithes
to Melchizedek. Since Melchizedek's priesthood is superior to that of
the Levitical priests, much more is that of Christ, of whom
Melchizedek, great as he was, is only a type. Then the author shows
that the rise of a new priesthood must imply the birth of a new
religious system. Christ "hath His priesthood unchangeable," but needs
not to repeat His sacrifice (vii.).
Then the author shows that the new liturgy and the new sanctuary of the
Christian Church are superior to the liturgy and the sanctuary of
Judaism. Though Christ's blood was shed only once, He retains the
character of Priest (viii. 3); He hath "somewhat to offer," viz.
Himself in His sacred manhood in heaven. He thus acts as a Mediator of
the new covenant {215} promised in the Old Testament (viii. 6-13). The
tabernacle was only a temporary parable; Christ acts as High Priest in
the holy of holies, the actual presence of God typified by the
tabernacle; He has consecrated the new covenant between man and God by
His own blood (ix.). The repetition of the Levitical sacrifices proves
their impotence. But that of Christ is adequate. It is an offering of
inherent value, being the offering of the will of Christ, instead of
the offering of unconscious beasts. And we need no other atonement,
for His unique offering has a perpetual value (x. 1-18).
The writer then proceeds to insist upon the appropriation and
application of the truths which he has expounded. It is our privilege
to have full confidence, and our duty to assemble for worship: apostasy
is most serious (x. 19-39). The writer next describes the nature of
faith, which is a faculty which makes the future as if it were present,
and the unseen as if it were visible. It is illustrated by a
magnificent roll-call of heroes from Abel to the Incarnation. These
heroes, who saw both worlds, and realized how petty the material world
is compared with the spiritual, had real insight (xi.). Emulate their
example, enduring persecution, knowing that our Mount Zion is superior
to Sinai, and our coming to church a reunion with angels and saints
(xii.).
The Epistle closes with a practical exhortation concerning brotherly
love, hospitality, prisoners, marriage, and contentment. The ministers
who had formerly had rule over the readers are to be remembered. We
are not to be unsettled by strange teachings. "We have an altar" of
which the Jewish priests may not partake. Our sin offering, Jesus, is
given to us as food. We must go to Him outside the camp of Judaism.
After an injunction to obey the clergy and a request for prayers, the
Epistle concludes. Just before the end it is stated that "our brother
Timothy hath been set at liberty" (xiii.).
The whole Epistle is peculiarly dignified, eloquent, and {216}
persuasive, and its elegant Greek and delicate Alexandrian philosophy
make it a literary treasure.
We may conclude with some further remarks on the writer's doctrine of
Christ's Person and of the Jewish Law.
Knowing that these Christians were in danger of drifting away from
Christ, the writer calls their special attention to His Person, in
order that they may carefully consider who He is before deciding to
part from Him. The doctrine corresponds most exactly with that which
we find in Colossians and in John. It is declared in the most positive
manner that Christ is essentially divine. He reflects His Father's
glory, is the expression of His essence, and the Sustainer of the
universe (i. 3). He is the God whose throne is eternal, and the Lord
who made the earth (i. 8, 10). Yet He became "a little lower than the
angels" (ii. 9), and, though entirely sinless, He was so truly human as
to become the pattern of obedience (x. 7), humility (v. 5), reverent
piety (v. 7), and fidelity (iii. 2). By the discipline of suffering He
was made perfect for His redeeming work (v. 8, 9). It is made evident
that this process of perfection did not consist in the diminution of
sin, but in the development of goodness. Nowhere do we find a more
profound view of suffering and virtue, or a more pathetic delineation
of the character of Jesus.
It has already been hinted that the author regards the Jewish Law
differently from St. Paul. The latter had lived under the goad of a
Pharisaic interpretation of the Law of Moses, which laid down so many
regulations as to what ought to be done, and gave so little assistance
towards doing it, that escape from such a system was like an escape
from penal servitude. When he speaks of the Law, he regards it
primarily as a system of stern moral requirements. But the author of
Hebrews regards the Law as primarily a system of worship. He implies
that it was in some sense a "good tidings" (iv. 2). He teaches that
the Law was a "shadow" of those real "good things" which constitute the
world of truth in heaven, while the Gospel is the {217} "image" or
adequate representation of those holy realities. The Law is therefore
a rough unsubstantial outline of truth, while the Gospel is exact and
solid. Both writers regard the Law as divine in origin, and both
regard it as insufficient and rudimentary (vii. 16; cf. Gal. iv. 3, 9).
But St. Paul thinks of the Law as weak "through the flesh," _unable to
overcome_ the resistance which it encounters from man's lower
instincts, while the author of Hebrews thinks of it as _unable to
cleanse and make perfect_ the human conscience.
ANALYSIS
The subject of the Epistle: CHRISTIANITY AS THE FINAL RELIGION. The
contrast of the Old Revelation and the New in method, time, and
messengers; the divine personality and incarnation of the Son (i. 1-4).
A. The superiority of the Son, the Mediator of the New Revelation, to
the angels, and to the human founders of the Jewish polity: i. 5-iv. 13.
a. Scripture shows the Son to be above the angels (i. 5-14).
b. The danger of rejecting the Son's revelation (ii. 1-4).
c. The Son of Man through suffering fulfils the high destiny of mankind
(ii. 5-18).
d. The dignity of Jesus is far above that of Moses, He is the Maker and
Son, Moses represents the house in which he is a servant (iii. 1-6).
e. Faith is necessary if we would enter the promised land of rest (iii.
7-19).
f. Encouragement as well as warning can be based on the failure of the
Israelites. Under Joshua they did not reach their rest. The promise
of it remains for us (iv. 1-13).
{218}
B. The high-priesthood of Christ, superior to that of Aaron's line,
universal and royal: iv. 14-vii. 28.
a. Transition to the doctrine of Christ's high priesthood (iv. 14-16).
b. The characteristics of a high priest, human sympathy and divine
appointment, fulfilled in Christ (v. 1-10).
c. A digression to urge the readers to advance; the writer's hope for
the Hebrews, God's blessing is assured (v. 11-vi. 20).
d. The characteristics of Christ, as perfect and universal High Priest,
shadowed forth by Melchizedek (vii.).
C. The liturgy and sanctuary of Christ superior to those of Judaism:
viii. i-x. 18.
a. Christ offers sacrifice in heaven (viii. 1-6).
b. Thus He maintains the New Covenant between God and man promised in
the Old Testament (viii. 7-13).
c. The sanctuary and priests of the Old Covenant (ix. 1-10).
d. Fuller explanation of the atoning work of Christ under the New
Covenant (ix. 11-28).
e. The inadequacy of the old sacrifices, the abiding efficacy of
Christ's one sacrifice (x. 1-18).
D. The appropriation and application of the above truths: x. 19-xiii.
25.
a. The privilege of entering the holy place with confidence, the duty
of public worship (x. 19-39).
b. The past triumphs of heroes of the faith (xi.).
c. Exhortation to energy, endurance, fidelity to our Mount Zion and its
divine utterances (xii.).
d. Detailed instructions (xiii.).
[1] Eusebius, _H. E._ v. 26, says that Irenaeus "mentions the Epistle
to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, comparing certain
expressions from them." Eusebius does not say that Irenaeus attributed
it to St. Paul. We can compare words in Heb. i. 1 with Wisd. vii. 22;
Heb. i. 3 with Wisd. xvi. 21; Heb. xii. 17 with Wisd. xii. 10; Heb.
xiii. 7 with Wisd. ii. 17.
[2] Stephen Gobar, in a passage preserved by Photius, Cod. 232.
[3] The word "effulgence" (Heb. i. 3) is a favourite word with Philo.
The interpretation of "King of Salem" as "King of peace" (Heb. vii. 2)
occurs in Philo, and Heb. xiii. 5 has a quotation from Josh. i. 5
exactly resembling in form a quotation in Philo, _De conf. ling._, 33.
[4] _De Pudic_, 20.
{129}