Introduction
Overview
This letter is more specifically called a “message of exhortation” or a sermon (13:22; cf. Ac 13:15). It was written to challenge a group of fragile believers to persevere in their commitment to Christ rather than drift away in unbelief. The author of Hebrews, sometimes called “the preacher,” focuses on a central theme: God’s final word is Jesus! The author constantly points out how Jesus as the supreme revelation of God is better than the previous revelation. Consequently, the listeners cannot ignore or dismiss Jesus if they want to relate properly to God. To persuade the listeners to take the proper course of action, the writer of Hebrews combines words of warning (2:1–4; 3:7–19; 4:12–13; 6:4–8; 10:26–31; 12:25–29) with words of assurance (6:9–12, 19–20; 7:25; 10:14, 32–39). For this reason, the book of Hebrews carries a tension between the danger of failing to persevere in faith and God’s promises for those who do endure.
Authorship
Although the Letter to the Hebrews was clearly written to address a spiritual crisis in a specific community of Christians by one well known to them, we cannot determine with certainty the identity of the author, the specific recipients or the location of their community, or the precise date of the letter’s composition.
Though the letter has been ascribed to Paul from at least the end of the second century in the Eastern church and nearly universally in Christendom from Augustine to the Reformation, the arguments against Pauline authorship now appear to be decisive. Chief among them are the following: (1) the letter is anonymous, which is uncharacteristic of Paul; (2) the style of Greek is significantly different from that of Paul’s Letters; (3) the statement of Heb 2:3 seems impossible to reconcile with Gl 1:12; and (4) the ambiguous testimony of the early fathers—Clement of Alexandria and Origen accepted Hebrews as Pauline but with major qualifications; Tertullian named Barnabas as the author and gave no hint of a controversy on that point—is difficult to explain if the author were none other than the great apostle to the Gentiles.
The reference to Timothy (Heb 13:23) and the ancient but inconsistent testimony to Pauline authorship have led to the widespread opinion that the author was at least a member of the Pauline circle. Origen suggested that he was a pupil of Paul who wrote what he had learned from the apostle. Others have proposed Luke either as the author or, as Clement of Alexandria supposed, the translator of Paul’s Hebrew original. Most modern scholarly opinion, however, is divided between Barnabas and Apollos. Barnabas was a Hellenistic Jew, a Levite in fact, a prominent member of the apostolic circle (even called an apostle in Ac 14:14; cf. 1 Co 9:5–6), and has the considerable support of Tertullian’s unqualified assertion that Barnabas was the author of Hebrews. Likewise Apollos, a highly educated Alexandrian Jew, a gifted controversialist, and a participant in the apostolic ministry (1 Co 1:12; 3:6), could well have written a work such as Hebrews, with its sophisticated use of Scripture and its elegant Greek. Plausible arguments can be advanced in favor of either of these people and some others, but presently a firm conclusion remains unobtainable.
Certainly apostolicity was a prerequisite of canonicity, but this requirement could be satisfied by authorship by a member of the apostolic circle, as in the case of Mark or Luke-Acts. In any case, canonicity does not depend on the church’s present certainty as to the authorship of a particular biblical work (e.g., Judges, 1–2 Chronicles). Furthermore, the author of Hebrews would be among the first to insist that the human authorship of Scripture is of secondary importance, being only the instrumentality of its divine inspiration. As the author reminds the readers (3:7; 4:7), David may have written Ps 95, but the Holy Spirit was the primary author and the one who speaks to us in it.
Occasion, Purpose, and Audience
The author’s purpose in writing is quite clear: to arrest an incipient apostasy and to strengthen wavering faith. Perhaps some members of this community had already deserted the faith, turning their backs on the way of salvation and the Savior they had once acknowledged (6:4–6; 10:26–31). In any case, tempted to evade the persecution they were suffering on account of their faith and to find some way less costly than the discipleship to which Christ calls his people, many were trifling with apostasy by compromising their former beliefs (2:3, 18; 3:6, 12–15; 4:1, 11, 14; 6:4–6, 9–12; 10:19–29, 35–39; 12:1–3, 14–17, 25; 13:9, 13). With a keen appreciation of the fearful implications of such a spiritual defection and with a deep personal interest in the outcome, the author writes this often severe, always affectionate, intensely sympathetic, and directly practical “message of exhortation” (13:22).
Those addressed are a community of converts from Judaism who, encountering stiff opposition from the Jews with whom they used to worship and finding difficult the pioneering demanded of them by their new faith, were tempted to return to the comfortable security of the old ways. In recent times some scholars have maintained that the recipients of the letter were Gentiles or Christians irrespective of race and that the title “To the Hebrews” is only the by-product of a later and erroneous interpretation of the letter. However, the evidence of the epistle itself conclusively favors a Jewish Christian audience, and this remains the conclusion of a majority of scholars. Admittedly, it cannot be demonstrated that the title was attached to the letter prior to the last quarter of the second century AD, and its vagueness may appear not to comport well with a letter obviously addressed to a particular community (10:32–34; 13:18–19, 22–23) and not to Jewish Christians generally. Nevertheless, the title is very old and, so far as anyone knows, “To the Hebrews” is the only title the letter has ever had.
Further, the author throughout assumes on the part of the readers both an exact acquaintance with the Scriptures and an unshaken and unshakable conviction of their divine authority. Of course, Gentile converts acknowledged the OT as the Word of God, but if their commitment to Christianity was weakened, so too would be their confidence in the Scriptures.
Finally, and decisively, a Jewish Christian audience is demanded by the central argument of the letter, which is designed to counter the opinion that the Levitical institutions were God’s definitive provision for the salvation of humankind. The argument is constructed around three contrary-to-fact conditional statements (7:11; 8:7; 10:1–2), that is, statements in which the protasis (the “if” clause) is assumed to be false. The three statements and the massive argumentation marshaled in their support presuppose a real inclination on the part of the readers to assume the contrary, namely, that perfection could be attained through the Levitical priesthood, that the covenant life of Israel was and remains the ideal, and that the sacrifices could indeed make the worshiper perfect—thus rendering Christ and his work superfluous. Such assumptions were not a temptation for Gentile believers; and addressed to a Gentile audience, the great argument of the letter becomes what it definitely is not, a colorless examination of largely hypothetical questions. Rather, the letter is an impassioned plea to make complete and permanent the separation from Judaism (13:13).
One can possibly identify this community with some further precision. The Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly enlarged our knowledge of nonconformist Judaism in this period, that is, Judaism that was not primarily shaped by the rabbinical tradition and not represented by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Chief among representatives of such a separatist Judaism were the Essenes; it is widely believed that a community of Essenes was located at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Among the distinctives of this sect are a number that appear to bear some relation to the argument of Hebrews. These Jews looked for the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s new covenant but in the form of the restoration and purification of the Aaronic priesthood, with its system of ceremonies (cf. Heb 7:11–28; 9:1–10); they anticipated the appearance of a great prophet, the second Moses of Dt 18:18 (cf. Heb 1:1–2), and sought a manner of life patterned after that of Israel in the wilderness (cf. Heb 3:7–19; 4:1–11; 8:6–12; 12:18–21); they fostered extravagant speculations concerning angels, even expecting that in the coming kingdom the archangel Michael would play a more decisive role than the Messiah (cf. 1:4–2:18); they cast Melchizedek in the role of an eschatological deliverer (cf. 7:1–17); and in their ritual they placed special emphasis on ceremonial washings (cf. 6:2; 9:13). Though the evidence is by no means conclusive, a plausible case can be made for understanding Hebrews as a point-by-point refutation of the doctrines of a Jewish community of the Essene-Qumran variety; if correct, this would indicate that the recipients of the letter were originally converts from such a nonconformist Judaism and were now inclined to return to it.
Little more than this can be said about them. They were second-generation Christians. Never having seen or heard Jesus themselves, they had been evangelized by eyewitnesses (2:3). They were presumably Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews, as the author cites the Greek version of the OT, the Septuagint. They had suffered persecution but not yet martyrdom (10:32–34; 12:4). It may be that they were a distinct party or group that had separated itself from the larger believing community in their locality (10:25; 13:17, 24). Where they lived is impossible to determine. Jerusalem and Rome figure prominently in scholarly speculations, but the evidence is meager. Similarly, the place of the letter’s composition remains uncertain. The only evidence in the letter itself is ambiguous (13:24), and the tradition that it was written from Rome is quite late.
Date
Clement of Rome makes use of Hebrews in his first letter, which is ordinarily dated around AD 95, though possibly earlier. A first-century date is further required by the facts that the recipients of the letter had learned the gospel from eyewitnesses of the Lord and that Timothy was still alive (2:3; 13:23). Other evidence supports a date of composition prior to AD 70. The absence of any mention of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem furnishes a virtually unanswerable argument that the letter was written beforehand, inasmuch as mention of the demise of the temple ritual would seem so well suited to the author’s purpose (8:13; 10:2). Further, the consistent use of the present tense in reference to the Levitical priesthood and ritual surely favors, though it does not demand, a date prior to the cessation of that ritual. Without knowing the location of this community of Jewish Christians, it is impossible to say more than this.
Theological Themes
The author describes this work as a “message of exhortation” (13:22)—that is, a sermon, as supported by the use of the same Greek phrase in Ac 13:15. Hebrews is a letter only secondarily, by reason of the few personal remarks at its conclusion and the fact that it was written in one place and dispatched to another. The sermonic form appears in the repeated reference to the author’s speech (Heb 2:5; 5:11; 6:9; 8:1; 9:5; 11:32), method (the citation, exposition, and application of Scripture), and singleness of purpose. Hebrews vies only with Galatians for the distinction of being the most single-minded work in the NT. It is a discourse on the absolute necessity of perseverance in the Christian faith. The arguments enlisted on behalf of this proposition are those precisely suited to allay the doubts and to unmask the errors that were undermining the faith of the author’s readers.
However, the letter’s specific destination and pointed applications notwithstanding, Hebrews is not at all provincial or dated as might be expected of a long-ago sermon to a long-forgotten community of Christians. The danger of apostasy being always present (Mt 24:10; 1 Co 10:12; 1 Tm 4:1), Hebrews’ emphatic and solemn warning is always timely. The author supports this exhortation by appeal to some of the most fundamental elements of the good news, in particular those that have immediately to do with the nature and practicalities of the Christian’s life of faith in the world. In addressing the readers’ spiritual peril, the author provides a scriptural elaboration of Christ’s supremacy as the incarnate Son of God; his mediatorial work as intercessor, priest, and sacrifice; the nature of the Christian faith and hope; the method of God’s dealing in mercy and judgment with his people; and the unity of the people of God and the gospel in the history of salvation. From these doctrines the author draws applications as profound and urgent for any believer today as for those to whom the sermon was first sent.
Like any good preacher, the author never loses sight of the readers’ pressing need or the purpose of this message. The author returns to exhortation regularly, so that what one encounters in Hebrews is a repeated alternation between scriptural or doctrinal exposition and its application to the great question of the readers’ perseverance in faith. (Note the recurring “therefore” in 3:1; 4:1, 14; 6:1; 10:19; 12:1, 28.)
Key Issues in Interpretation
Two special features of the author’s argument, crucial to a proper interpretation of the letter, require comment.
GOD’S GRACE THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF SALVATION
First, the author’s purpose is to correct the readers’ ideas, derived from the principles and forms of the Judaism whence they came, that are incompatible with true faith and participation in the salvation of God. It is imperative that this purpose be given its due in the interpretation of the letter. Too often commentators have understood the author’s central argument (chaps. 3–12) to be contrasting Christianity with the provisional religion of the Mosaic administration. It is then supposed that the author sustains the exhortation to persevere in the faith and to make the break with Judaism permanent by demonstrating that Judaism, embodying the temporary and imperfect economy of the OT, has been superseded by and fulfilled in the religio-historical economy introduced by Christ and the apostles. Indeed, understood in this way, Hebrews is often thought to provide the NT’s most thoroughgoing elaboration of the historical relationship between the OT and the NT and the most complete explanation of the superiority of the latter.
This understanding of Hebrews, though very common, is quite contrary to the author’s fundamental assumptions and clear statements. The contrast is never between a supposedly inferior faith, spirituality, and system of worship that prevailed in the age before Christ and their fulfillment in the Christian era. The author says nothing about the difference between the religion or spiritual privileges of believers before and after Christ. On the contrary, at every point the letter identifies the situation of the readers with that of the ancient people of God: the gospel preached to them was preached to Israel in the wilderness (4:2); the promise, rest, and inheritance that pious Israelites grasped from afar is nothing other than that which is set before the believers to whom this letter is written and which they, likewise, will obtain only in the world to come and only if they endure in faith to the end (3:4, 19; 4:1; 6:11–12; 10:35–39; 11:10, 16, 35, 39–40; 12:1; 13:14); and the danger of apostasy and the enormity of its consequences are no less now that Christ has appeared (3:12; 4:11; 6:4–6; 10:26–31, 38–39; 12:25). It is striking and very important how completely this author identifies the situation that prevailed prior to the incarnation with that of the present and readily finds Christ present and active in the life of the OT community (3:2–6; 11:26).
The contrast the author does draw is the radical contrast between unbelief and faith, apostasy and perseverance, the forfeiture of salvation and the eternal inheritance, and the wrath of God and his forgiveness. No doubt belonging to the church in the Christian era has advantages, but the author of Hebrews does not enumerate them. Indeed, although this letter is frequently claimed to be an assertion of the supremacy of the NT and the obsolescence of the OT, on careful examination it proves instead to be the Bible’s most thorough demonstration of the unity of the covenant of grace, the church of God, and true spirituality and faith throughout all eras of the history of salvation. Crucial to the proper interpretation of the letter is how little interested this author is in distinguishing between the opportunities, privileges, responsibilities, and blessings of the saints before and after Christ and how completely the author identifies them.
The failure to appreciate Hebrews’ sustained emphasis on the unity of the administration of divine grace throughout the history of salvation has bedeviled the interpretation of the letter and muted its warnings. The author fashions the exhortation on the assumption of this unity. The recognition of this is vital; otherwise it is impossible to rightly understand the severe criticism that the author levels against the OT covenant and worship. An appreciation of this consistent assumption of the unity of the gospel and the life of faith before and after the incarnation opens the way to the following recognition. The author does not have in view the OT economy per se, but rather that economy which eventuated when the gospel was not combined with faith, when the covenant was shorn of all but its outward forms, that is, the OT economy as it was understood and practiced by the unbelieving Judaism of the author’s day. This Judaism—not the true faith of the OT—threatened the readers.
The great contrast drawn by this author is not between the old and new administrations, or between believers before and after the incarnation, but rather between two ways of salvation, one false and one true, and between two destinies, the one obtained by those who deny the faith and the other by those who patiently endure in faith and hope. In each case the former is illustrated in the letter chiefly by unbelieving Israel, the latter by the saints of that former era. One cannot overemphasize that the author treats the Mosaic administration, with its Levitical institutions, under the false view of them entertained in the Judaism of that day, a Judaism that had by this time so completely lost sight of the true meaning of the covenant, priesthood, and sacrifice that it no longer had any place for a redeemer who would die for the sins of the world. In the letter’s criticism of the Levitical institutions, therefore, one looks in vain for the author’s admission of the proper and holy purpose of the sacrifices to signify and to confirm God’s covenant, of the joy and peace that pious Israelites obtained in their use of them, and of their splendid and rightful place as an important part of covenant life. The author does no justice to their rightful purpose but condemns them as utterly ineffectual to save sinners (7:18–19). Indeed, it is hard for the author to imagine what significant purpose was ever served by all these carnal regulations and performances (9:9–10; 10:11). The severely negative tone of this criticism of OT religious practices is very impressive, and it is in no way mitigated by the letter’s description of the shadowy, provisional character of these institutions, by any external efficacy the author attributes to them, or by the fact that they were fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ; for in this way the author does not intend to pay tribute to these religious practices but only further demonstrates their worthlessness in comparison with the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ.
In this criticism of the Levitical institutions, then, the author stands squarely in the tradition of the OT prophets who were similarly scornful of that worship as it was practiced by a people who, without living faith in God or submission to his law, trusted instead in the efficacy of external ordinances (Is 1:10–20; Jr 7:21–23; Am 5:21–25). It is imperative to remember that almost certainly Hebrews was written when the sacrifices were still being offered and when Jewish Christians were still participating, and properly so, in temple worship (Ac 21:20–26; cf. 1 Co 7:18). The author does not call for the abolition of the sacrificial ritual and the priesthood any more than did the OT prophets. But like them this author condemns the confidence that faithless and disobedient people are investing in mere ceremonies.
In sum, this author describes the Levitical ritual in much the same way as a preacher today might speak scornfully of the Lord’s Supper to a congregation that imagines that one obtains the forgiveness of sins by the mere partaking of bread and wine. Interestingly, there is no mention of the Lord’s Supper in Hebrews. The author has no intention of calling the attention of the readers, in their present state of mind, to another ceremony. Their growing confidence in externals could only too easily be transferred from the Levitical rites to those of the apostolic church—a danger to which the whole course of church history from that day to this bears sad but eloquent testimony.
ESCHATOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Second, until relatively recent times the interpretation of Hebrews was heavily influenced by the widespread opinion that the author was a product of the Alexandrian school of biblical exegesis and, in particular, deeply indebted to Philo for the letter’s conceptual framework, hermeneutics, and manner of statement. The most significant consequence of this opinion was the eclipse of the eschatological perspective of the letter, a casualty of the assumption that the author shared Philo’s conception of the timeless duality of the material and spiritual worlds. While there are certain affinities between Hebrews and the writings of Philo, the differences are profound and important. Recent scholarship has tended to discredit the alleged dependence on Philo, and the happy result of this has been a marked resurgence of interest in the eschatology of Hebrews. This is a great step forward, for in truth hardly any other book of the Bible more consistently throws the attention of the reader forward to the world to come.
Remarkably, the author is little interested in the present fulfillment of OT prophecy. Indeed, the idea of fulfillment plays almost no role in the argument. For this author, the OT is not a collection of prophecies now fulfilled in Christ so much as a contemporary word of God to be heard, believed, and obeyed. The rest of God, the eternal country and city, the resurrection, the receiving of the promise and inheritance, and even salvation itself (1:14; 9:28) were the hope of the saints of ancient days and must be no less so for every generation of believers (4:11; 10:36–37; 11:39–40; 13:14). The author’s exhortation is always firmly fixed in eschatology: the reason one must continue in the faith, holding fast to Christ, is not for fear of present consequences but because by shrinking back one forfeits the eternal rest and exposes oneself eventually to God’s fearful judgment and consuming fire. The sustained emphasis of Hebrews on the futurity of salvation is a corrective to an unbiblical preoccupation with the present benefits of faith in Christ. Further, it is a reminder that the obligations of faith and obedience will never weigh on the church as they must until the specter of eternity is fixed before its mind’s eye.
Outline
1. The Superiority of the Christian Faith (1:1–10:18)
A. Jesus Christ Superior to the Prophets (1:1–4)
B. Jesus Christ Superior to Angels (1:5–2:18)
C. Jesus Christ Superior to Moses (3:1–4:13)
D. Jesus Christ Superior to Aaron (4:14–10:18)
2. Exhortations to Persevere in Christian Faith (10:19–12:29)
A. The Danger of Apostasy (10:19–31)
B. Encouragements to Press On (10:32–39)
C. Faith Defined and Exemplified (11:1–40)
D. Jesus, the Superior Example of Faith (12:1–4)
E. The Meaning and Merit of Discipline (12:5–13)
F. Warning Not to Turn Away from God (12:14–29)
3. Concluding Exhortations (13:1–19)
4. Benediction and Greetings (13:20–25)