English translation in K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers 1 (Heinemann, 1952), p. 71.
T. W. Manson, The Church’s Ministry (London, 1948), pp. 13ff., calls Clement’s appeal to the ceremonial OT laws a ‘retrogression’.
A more recent major work which argues for Pauline authorship is that of W. Leonard, The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1939).
M. E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (Leiden, 1962), p. 9, considers that Hebrews may be more typical of cultured Greek than any other documents in the NT.
A. R. Eager examines their stylistic similarities, ‘The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, The Expositor 10 (1904), pp. 74–80, 110–123. Cf. F. D. V. Narborough, Comm., p. 11. W. Manson, p. 36, also makes much of these parallels.
Calvin, Comm., on Heb. 13:23, was prepared to consider favourably Luke or Clement. He definitely rejected the Pauline authorship (cf. idem., p. 1). Cf. also C. Spicq, Comm. 1, p. 198.
Both F. F. Bruce, Comm., p. xxxvii, n. 62 and Spicq, Comm. 1, p. 199, n. 8, list many advocates of Barnabas as author. Spicq’s list is particularly impressive. Among the most recent are H. Strathmann (Göttingen, 21937), pp. 64f.; F. J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in their Historical Setting (London, 1937); A. Snell, New and Living Way (London, 1959), pp. 17ff. Badcock held that the voice was Barnabas’ and the hand Luke’s (op. cit., p. 198). Spicq, however, (Comm. 1, pp. 200–202) gives no less than ten reasons for doubting the probability of Barnabas as author.
Cf. Spicq, Comm. 1, p. 210, n. 2, for a detailed list. Among twentieth-century advocates the most notable have been T. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig, 31907), pp. 7ff.; J. V. Bartlet, ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews once more’, ExT 34 (1922–23), pp. 58–61; T. W. Manson, ‘The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, BJRL 32 (1949), pp. 1–17; Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (1962), pp. 254ff.; W. F. Howard, Interpretation 5 (1951), pp. 80ff.; C. Spicq, Comm. 1, pp. 207ff. W. Manson criticizes this view on the basis that the Alexandrian church never referred to Apollos as author of this epistle (pp. 171f.).
So A. Harnack, ZNTW 1 (1900), pp. 16ff.
For a detailed survey of these other suggestions, cf. C. Spicq, Comm. 1, pp. 202ff.
A. Nairne, Comm., p. lvii, considered that the precision of a name would not add much to our understanding of the background.
H. M. Schenke, ThZ 84 (1959), pp. 6–11, points out two passages in the apocryphal Gospel of Philip, in which the term ‘Hebrews’ is used, which appear to draw a distinction between ‘Hebrews’ and ‘Christians’. But this Gnostic work is no sure guide to orthodox usage.
Y. Yadin, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958), pp. 36–53 (cited by E. Grässer, ThR 30 [1964], p. 172), suggests the recipients of Hebrews were former Qumranites who had not completely given up their Qumran practices. H. Kosmala, Hebräer-Essener-Christen (Leiden, 1959), goes further and argues that the readers had never fully embraced Christianity. But against this type of theory, cf. Bruce, ‘“To the Hebrews” or “To the Essenes”?’, NTS 9 (1962–63), pp. 217–232.
Jerusalem has been suggested by W. Leonard, The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1939), p. 43, and A. Ehrhardt, The Framework of the New Testament Stories (Manchester, 1964), p. 109. The latter dates the epistle after the fall of Jerusalem.
T. W. Manson, BJRL 32 (1949), pp. 1–17; J. W. Bowman, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter (London, 1962), pp. 13–16; W. F. Howard, ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews’, Interpretation 5 (1951), pp. 80ff.; A. M. Dubarle, RB 48 (1939), pp. 506–529; A. Snell, New and Living Way (London, 1959), p. 19; F. Lo Bue, JBL 75 (1956), pp. 52–57; H. Montefiore, Comm., pp. 9ff.; F. Rendall, Comm., pp. xvii, xviii; V. Burch, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1936), pp. 137ff.; A. Klostermann, Zur Theorie der biblischen Weissagung und zur Charackteristik des Hebräersbriefes (1889), p. 55, cited by O. Michel, Comm., p. 12; C. Spicq, Comm. 1, pp. 247ff.
G. Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (Gütersloh, 1969), pp. 34ff., discusses the relationship between Hebrews and 1 Clement and concludes that a literary dependence of the latter on the former is unlikely.
On the use of present tenses it should be noted that 1 Clem. 61 also uses present tenses in describing the temple, clearly in his case a literary device and not a historical usage. Cf. the comment on these tenses by E. C. Wickham, Comm., p. xviii.
E. Riggenbach, Comm., pp. 332f., rejects strongly the idea that 10:32–34 implies any martyr deaths.
J. Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p. 453, suggests it may have been mob violence.
H. Montefiore, Comm., pp. 9f. Cf. also J. M. Ford, CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 402–416.
T. W. Manson, BJRL 32 (1949), pp. 1–17.
J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), pp. 200–220, prefers a Roman destination and a date c. 67 just prior to Nero’s death.
E.g. E. F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament (Colombia UP, 1932), p. 199; A. H. McNeile, C. S. C. Williams, Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford, 21953), p. 235. D. W. Riddle, JBL 63 (1924), pp. 329–348, thought that only a short interval could have separated Hebrews and 1 Clement. H. Windisch, Comm., p. 126, guessed a period of at least 10 years.
E.g. E. F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament (Colombia UP, 1932), p. 199; A. H. McNeile, C. S. C. Williams, Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford, 21953), p. 235. D. W. Riddle, JBL 63 (1924), pp. 329–348, thought that only a short interval could have separated Hebrews and 1 Clement. H. Windisch, Comm., p. 126, guessed a period of at least 10 years.
Cf. F. Filson, Yesterday (1967), pp. 27ff., for a discussion on this word of exhortation.
It has been suggested that if 13:22 is taken as the cue the essentially practical aim of the author would not be lost sight of in considering his discussions of the high priest theme. Th. Haering, ‘Gedankengang und Grundgedanken des Hebräerbriefs’, ZNTW 18 (1917–18), pp. 145–164, compared the structure of Hebrews to ancient admonition discourses. Cf. also G. Schille, ‘Die Basis der Hebräerbriefes’, ZNTW 47 (1957), pp. 270–280.
Cf. e.g. A. Nairne, Comm., pp. lxxi ff.
Cf. K. Bornhauser, Empfänger und Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes (Gütersloh, 1933); M. E. Clarkson, ATR xxix (1947), pp. 89–95; C, Sandegren, ‘The Addressees of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, EQ 27 (1955), pp. 221ff. The latter suggests the title may originally have been ‘To the Priests’ which in Greek would bear some similarity to ‘To the Hebrews’.
Cf. C. Spicq, Revue de Qumran i (1958–59), p. 390. Cf. also J. Daniélou, Qumran und der Ursprung des Christentums (1958), pp. 148ff.; H. Braun, ThR 30 (1964), pp. 1–38; Y. Yadin, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958), pp. 36–53; F. M. Braun, RB 62 (1955), pp. 5ff.
Cf. F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London, 1960), pp. 7ff.
William Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951). Cf. also W. Neil, Comm., F. F. Bruce, Comm., p. xxiv, n. 8, expresses great sympathy for Manson’s view.
So J. Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, pp. 44ff.; idem., Comm., pp. xxiv ff. E. F. Scott, Comm., was a staunch advocate of Gentile readers. He maintained that the author misunderstood Judaism (p. 200). Cf. also R. H. Strachan, The Historic Jesus in the New Testament (London, 1931), pp. 74ff. Moffatt’s view gains partial support from A. C. Purdy, ‘The Purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the light of Recent Studies in Judaism’, Amicitiae Corolla (ed. H. G. Wood, 1953), pp. 253–264, who nevertheless concludes that the problems behind Hebrews were normative in Judaism in the first century.
Cf. for instance F. D. V. Narborough, Comm., pp. 20–27.
The main exponent of this view is E. Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk (Göttingen, 1939). Käsemann has been criticized because he gives insufficient weight to the chronology of his sources. Another point is that the theme of the wandering people of God occurs only in chs. 3 & 4 and can hardly be claimed to be central. Käsemann claims a pre-Christian Gnosis, but not all would agree with this. R. M. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem (1958), distinguishes between Gnosis and Gnosticism, a valid distinction which insists that it is confusing to speak of first-century Gnosticism.
For a different view of the perfection theme in Hebrews, cf. A. Wikgren, ‘Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, NTS 6 (1960), pp. 159–167, who considers that by means of symbolic patterns of perfection the author is presenting a philosophy of history.
Advocated by T. W. Manson, BJRL 32 (1949), pp. 1–17.
For a careful treatment of the use of the OT in Hebrews, cf. J. van der Ploeg, RB 54 (1947), pp. 187–228. K. J. Thomas, NTS 11 (1965), pp. 303–325, has discussed the type of text cited in Hebrews and concludes that two different editions of the LXX have been used.
Cf. S. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam, 1961).
Cf. F. C. Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures (London, 1959), pp. 53, 54.
Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, JBL 86 (1967), pp. 25–41, who thinks the Melchizedek theme at Qumran may account for its use in the epistle to the Hebrews. Cf. also M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, ‘11 Q Melchizedek and the NT’, NTS 12 (1966), pp. 301–326.
Cf. T. W. Manson, BJRL 32 (1949), pp. 1–17, who proposed the theory that the writer to the Hebrews was answering a Colossian-type heresy.
Cf. F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London, 1960).
H. Kosmala, Hebräer-Essener-Christen (Leiden, 1959), has adopted the view that the people addressed in the epistle to the Hebrews were former members of the Qumran community. But cf. F. F. Bruce’s discussion of the connection in ‘“To the Hebrews” or “To the Essenes”?’, NTS 9 (1962), pp. 217–232, who concludes that the readers were not Essenes.
Cf. the discussion on the Messianic hope at Qumran in F. F. Bruce’s Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Exeter, 1956), pp. 70–84. In the Damascus document the royal and priestly appear to be combined (cf. CDC 19:11, 12:23; 13:1; 14:19; 20:1).
A strong advocate for Hellenistic influence in this epistle was E. Ménégoz, La Théologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1894). Cf. the discussion on this theme by A. M. Fairhurst, TB 7–8 (1961), pp. 17–27.
The most thorough recent work on the relation of Philo to the epistle to the Hebrews is R. Williamson, A Critical Rēexamination of the Relationship between Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden, 1967). Cf. also S. G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews (Richmond, 1965). C. Spicq has a section on the same theme in his Comm. 1, pp. 39–87.
Cf. H. Windisch, Comm., pp. 128f.
Cf. C. Spicq, Comm. 1, pp. 109–138.
W. Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951), pp. 184f.
F. F. Bruce, Comm., p. 2, distinguishes sharply between the evolution of the idea of God, which he rejects, and the idea of progressive revelation which he sees demonstrated here.
A. Nairne, E. Riggenbach and C. Spicq all agree that the omission of the article must be intentional. Westcott, Comm., p. 7, attempts to express the idea in English as ‘One who is God’s Son’.
F. F. Bruce, Comm., p. 3, sees here an allusion to Ps. 2:8, a psalm cited in verse 5. The ‘all things’ go beyond the world and include the universe and the world to come.
The Greek word apaugasma is used by Philo in describing the Logos in his relation to God, De Opficio Mundi (Loeb edition 136, pp. 114f.). For a discussion on this word, cf. R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 36.
On the concentration of ideas here expressing the becoming Visible of the Invisible and of the becoming Intelligible of the Unintelligible, cf. Wickham, Comm., p. 4.
G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (London, 1953), p. 45, considers that the powerful word refers to the Logos, although the Greek word used is rhēma, not logos.
The Latin Vulgate translates this aorist with a present tense. This, however, is plainly incorrect. It is misleading because it appears to support the view that in his present position at God’s right hand, Christ continues to atone for sins. The force of the aorist points to a finished work.
Some see here a parallel with contemporary enthronement ideas. O. Michel, Comm., p. 54, sees in Heb. 1 a similar sequence of exaltation, presentation and installation. He compares with 1 Enoch 71:14–17; 3 Enoch 10:3; Test. Lev. 5:2–7.
Cf. P. E. Hughes, Comm., p. 47.
Héring, Comm., p. 8, has pointed out that in spite of the forced interpretation of the Old Testament, the themes treated in the epistle lose none of their value. He considers that the author’s shrewdness in culling suitable texts from the Bible is to be admired.
Bruce, Comm., p. 13, takes ‘this day’ to refer to the occasion when Jesus was ‘vested with His royal dignity as Son of God’. Hughes, Comm., pp. 54f., points out that Augustine regarded the begetting as eternal, not temporal, but Hughes thinks the primary reference here is to the resurrection.
There was a tradition that when Adam was created the angels were invited to worship him; they refused to do so until Michael set the example (cf. also Life of Adam and Eve, xiii–xiv). Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London, 1935), pp. 156f., and W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1945), p. 42.
F. Rendall, Comm., p. 10, considers that ho theos can be regarded only as vocative here.
For a fuller discussion, see Leslie C. Allen, ‘Psalm 45:7–8 (6–7) in Old and New Testament settings’ in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (Leicester, 1982), pp. 220–242.
Bruce, Comm., p. 21, sees a reference to the ‘many sons’ of 2:10, and the metochoi (the sharers in Christ) in 3:14.
Héring, Comm., ad loc.
Bruce, Comm., pp. 28–29, shows that in this letter law is not presented as the antithesis of grace in relation to salvation. He calls it an anticipatory sketch of Christ’s saving work.
Westcott, Comm., p. 36, takes the adverb as expressing an absolute rather than a relative excess. It would have the sense ‘with most particular attention’ rather than ‘with more attention’. The former is clearly the stronger and more effectively heightens the distinction between what Christ offers and what the readers had previously known.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., pp. 30f.
There may well be here a reference to the idea of Christ as the last Adam, which Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15, and alludes to in Rom. 5. Some see it also in Phil. 2. Cf. C. K. Barrett, From first Adam to last (London, 1962) and R. Scroggs, The Last Adam (Oxford, 1966) for a general discussion of the Adam theme, but neither mentions this Hebrews passage. Ps. 8 contributed to this viewpoint as is clear from Paul’s citation from the Psalm in 1 Cor. 15:27.
As Westcott remarks, ‘In “the Son of man” (Jesus) then there is the assurance that man’s sovereignty shall be gained.’
Héring, p. 17, prefers the reading ‘apart from’, although it is not supported by many MSS, because it is the more difficult reading. But the alternative is so much better supported that it must stand. The variant no doubt arose because of the problem of thinking of grace as an instrument of death. R. V. G. Tasker, NTS 1 (1954–5), p. 184, regards this reading as a correction based on 1 Cor. 15:27. Cf. also J. C. O’Neill, ‘Hebrews II.9’, JTS 17 (1966), pp. 79–82, who takes it to mean ‘far from God’ in a spatial sense.
A problem arises, however, over the tense of the word ‘bringing’ (agagonta, aorist participle). The aorist seems to be used with the force of a present tense, expressing a simultaneous action.
Cf. Héring, Comm., p. 18.
For the idea of perfection in this epistle, cf. A. Wikgren, ‘Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, NTS 6 (1959–60), pp. 159ff. Cf. also P. J. du Plessis, TELEIOS: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen, 1959), and C. Spicq, Comm. 1, pp. 64ff., who sets out in a detailed way parallels between Hebrews and Philo in the use of such a term as teleios.
As F. F. Bruce, Comm., p. 49, points out.
E. Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk (Göttingen, 1939), pp. 99–100, claims to find here gnostic influence, because he maintains that the gnostic redeemer myth did hold out hope of deliverance from fear of death. But for the gnostic the imprisonment was an imprisonment to matter, from which death brought release.
On the whole idea, cf. L. Morris. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London, 1955), pp. 125ff.; J. Herrmann and F. Büschel, TDNT 3, pp. 300ff. C. H. Dodd, The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1932), pp. 54f., strongly favours expiation against propitiation.
Cf. Montefiore, Comm., p. 68.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., p. 57.
Cf. Héring, Comm., p. 25.
Calvin, Comm., p. 36.
It may be wondered why the author goes to the trouble of showing Christ’s superiority to Moses. Some think that the answer may be found in the development of an inadequate type of Christology based too narrowly on the prediction of the coming prophet in Deut. 18:15ff. For this kind of Moses-Christology, cf. E. L. Allen, ‘Jesus and Moses in the New Testament’, ExT 17 (1955–56), pp. 104ff.; H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen, 1949), pp. 87ff.
Westcott, Comm., p. 77.
It is this section which forms the core of Käsemann’s theory of a Gnostic background to this epistle (cf. Das wandernde Gottesvolk). O. Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief, denies a Gnostic origin and claims an apocalyptic background. Hofius’ thesis is that the place of rest spoken of in this section is the holy of holies. G. Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief, pp. 128ff., criticizes Hofius’ appeal to apocalyptic. Many exegetes would agree with the interpretation of God’s people as a wandering people seeking rest, without subscribing to Käsemann’s Gnostic theory.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., p. 65, n. 57 for details.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., p. 66.
Cf. Montefiore, Comm., p. 77.
Héring, p. 28, considers that the genitive hypostaseo-s could mean ‘beginning of faith’ or ‘principle of faith’ or as explanatory, i.e. ‘the basis, which is faith’.
W. Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 70, n. 4.
Bruce remarks that Barnabas goes on to confuse the Jewish schema of the millennial sabbath with the Christian idea of an eighth millennium (p. 74, n. 20). For a modem exponent of a view similar to that of Barnabas, cf. G. H. Lang, Comm., pp. 73ff.
Bruce, Comm., p. 16.
There is scant support for Käsemann’s appeal to gnostic usage of sabbatismos as an emanation, since the only probable indication of this is in the pseudo-Clementine homilies. Cf. Hofius’ discussion of this concept (op. cit., pp. 102ff.).
Cf. J. Héring, Comm., p. 32.
C. Spicq, Comm. 1, pp. 52ff., sees a Philonic distinction here between soul and spirit, in which the latter is superior to the former and is alone able to comprehend divine teaching.
Westcott, Comm., p. 107, comments that Christ shared our temptations, but with the exception ‘that there was no sin in Him to become the spring of trial’.
It is worth noting that the quality of gentle moderation mentioned here would not have been valued in Stoic circles, where it was regarded as a second best to the absence of passion. Cf. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 26f.
As Montefiore says, Comm., p. 96, ‘Only a high priest who is Son of God can have his rightful place at God’s right hand.’
Westcott, Comm., p. 127.
Cf. C. Spicq, Comm. 1, pp. 46f., for examples from Philo showing a close connection between learning and suffering (mathein/pathein).
Hughes, Comm., p. 188.
On this section, cf. H. P. Owen, ‘The “Stages of Ascent” in Hebrews v:11–vi:3.’, NTS 3 (1956–57), pp. 243ff.
J. C. Adams, ‘Exegesis of Hebrews vi:1f.’, NTS 13 (1967), pp. 378ff., regards the genitive ‘of Christ’ as subjective and contends that basic Jewish religion is here in mind. But cf. Hughes, Comm., p. 195, n. 33, for an adequate answer to this.
For baptism in other Jewish schools of thought, cf. D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 106–140; also M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London, 1961), pp. 99ff., 114f.
Cf. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.4, for the Jewish practice. It should also be noted that laying on of hands is found in OT, in both commissioning (Num. 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9) and in Levitical ritual (Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 4:4; 8:14; 16:21).
Bruce, Comm., p. 120.
Hughes, Comm., p. 208.
Cf. Calvin, Comm., p. 76.
Calvin, Institutes, III.ii.11.
Héring, p. 48, n. 16, cites the elder Pliny as evidence of the practice of burning the ground to destroy weeds. But Westcott, Comm., p. 153, sees here the image of the utter desolation caused by volcanic forces.
For the Jewish approach to almsgiving, cf. the articles on charity in the Encyclopaedia Judaica 5 (1972), pp. 338–354 and The Jewish Encyclopaedia 3, pp. 667ff. Charity was regarded as a duty and those who did not give to those poorer than themselves could be made to do so. At the same time every effort was made to avoid causing feelings of shame among the recipients. Love was not a dominant motive as in Christian charity, but Rabbi Akiba regarded charity as a means of making the world a household of love (see The Jewish Encyclopaedia 3, p. 668).
A Samaritan tradition held that Melchizedek was the first priest of Mt Gerizim. In the Qumran literature Melchizedek has no priestly function, but is both king and judge (cf. Theissen, p. 18; cf. also M. de Jonge & A. S. van der Woude, ‘11 Q Melchizedek and the New Testament’, NTS 12 [1945–6], pp. 301–326; J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11’, JBL 86 [1967], pp. 25–41. The latter finds some evidence for a priestly function, which the former deny). Philo expounds on the Melchizedek theme but his treatment shows few points of contact with Hebrews. There is little allegorization in this epistle, whereas Philo finds extensive opportunities for it. Cf. Spicq’s treatment here. According to Windisch, pp. 61–63, the Melchizedek speculation in Hebrews was to supplant the Levitical priesthood. He sees it as akin to the Enoch type of apocalyptic. For a full treatment of this subject, cf. F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 1976.
Bruce, Comm., p. 136, n. 16.
Some have considered that verse 3 is in hymnic form. Cf. O. Michel, Comm., p. 259. He detects a similar form in verse 26. G. Schille, ‘Erwägungen zur Hohepriesterlehre des Hebräerbriefes’, ZNW 46 (1955), pp. 81–109, however, sees a hymn of three strophes contained in verses 1–3. Theissen, op. cit., pp. 21f., is not partial to this view but makes his own attempt to reconstruct the underlying hymn (pp. 24f.).
On the pre-existence of Melchizedek, cf. G. R. Hamerton-Kelly, Prēexistence, Wisdom and The Son of Man (CUP, 1973), pp. 256ff.
Bruce, Comm., p. 144.
Bruce, Comm., p. 157.
Davidson, Comm., p. 144.
Westcott, Comm., ad. loc., rightly rejects the view that Christ continues to offer sacrifices. Such a thought is alien to the author’s view of Christ’s offering as complete (once for all). Montefiore, Comm., p. 134, shows that the idea of a blood offering in heaven was also alien to Hellenistic Judaism, which postulated offerings of a different kind. Only later in cabbalistic Judaism does the idea of an actual sacrifice in heaven arise.
Montefiore, Comm., pp. 136f.
O. Michel, Comm., p. 202, maintains that the expression with the future would have a precise meaning referring to the new age and therefore prefers this.
Cf. Montefiore’s discussion here, Comm., pp. 152f.
Cf. Westcott, Comm., pp. 256–258.
Bruce, Comm., pp. 200f.
Cf. A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word ‘Blood’ in Scripture (London, 1947); L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London, 1955), pp. 117–124; J. Behm, haima, TDNT 1, pp. 172ff.
Bruce, Comm., p. 205. Cf. also H. L. Ellison, The Servant of Jehovah (London, 1953), pp. 29f. G. Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1956), p. 114 (cited approvingly by Hughes), takes the expression here to mean ‘through the heavenly aspect of his deity’.
Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, p. 365.
Bruce, Comm., p. 213.
Cf. Hughes, Comm., p. 366.
Westcott, Comm., pp. 300ff., and Nairne, Comm., p. 92, both maintain that diathēkē must mean covenant. But Bruce, Comm., p. 211, strongly criticizes this.
Westcott, Comm., p. 258.
Hughes, Comm., p. 376.
J. H. Davies, Comm., p. 90, refers to the writer’s mistakes, but admits that these do not seriously violate the meaning.
T. C. G. Thornton, ‘The Meaning of haimatekchusia in Heb. IX. 22’, JTS 15 (1964), pp. 63–65, maintains that this word should be rendered ‘pouring out of blood’ rather than shedding of blood.
Cf. Hughes, Comm., p. 378.
Cf. W. Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951), pp. 140f., for an exposition of the purification of the copies in this passage. The new covenant and the new Israel have been consecrated by the blood of Christ.
Hughes, Comm., p. 387.
For details, cf. Westcott, Comm., p. 304.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., p. 237, n. 57.
Hughes, Comm., p. 402.
Cf. W. C. van Unnik, ‘The Christian’s freedom of speech in the New Testament’, BJRL 44 (1961–2), pp. 466f.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., p. 246, who cites C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London, 1944), p. 51, and C. Lindeskog, Coniectanea Neotestamentica 11 (1947), pp. 132ff., on the symbolic meaning of the veil. J. Moffatt (ICC ), p. 143, regards the statement here as an allegorizing of the veil as the flesh of Christ, which had to be rent before the blood could be shed.
It has been suggested by Riggenbach that spiritual cleansing must include the whole physical life (Comm., ad loc.). But Spicq considers that the idea here is of the spiritual effect on the physical life (Comm., ad loc.). 1 Pet. 3:21 makes clear that baptism was not intended to deal with physical impurities. Montefiore, Comm., p. 175, suggests that if Apollos was the author this statement might be a slipping back to the kind of baptism administered by John the Baptist, who according to Josephus regarded baptism as a cleansing of the body.
H. Kosmala, Hebräer-Essener-Christen (Leiden, 1959), pp. 135ff., studies the phrase ‘knowledge of the truth’ in the Qumran literature. He wrongly suggests that in Hebrews the expression does not include faith in Christ. F. F. Bruce, ‘“To the Hebrews” or “To the Essenes”?’, NTS 9 (1962–63), pp. 217–232, discusses the connection between Hebrews and Qumran and does not think that the readers of the former can be identified with the Essenes.
In Qumran exegesis Hab. 2:4 is understood as a call to be faithful to the Teacher of Righteousness (1 Qp. Hab ; cf. G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [1962], p. 233).
A recent German writer, E. Grässer, Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief (1965), makes an exposition of faith in this epistle the key to the understanding of the whole theme. He considers that faith has become academic rather than personal, as it is in Paul. To Grässer the background of Hebrews is a state of despair. But cf. the criticisms of this position in Excursus 2 of G. Hughes’ Hebrews and Hermeneutics (1979), pp. 137–142.
Bruce, Comm., p. 279.
Another mention of Enoch in the New Testament is Jude 14, where a quotation from the book of Enoch is given. This reminds us that Enoch was a familiar choice among the apocalyptists. He is mentioned in the book of Jubilees 4:17; Ben Sira 44:16; 1 Enoch 71:14; in all of which cases his example is cited approvingly. Cf. also Philo, On Abraham 17f.; On Rewards and Punishments 17.
Both these words are linked in reference to God’s creative work in Philo, cf. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 46ff.
Cf. Héring, Comm., p. 103.
The Greek verb tympanizō used here means to beat as a drum and it is probable that the reference is to the torture inflicted on Eleazar who was probably stretched on a drum to be beaten to death (2 Macc. 6:18–30). cf. F. Rendall, Comm., p. 118.
Héring, pp. 108f., favours the suggestion that axios is an inaccurate rendering of the Aramaic zākāh, which means ‘hospitable’ or ‘worthy’.
Cf. T. W. Manson’s article, ‘Martyrs and Martyrdom’, BJRL 39 (1956–57), pp. 463ff., for the connection in OT days between witness and martyrdom.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., p. 346.
J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek 2, p. 282.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., p. 363.
P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge, 1952), p. 56, n. 5, suggests that this statement is reminiscent of the ‘Shofaroth’ of Tishri 1, which is the Day of Trumpets. He suggests the whole letter may have been a megillah for the Day of Atonement.
Cf. Héring, Comm., p. 117, n. 15.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., p. 378.
Cf. Héring, Comm., p. 117.
Since the literal meaning of this expression is ‘let us have grace’, which is difficult, it is generally supposed that echōmen should be taken in the sense ‘let us give thanks’. It should be noted that some texts have echomen (indicative) which would lessen the problem, but this looks suspiciously like a scribal mistake. The subjunctive must here be the original reading.
C. R. Williams, ‘A word study of Heb. xvi’, JBL (1911), pp. 128–136, regarded Heb. 1 – 12 as a homily, and chapter 13, as an addition by the same author. Many extend the homily idea to 13:21 and regard verses 22–25 as an addition to give the homily the appearance of a Pauline letter (cf. W. Wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs (Göttingen, 1906), who considers the writer changed his mind and decided to turn the homily into a letter (pp. 39–64). He thought parts of chapter 13 were modelled on Philippians and Philemon. Cf. also H. Thyen, Der Stil der Judisch-Hellenistischen Homilie (Göttingen, 1955), pp. 16–18, who considers that Hebrews was a sample of Hellenistic synagogue preaching and that 13:22ff. was not original. In his monograph on Heb. 13 entitled Yesterday (London, 1967), pp. 16ff., Filson bases his approach to the whole epistle on the grounds that Heb. 13 is an integral part of the whole work. Cf. also R. V. G. Tasker, ‘The integrity of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, ExT 47 (1935–6), pp. 136–138, and C. Spicq, ‘L’Authenticité de chapitre XIII de l’Épître aux Hébreux’, Coniectanea Neotestamentica II (1947), pp. 226–236, for special studies which conclude for the unity of the epistle. Cf. also C. C. Torrey, ‘The Authorship and character of the so-called Epistle to the Hebrews’, JBL 30 (1911), pp.137–156, who regards chapter 13 as a later addition. A. Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1963), pp. 219–221, who treats the whole epistle as constructed on a chiastic pattern, cannot fit in 13:19 and 13:22–25 and regards these as later additions.
But cf. W. H. Spencer, ‘Hebrews 13:10’, ExT 50 (1938–39), p. 284, for the view that the ‘we’ here are Hebrews, not Christians.
Cf. Bruce, Comm., pp. 399ff.
Westcott, Comm., p. 449.
Cf. Filson, ‘Yesterday’, pp. 27ff.
Cf. L. P. Trudiger’s note on this expression, JTS 23 (1972), pp. 128–130.
Cf. Filson, op. cit., p. 76.