For various reasons this book poses more problems than any other New Testament book. So many of the questions which the investigator is bound to ask cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Who wrote it? Who were the original readers? What was the precise historical occasion on which it was written? What was the date of writing? What was the dominant influence behind the presentation? These are some of the questions to which no conclusive answers can be given, although some are not quite as elusive as others. What is most important for the commentator to discover is the present message and relevance of the letter, but he can do this only when he has investigated the historical setting. Some attempt must therefore be made to answer the questions posed, if only to provide some framework against which to set about the task of understanding the message.
There is no denying that the general drift of the argument within the letter strikes the reader as difficult. This is mainly because the train of thought is clothed in language and allusions drawn from the cultic background of the Old Testament. The priesthood of Christ is directly linked to the old Levitical order, but is clearly intended to supersede it. More than most New Testament books, Hebrews requires detailed explanation of the significance of the background allusions. This is the main task of the commentator. In reply to the question, ‘Why is such a difficult book included in the New Testament?, the answer is that it deals with what must be regarded as the most important question which constantly faces man, i.e. how can we approach God? It is because of the significant contribution of Hebrews to this ever-present problem that it repays the necessary effort to unravel its message and to express it in contemporary terms.
We begin by looking at the way the early Christians regarded this letter because this will enable us to trace the steps by which it became a part of the New Testament. It will also show that even the early church was not without its difficulties over it.
In the earliest of the patristic writings which has been preserved, i.e. Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthian church (c. AD 95), there is one remarkable parallel (1 Clem. 36:1f.; cf. Heb. 1:3ff.), together with a few other parallels. The following extract from 1 Clement 36 will illustrate this. He writes of Christ, ‘who, being the brightness of his majesty, is by so much greater than angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name [cf. Heb. 1:3f.]. For it is written thus, “Who maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire” [cf. Heb. 1:7]. But of his Son the Master said thus, “Thou art my Son; to-day have I begotten thee” [cf. Heb. 1:5] … And again he saith to him, “Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies a footstool of thy feet” [cf. Heb. 1:13].’1 It would seem a reasonable deduction that Clement was acquainted with Hebrews, although this has not gone unchallenged. The alternative view that Hebrews has cited 1 Clement raises too many difficulties to be seriously considered. The proposed via media that both have used the same source can claim little further support, for no evidence can be produced for such a hypothetical source and in the absence of such evidence it must be regarded as an unsatisfactory theory. The conclusion that Clement must have known Hebrews has important consequences for the assessment of the date of the epistle and for a recognition of its early authority. It must be noted also that in what are virtually quotations from the letter, Clement does not mention the author. In itself this would not be particularly significant since Clement cites other New Testament books (e.g. Pauline epistles) without acknowledgment. It is likely that our epistle would particularly have appealed to Clement, who describes the Christian ministry in terms of the Aaronic priesthood,2 although he adopts a quite different approach from the writer of this letter. This early dependence of Clement on our epistle is all the more remarkable because of the subsequent period when it seems to have been neglected by the churches in the West. It is not until the end of the fourth century that it came into its own among those churches.
Hebrews was not included among the books authorized by Marcion, whose collection purported to represent the teaching of the Apostolikon, i.e. the apostle Paul. Marcion, however, would almost certainly have rejected Hebrews because of its strong dependence on the Old Testament which he categorically rejected.
The Muratorian Canon, which contains a list of books thought to represent the canon of the church in Rome towards the end of the second century, contains no reference to Hebrews, although it includes all the letters of Paul by name. It is possible that the text of the list is corrupt and that some part of it has dropped out. Nevertheless it is strange that no specific support for the epistle has been preserved during this early period.
With the turn of the second century more evidence for the use of Hebrews is found in the eastern church, although there was difference of opinion regarding its origin. Clement of Alexandria cites his teacher ‘the blessed presbyter’ (Pantaenus) as maintaining the Pauline authorship of this letter. He explained the absence of a personal name in the text of the letter on the grounds that Jesus himself was the apostle of the Almighty to the Hebrews, and that therefore, out of humility, Paul would not have written to the Hebrews in the same vein as he did to Gentiles. Clement continued the tradition of Pauline origin and often cited Hebrews as by Paul or ‘the Apostle’. His successor Origen, however, raised doubts about the Pauline authorship, although not about its canonicity. He considered the thoughts to be Paul’s, but not the style. He reported the view of others (the elders) that Luke or Clement of Rome had been the author, and although he speaks favourably of the suggestion that Luke wrote down Paul’s thoughts in Greek, he himself concluded that God alone knows the author.
Subsequent to Origen’s time, his successors did not heed his open decision, and soon it became the undisputed conviction of the eastern church that Paul was the author. It should be noted that Origen included Hebrews among the Pauline letters, sometimes even citing it as ‘Paul says’; it is not altogether surprising, therefore, that his pupils followed this pattern. Origen’s great influence in the eastern church was sufficient to ensure the continued acceptance of the letter as apostolic. There is no doubt, however, that it was belief in its Pauline origin which secured its universal acceptance. In the Chester Beatty Papyrus of the Pauline letters, Hebrews was included and was placed after Romans.
In the Western church, acceptance was more delayed. Subsequent to Clement of Rome’s citation of the letter, the evidence is sparse until the time of Jerome and Augustine. Tertullian, at the close of the second century, regarded Barnabas as the author, but mentions this point in one place only. He clearly did not regard this epistle as on a level with the Pauline letters. Eusebius, who was diligent in collecting the opinions of the various churches about the New Testament books, reported that the church at Rome did not accept Hebrews as Pauline, and he recognized that this was causing others to have doubts. Cyprian, who may be regarded as a fair representative of the Western church in the mid-third century, did not accept the epistle.
The first patristic writer in the West to accept this letter was Hilary, followed soon after by Jerome and Augustine. The latter’s opinion turned out to be decisive, although it raises an interesting point, for Augustine in his earliest works cites Hebrews as Pauline, and in his latest works as anonymous, with a period of vacillation in between. His original acceptance of the epistle was probably on the grounds of Pauline authorship; but he came to estimate the worth of the epistle on the basis of its own authority, and his approach clearly implied a distinction between Pauline authorship and canonicity. This distinction, however, was not maintained by his successors.
This survey of the somewhat chequered history of this epistle has thrown up certain factors which must affect our approach to its exegesis. It has shown that it was generally believed that Hebrews reflects an apostolic authority, even although no specific name can be attached to it. Where there was reluctance to receive it, it was in all probability because apostolic authority was too closely linked with apostolic authorship. It is also understandable that the style and content of the letter would appeal less to the more matter-of-fact Westerners than to the more eclectic easterners. Its ultimate acceptance in spite of serious doubts testifies to the intrinsic power of the epistle itself.
A footnote to this early survey may be added from the Reformation period. During this period the epistle again came under attack over its Pauline authorship. This was especially true of Martin Luther, who suggested that Apollos would make a more probable author. In reaction to his opinions, the Council of Trent declared emphatically that the epistle was written by the apostle Paul, thus using the stamp of ecclesiastical authority in an attempt to settle the question.
In view of the confusion in the ancient church regarding the origin of this letter it is not surprising that modern scholarship has produced a welter of different suggestions. Since most of them are purely conjectural it is not profitable to devote much space to their discussion. Our aim will be to show briefly why Pauline authorship is almost universally regarded as unacceptable and to give some indication of alternative propositions.3
The ancient view of Pauline authorship is not supported by any reference to Paul in the text of the letter. It is, however, included in the superscription, which is clearly a reflection of the traditional view and carries therefore little importance. The anonymity of the text is an immediate difficulty for Pauline authorship, since nowhere is there any suggestion that Paul would have written anonymously. An apostle who meticulously claims authority in the introduction to the existing epistles attributed to his name is not likely to have sent a letter without reference to that special authority vested in him. Moreover, there is no suggestion in the way that the author of Hebrews writes that he has known the same dramatic experience as Paul underwent at his conversion, which is never far from the surface in his letters.
As early as Origen’s time the difference between the Greek of Paul’s epistles and that of Hebrews was noted. Origen considered that Hebrews ‘lacked the apostle’s rudeness of expression’ and that it ‘is more idiomatically Greek in the composition of its diction’ (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi.25.11f.). Most scholars would agree with Origen’s judgment. The language is a good literary style in koinē Greek and it certainly contains fewer irregularities of syntax than Paul’s epistles.4 The writer knows moreover precisely where his argument is going. If he pauses to exhort the readers, he resumes his train of thought. He does not, as Paul sometimes does, go off at a tangent. To return to Origen’s opinion, it may be noted that he considered that the thoughts were the apostle’s. Many modern scholars, however, would not agree. They would claim that so many of the characteristic Pauline themes are missing and so much of what is present is unparalleled in Paul (e.g. the high priest theme), that it is most reasonable to suppose that Paul was not the author. Two other factors point in the same direction: the method of Old Testament citations, which is different from Paul’s; and the statement in 2:3, which presupposes that the writer had had no personal revelation from God, but had received a ‘great salvation’ attested by those who heard the Lord. Whereas this statement in 2:3 could possibly be interpreted to include the apostle Paul, it is not the most natural understanding of it. Paul would never have admitted having received the core of his gospel second hand, as this author appears to do.
What then are the alternatives? Ancient testimony mentions only three other possibilities beside Paul – Luke, Clement and Barnabas. While there are some affinities between Luke’s writings and Hebrews,5 they do not in themselves support common authorship. Clement may be ruled out on the grounds that there are wide differences in theological content between his writing and Hebrews, and on the almost certain assumption that he has cited directly from Hebrews.6 The sole claim of Barnabas for consideration is his background as a Levite who came from a Hellenistic environment (Cyprus). But our author is interested in the biblical cultus rather than the temple cultus.7
Of more modern guesses, Apollos has had the most supporters, mainly on the supposition that as an Alexandrian he would have been familiar with the ways of thought of his fellow Alexandrian, Philo, which are supposed to be reflected in the epistle. This view, which was first proposed by Martin Luther, has been strongly supported by those wishing to retain some Pauline connection with the epistle.8 Other proposals are Priscilla,9 Philip, Peter, Silvanus (Silas), Aristion and Jude.10
If we cannot be sure of the identity of the author we can note his main characteristics which will be invaluable for our understanding of his letter.11 He is a man who has pondered long on the Christian approach to the Old Testament. What he writes has been well thought out. He knows where his line of argument is going. When he pauses to exhort his readers he does so with fine sensitivity and tact. He prefers to think the best of them, although he issues strong precautionary warnings. In spite of his anonymity he is a force to be reckoned with in early Christian theology. He gives us the clearest discussion of the Christian approach to the Old Testament of any of the New Testament writers.
The title attached to this letter in the earliest extant manuscript is ‘To the Hebrews’.12 There are no manuscripts of the letter, in fact, which do not bear this title. As early as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian the epistle was known by this title. Nevertheless, no specific indication is given in the text of the letter itself that the readers were Hebrews and it is possible therefore that the title was not original. In that case it may have been based on good tradition or it may have been a guess. There have been divergent opinions on this matter, but the fact remains that no patristic evidence gives any reason to doubt the tradition. We must, however, consider the various problems which arise as a result of this tradition.
The first point to note is the definition of the word ‘Hebrews’. It could be used specifically of Jews who spoke Hebrew (or rather Aramaic), in which case it would distinguish them from Greek-speaking Jews. This suggestion has some other New Testament support (cf. Acts 6:1; 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5), but there is no means of knowing whether the traditional title to this epistle was intended in this sense. It may have meant no more than Jews (i.e. Christian Jews), whether Aramaic or Greek speaking. This more general use is to be preferred. Some, however, have suggested that the title should be wholly disregarded and that the epistle should be understood as addressed to Gentiles. Clearly the only means of deciding the issue is by a careful examination of the internal evidence.
In view of the very general nature of the traditional title, it is significant that certain indications are given that a particular community was in mind. Certainly the author knows something of their history and background. He knows they have been abused for their faith and that they have reacted well to the plundering of their property (10:33, 34). He is aware of his readers’generosity (6:10) and knows about their present state of mind (5:11ff.; 6:9ff.). Certain practical problems such as their attitude to their leaders (13:17) and matters of money and marriage (13:4, 5) are mentioned. It seems most reasonable to suppose that the writer has personal knowledge of the specific people he has in mind throughout the epistle (cf. 13:18, 19, 23). If this is true, the vague character of the title is clearly misleading. One further feature which confirms this is the specific mention of Timothy in 13:23, for Timothy also must have been known to the readers.
Still further indication of the nature of the group may be deduced from such references as 5:12 and 10:25. The former is addressed to those who ought by now to be teachers and this has given rise to the suggestion that the readers were a small part of a larger group of Christians. The most favoured suggestion is that they formed a house group which had broken away from the main church. The exhortation in 10:25 would support this view. There the writer urges the readers not to forsake the assembling of themselves together. It seems reasonably conclusive that the whole of a church would not have been thought of as potential teachers, and it is highly probable that a separatist group might have considered themselves superior to the rest, especially if they were endowed with greater gifts. The closely argued theme in this epistle is in line with the suggestion that a group of people of a more intellectual calibre is in mind.
Some support has been claimed for the view that the group consisted of former Jewish priests who had become Christians. From the book of Acts it is clear that considerable numbers of priests were among the people converted in the early days. As a matter of conjecture it may be supposed that these would naturally form groups for the study of their new approach to the old cultus. Their special interest in the Levitical order would then be highly intelligible. But there is no evidence of any churches comprised of priests and some caution must be exercised over this view. Moreover, we shall need to discuss whether the general drift of argument is favourable to this view.
An extension of the same idea is to see in the group of readers former members of the Essene community at Qumran who had been converted to Christianity.13 At first sight this seems an attractive proposition, particularly because the epistle to the Hebrews shows some corrective to the Qumran tendencies (e.g. their separation). The Qumran Covenanters had quarrelled with the main Jewish parties over the current temple procedures and this would fit in with the concentration in this letter on the tabernacle ritual rather than the temple. But the evidence is capable of wider application than this restricted view of the readers would allow. The theory begins with the initial disadvantage that no mention is made anywhere in the New Testament of Essenes. Nevertheless, the Qumran community has supplied some useful background information which has thrown some light on the epistle (but see further discussion on pp. 43ff.).
The wide appeal to the Old Testament in this letter does not necessarily demand a Jewish group of readers, in view of the fact that the Old Testament was universally the Scriptures of the early church, whether Jewish or Gentile. Indeed, some parts of the New Testament which are addressed to predominantly Gentile readers (e.g. Romans, Galatians) still allude extensively to the Old Testament. It would not have taken long for Gentile converts to become sufficiently acquainted with the Old Testament to raise questions about the meaning and relevance for them of the Levitical cultus. It is not impossible that such questionings may have prompted the author’s exposition of the high priest theme. Another line followed by some advocates of a Gentile destination is to argue that the absence of the allusion to the Jewish controversy favours that theory, but this point would seem to be neutral if it has any validity at all. Of more weight is the contention that the readers were in danger of apostatizing ‘from the living God’ (3:12), which would be inappropriate as a reference to Jews thinking of forsaking Christianity to return to Judaism. But again this is not conclusive if the author thinks of all forms of apostasy, whether from Jewish or Gentile Christians, as a ‘falling away from the living God’. The writer further mentions ‘dead works’ (6:1; 9:14) and the elementary principles of the faith (6:1), which are thought to be inappropriate for Jewish readers. It could reasonably be maintained that Gentiles would fit the context here better than Jews, but it can hardly be claimed that the words could never be applicable to Jews. On the whole, in view of the intricacy of the style of argument, demanding as it does a wide understanding of the Old Testament (cf., for instance, the style of discussion in Heb. 7:11ff.), it seems that the traditional view is more likely to be correct. This will become more evident when the purpose of the epistle is discussed below.
In view of the lack of specific information about the author or the readers, any suggestions about where the readers lived are bound to be fraught with uncertainties. The best we can do is to mention the most feasible. We begin with the idea that the Jerusalem church was in mind.14 This is claimed to be supported by the title and by the emphasis on the Levitical ritual. In addition, the reference to persecution (10:32; 12:4) in ‘former days’ would well fit the sufferings endured by the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem. Some have seen allusions to a coming disaster in 3:13; 10:25; 12:27, but the wording is much too general to have any significance. Others have argued that because no church claimed the letter to the Hebrews, the recipients may well have been a church in a place that was subsequently destroyed, as Jerusalem was in AD 70. But we may discount the argument; indeed, there is no evidence that every New Testament book, whose definite destination is known, was specifically claimed by the church(es) addressed. If it could be established that the author has the temple in mind, even though he speaks in terms of the tabernacle, there would be some support for a Jerusalem destination since the writer uses the present tense as if the ritual were still being observed. A question of dating also enters here, for if the epistle was written after AD 70 (as some maintain), the Jerusalem destination would be more difficult to maintain.
Yet there are some serious objections to the idea of Jerusalem as the destination. The statement in 2:3 that neither the writer nor the readers had heard the Lord personally is clearly difficult if the Jerusalem church is in mind, for it is hard to imagine that there were any communities, like house churches, in Jerusalem, where not one of the members had heard Jesus. Another difficulty is the predominance of Hellenistic ideas, which are more difficult to imagine at Jerusalem than elsewhere; this line of thought, however, must not be overweighted in view of the Qumran evidence for an infiltration of Hellenistic ideas into an otherwise Jewish milieu by the shores of the Dead Sea, not far distant from Jerusalem. The consistent use of the LXX is a further difficulty if Jerusalem Christians are in mind, for it is hardly likely that the Judean church used this version. On the other hand it could be pointed out that since Jerusalem boasted several Hellenistic synagogues (Acts 6:9), it is not impossible that these may have used the Septuagint. But taking the essentially Greek character of the epistle into account, it must be conceded that a destination other than Jerusalem is more probable. One concluding point may be mentioned, i.e. the probable reference to the generosity of the readers in 6:10 does not fit too well a church whose poverty is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament in connection with the collection by Gentile churches for its assistance.
It is natural that Alexandria has been proposed in modern times as the destination in view of the parallels which have been claimed between this letter and the writings of Philo of Alexandria. It has been noted already that the Alexandrian church was never mentioned in antiquity as the possible recipient of the epistle. But an even greater difficulty is the fact that at Alexandria it was assumed at an early date to be a letter sent by Paul to the Hebrews.
The suggestion which is supported by most internal and external evidence is Rome. It was at Rome that the epistle was first known and quoted, and since this was during the last decade of the first century, it shows that the epistle must have reached there at a very early stage in its transmission. Some connection may be seen between a Roman destination and the greetings from ‘those who come from Italy’ (13:24). The most natural way to understand this expression is of people whose home is in Italy, but who are living elsewhere and are desirous of sending greetings home. The vagueness of the expression would have no point unless the writer thought it worth while to draw attention to the readers’ compatriots who were with him. It would have more point, therefore, if addressed to a destination somewhere in Italy rather than anywhere else. It is not, however, conclusive since the wording of 13:24 could be understood in terms of the author’s location or equally in terms of the readers’ origin.
There is no need to go into details at all regarding other suggestions. We will merely note them in passing – Colossae (T. W. Manson), Samaria (J. W. Bowman), Ephesus (W. F. Howard), Galatia (A. M. Dubarle), Cyprus (A. Snell), Corinth (F. Lo Bue, H. Montefiore), Syria (F. Rendall), Antioch (V. Burch), Berea (Klostermann), Caesarea (C. Spicq).15 The list is sufficiently varied to show that the scanty evidence can be made to do service to support any number of possibilities. It should at least put anyone on his guard against being too dogmatic over the destination of the epistle.
We would conclude that the most likely destination is Rome, while leaving the options open for other possibilities.
Our previous discussions will not have left us too sanguine about the possibility of fixing a date for this letter with any precision. All we can hope to do is to suggest limits within which the letter was probably written. We may, at least, conclude that it was written before the letter of Clement of Rome (AD 95), unless of course it be maintained that Hebrews used Clement16 or that both used a common source. But since there is good reason to suppose that Clement borrowed from Hebrews, this fixes a terminus for Hebrews, before which it must have been written.
An internal consideration is the relation of the letter to the fall of Jerusalem. Since the writer shows no awareness of this event and suggests on the contrary that the ritual is still continuing, it would need to be dated before AD 70. As already pointed out, however, the author appeals to the tabernacle rather than to the temple, and this could as legitimately be claimed as evidence that the temple no longer stands. But the present tenses, used for instance in 9:6–9 (cf. also 7:8; 13:10) would have more point if the temple ritual was still being observed.17 The distinction between tabernacle and temple may not have been as sharp to the original readers as appears to the modern reader. On the whole this line of evidence is more in favour of a date before rather than after AD 70, especially if weight is given to the strange omission of any mention of the catastrophe if it had already happened. It would have been a valuable historic confirmation of the major thesis of the epistle – the passing of the old to make way for the new.
If, on the other hand, the doom of the city was imminent it would give a strong edge to the exhortation to the readers to come out of the camp (13:13). Again the mention of Timothy in 13:23, if he is the same man as Paul’s companion, must require a date within his probable lifespan, but our problem here is that no independent knowledge exists of his death. All that could safely be concluded is that a second-century date is wholly out of the question. Certainly the state of the church which can be detected in this epistle is fairly primitive, for there is no mention of officials by name, only the somewhat vague expression ‘your leaders’ (13:7, 17). Moreover, the strong Jewish flavour of the theology favours an early date.
Another suggestion is that the reference in 3:7ff. to the Israelites’ forty years in the wilderness (citing Ps. 95:7ff.) may be more pointed if this epistle was written forty years after the death of Jesus. But the connection of thought is far from obvious and can make no contribution to our discussion. Of more point is the reference in 12:4 to the fact that ‘you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood’. This may be understood metaphorically, in which case it is no help in dating, but if it means that there had been no martyrs among them, it would require a date before widespread persecution had taken place. If the readers were in Rome this would seem to require a date before Nero’s persecutions. Nevertheless, if this was a small house-church separated from the rest it may have escaped the intensity of persecution which the main body of Christians had suffered. Another consideration is the reference to ‘former days’ (10:32) when the Christians were subjected to persecution. Again, if these days refer to Nero’s persecution the epistle would have to be dated after the fall of Jerusalem. But the same problem arises that there is no suggestion that any had died18 and it is difficult therefore to appeal to Nero’s persecution as an explanation of the ‘former days’. It would be safer to assume that there was not so much an officially organized attack as the sort of constant harassment to which both the Acts and the epistles testify.19 Indeed the ‘former days’ could conceivably refer to the period following the edict of Claudius exiling Jews from Rome, since Jewish Christians would presumably have been implicated (cf. Aquila and Priscilla, Acts 18:2). Between this event and Nero’s persecution a period of fifteen years had elapsed, which would set the limits within which the epistle must have been written. There is no means of knowing whether it was written before Paul’s death, although it has been inferred from Hebrews 13 that Paul was probably no longer alive, based rather precariously on the solitary reference to Timothy.
Those who date the epistle before the fall of Jerusalem are generally influenced by their view of the occasion in deciding a more precise dating. For instance Montefiore suggests a dating similar to 1 Corinthians20 and T. W. Manson a date similar to Colossians,21 because of their respective views of the situation addressed in the epistle. Most, however, do not date before the sixties, and prefer a date just prior to or during the Neronic persecutions if the epistle was sent from Rome,22 or just prior to the fall of Jerusalem if sent from somewhere else.
Those who consider that the evidence does not require a date before the fall of Jerusalem usually suggest a time about AD 80–85.23 There are two main considerations. The first is the use of the epistle by Clement of Rome. It must obviously be dated before that epistle, but how long before? According to Goodspeed’s theory, Clement wrote in response to Hebrews 5:12, in which case no great interval could have elapsed between them. But this theory is tenuous. If, on the other hand, Clement did not use our Hebrews, there would then be no need to limit Hebrews to a time before Clement’s letter. However, the primitive character of the community structure in Hebrews demands an earlier provenance than Clement’s epistle. The other consideration is the opinion held by some that Hebrews shows dependence on the Pauline epistles. As usual with arguments from literary affinities, dependence is difficult to prove. The Pauline affinities are sufficiently explained by the supposition that the author was an associate of the apostle. The evidence is certainly not sufficient to show that Hebrews could not have been written before the collection of the Pauline letters. The cumulative effect of these arguments for a late first-century date are not convincing.24
The writer makes only one specific statement about his purpose and that is in 13:22 where he simply says, ‘bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly’. If ‘word of exhortation’25 means here, as in Acts 13:15, a homily, it would suggest that the structure of the letter owes its origin to a sermon given on a special occasion and later adapted into letter form by the addition of personal comments at the end. This suggestion has much to commend it and would account particularly for the frequent asides which contain direct appeals to the hearers. If the word ‘exhortation’ is given its literal force, those passages which contain such direct appeals must be regarded as the crucial points in the author’s argument, even although they are asides, and they must be taken into account in deciding the author’s purpose.26 There is, however, much difference of opinion over what the author was warning his readers to refrain from. The various suggestions may conveniently be classified according to whether they suppose a Jewish or Gentile destination.
Since the traditional view was that the readers were Hebrews, we will begin with the traditional explanation of purpose.27 This begins from the warning passages (mainly chs. 6 and 10) and proceeds to interpret the whole epistle in terms of these. The passages themselves certainly contain warnings expressed in the strongest possible way. The danger of ‘crucifying the Son of God’ afresh (6:6) and of ‘spurning the Son of God’ and ‘outraging the Spirit of grace’ (10:29) are set squarely before the readers. Such critical possibilities are said to threaten those who commit apostasy (6:6). In attempting to understand the nature of the apostasy, appeal is made to the statement in 2:3 which speaks of the disaster of neglecting the great salvation which has been provided. If the ‘camp’ in 13:13 is ancient Judaism, a reasonable suggestion would be that these people were converted Jews who had nevertheless retained their allegiance to Judaism and were in danger of falling between two stools, or even of leaving the Christian church and returning to their former Jewish faith.
To appreciate the strong pull of Judaism on Christians who were formerly Jews, it must be remembered that Christianity could offer no parallel to the ritual trappings to which they had been accustomed. In place of the temple to which all Jews looked as the centre of worship, Christians met in different homes without even a central meeting-place. They had no altar, no priests, no sacrifices. The Christian faith seemed denuded of any evidences of the usual kind of religious observances. It is hardly to be wondered at that there were Jewish converts who explored the possibility of holding on to both, particularly as both Jews and Christians appealed to the same Scriptures. If they retained the old while secretly professing the new, they would possess a status which was denied to those who made a clean transference to Christianity. The attraction of apostasy in the sense of returning to an outward allegiance to Judaism would have been strong for those who found it hard to face the determined opposition of their Jewish compatriots (cf. 10:32), although they had been prepared to do so at first.
If the situation just outlined is correct, it is possible to see what the writer of the epistle had in mind in setting out his argument. He was concerned to reassure his readers that the loss of ritual glories was more than compensated by the superiority of Christianity. His line of approach was that everything in fact was better – a better sanctuary, a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a better covenant. Indeed, he aims to show that there is a theological reason for the absence of the old ritual, glorious as it may have seemed to Jews. The Christian faith pronounced a complete fulfilment of all that the old order strove to do. The very absence of the ritual was the greatest glory of the new faith, proclaiming as it did its superiority over the old order. Moreover, the writer goes beyond this and maintains that Christ was a priest of a different kind from the Aaronic line, typified in Melchizedek. The warning passages would then set out the serious consequences for any who deliberately turned their backs on this superior way. It would be tantamount to asserting the superiority of the old and identifying with those who were responsible for crucifying the Son of God. This understanding of the apostasy would be sufficiently serious to warrant the strong terms used in the warning passages. It would also account for the impossibility of restoration for those who so blatantly turned their backs on the ‘better’ terms of the Christian faith. Uppermost in the author’s mind was not so much the question of a return to Judaism as that of the rejection of Christianity which such a return would involve.
Although in general this understanding of the apostasy provides a reasonable understanding of the purpose of the epistle, some caution is needed. It must be admitted that the warning passages say nothing about apostasy to Judaism, but only apostasy away from Christianity. The interpretation outlined above rests on an inference drawn from the general drift of the epistle. It is, of course, possible to interpret the warning passages in a different way, although no other suggestion seems to be in such close agreement with the general context. An interesting development from this traditional view is the suggestion that former Jewish priests were in mind, a suggestion which has already been noted in the discussion on destination.28 What light would it throw on the author’s purpose? Converted priests would at once forfeit the dignity of their office. They would, in fact, become nonentities, after having been respected for their official position. Many of them must have been faced with the temptation to forgo their new faith in order to retain their old status. They would be even more lost without the cultus than the rank and file adherents of Judaism. They may have expected a superior position in the Christian church by virtue of their former professional status in Judaism. For such people the theme of Christ’s high-priesthood and the spiritual interpretation of the cultus would be highly relevant. Of all people these would need to be reminded in the strongest possible terms of the consequences of a return to Judaism. The warning passages would, therefore, be of the greatest relevance. If the readers were tempted to think that a religion without priests was unthinkable, it would amount to a denigration of Christianity to the extent of pronouncing it to be ineffective. Their threatened apostasy would then amount to a deliberate turning of their backs on a priestless faith. But the writer’s challenge is that in spite of the absence of a line of priests Christianity is not, in fact, priestless since it has a perfect high priest in Christ, who is infinitely superior to the very best of the Aaronic priests.
Yet another variation in the understanding of the purpose of the letter, if it was addressed to Jews, is the view that the epistle was directed to former members of the Qumran sect.29 A main purpose would then be to present a true method of exegesis of the Old Testament. The Qumran Covenanters were keen students of the Old Testament Scriptures and many of their commentaries have been preserved among the Qumran finds. But they had their own style of exegesis which concentrated on relating the restoration of the old covenant in terms of their own community.30 By means of the method known as pesher, they contrived to bring out the contemporary relevance of the Old Testament text, often with little regard to the original context. The letter to the Hebrews does not use this method, for the author shows the modern relevance without ignoring the historical context. If ex-Qumran Christians are in mind they may well have needed a truer exposition of the Old Testament based on the new covenant in Christ. Since the Qumran community was essentially a priestly community, the predominance of the highpriestly theme in this epistle would also be intelligible, as would the reference to ablutions in 6:2, since ritual washings are thought to have formed an important part of the Qumran procedures. Nevertheless there are problems over this hypothesis. In addition to the absence of any corroborating evidence for the existence of a group of ex-Qumran Christians (although such a group is not impossible), the parallels between Hebrews and the Qumran literature are not impressive. The absence of any discussion about the Law in the former is a major difficulty since it was prominent among the Qumran Covenanters.
On the whole the view that posits the threat of an apostasy to Judaism among certain Jewish Christians, whether former priests or not, has generally more to commend it than alternative views.31 But one other suggestion which still envisages a Jewish destination, but which does not see the warning passages as requiring apostasy to Judaism, must be considered. It is the view that a group of Jewish Christians were failing to embrace the world mission of Christianity. According to this theory the readers were thinking in terms of Christianity being essentially Jewish and were attaching no importance to its universal scope. It is suggested that this group had a similar outlook to that of the more restricted members of the Jerusalem church. Perhaps they wanted to retain contact with Judaism for security reasons, since Judaism was a religio licita. To cut loose from the security of this anchorage and to enlarge the borders to include Gentiles would introduce an acute embarrassment.
The dilemma was undoubtedly real. It would be much simpler to insist that all Christians should come under the umbrella of Judaism, just as the Judaizers at Galatia did. But here, it is suggested, the vision of the extent of the Christian mission was too restricted. It is further claimed that it was this too narrow view that Stephen had to combat. There are certainly some similarities between Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 and our epistle, particularly in the approach of both to the cultus. This view has brought some interesting insights to the understanding of the epistle, but it cannot adequately account for the strong warning passages. It is difficult to see how anyone would describe a failure to broaden the mind to embrace the world mission as a re-crucifying of the Son of God or as apostasy. It may have been part of the writer’s purpose to urge adoption of the world mission, but he was contending with a problem more radical than this.
The theory of Gentile readers has been prompted by the belief that Hellenistic thought forms the major background to this letter. Some, however, also postulate Gnostic influence.32
We may quickly dispense with the view that the writer is combating speculative Judaism which was affecting his Gentile readers. Surrounded by many religious ideas, they would want to know that Christianity was unique in offering the only acceptable way to God. To answer this need, the writer appeals to the Old Testament to prove the absolute character of Christianity, which is itself superior not only to Judaism but to all other religious faiths. But the problem with this theory is that the epistle gives no inkling of any knowledge of speculative or of pagan rites. Indeed, the author’s considerable interest in the details of the cultus are difficult to square with a Gentile audience which had had no previous contact with Judaism. The most acceptable form of such a theory would be to suppose that the ‘Hebrews’ were Hellenistic Jews.
The view that Gnostic ideas permeate the letter and that in effect the author is combating incipient Gnosticism has had some persuasive advocates.33 One view is that the readers belonged to a sect of Jewish Gnostics who were corrupting the pure Christian faith by the infiltration of Gnostic ideas. Some of the ideas which are appealed to may be briefly summarized as follows: the emphasis on angels which was detracting from the uniqueness of the mediatorial work of Christ; the idea of salvation through selected food (cf. 13:9), mixed with strange teachings; the reference to lustrations; deliberate wrongdoing (to which the warning passages are said to relate, and which reflected the blurring of moral values in some types of Gnosticism, cf. 12:16). Although some of these parallels may be valid, it is extraordinary that the author goes to such lengths to expound on the Jewish culture if his main target was Gnosticism.
A similar criticism may be made of the view that chapters three and four are the real key to an understanding of the letter, and that these chapters must be understood against a Gnostic background.34 Hence the readers are seen as the wandering people of God and their journey is understood in terms of the Gnostic redeemer myth. The quest for ‘rest’ (katapausis) is the main aim of salvation. The view of Jesus as high priest is said to be influenced by the Gnostic redeemer myth in which the redeemer must himself be redeemed before he is entitled to act as redeemer and in a similar way the high priest must be perfected.35 There is no question that this reads much more into the epistle than is justified. In the author’s mind the perfection of the high priest relates to his perfect obedience to the Father’s will. It is essentially moral not mystical. Even if the Gnostic emphasis is overplayed in this theory, the bringing into relief of the importance of chapters three and four and the ‘rest’ motif is a valuable insight, which should not be overlooked.
Another view is that some deviation of a similar kind to that which Paul combats at Colossae is in mind.36 This was probably connected with some form of Gnosis, although not with developed Gnosticism. There are two features of the Colossian deviation which are paralleled in this letter. One is the excessive esteem given to angels and the need to correct this (cf. Col. 2:18 with Heb. 1 and 2). The first section of the letter aims to show Christ’s superiority to angels. The other feature is an over-emphasis on the ceremonial law, which might be contrasted with the spiritual interpretation of the cultus in Hebrews 5 – 10. These features have prompted the suggestion that Apollos sent this epistle to the Colossian church before Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians with full knowledge of what Apollos had written. While support for this suggestion of a Colossian destination is slight, the theory has some value in drawing attention to common features which were probably widespread in early Christian experience.
In conclusion, we shall lean towards the view that some kind of apostasy to Judaism is implied, but it will be borne in mind that there were other streams of influence which cannot be ignored in rightly interpreting the thought. If the author seems obsessed with Old Testament interpretation, he has more than an antiquarian interest in it. He is helping perplexed Christians to discover its true meaning, a meaning which for him is focused in Christ. But it is probable that he is also concerned to show its relevance in a world influenced by Greek ideas.
Any writing becomes illuminated when it is set against its background, and it is necessary to indicate briefly the milieu of this epistle. It has already been pointed out that the readers were almost certainly Jewish Christians. It is logical therefore to note first the features which particularly align with a Jewish background.
The most obvious of these is the strong influence of the Old Testament upon the author.37 It goes without saying that his mind was steeped in Old Testament thought, but it is clear that he was most interested in the testimony of the Pentateuch. His treatment of the cultus bears witness to this, for he does not base his observations, as we might have expected, on the contemporary temple procedures, but on the Levitical details. He is clearly wanting to establish a Christian approach to the Old Testament cultus and he finds his key in the thought of the superiority of Christ both as a priest and as a sacrifice. Even when citing the heroes of faith, he draws most of his examples from the Pentateuch.
Nevertheless, the writer’s mind is also steeped in other parts of the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms.38 Indeed, it may be said that Psalm 110 plays a key role in the development of his argument, supplying him particularly with his Melchizedek theme. Another important passage for him is the new covenant section in Jeremiah 31, which he quotes extensively in chapter 8. The manner of his citations is also significant, for he undoubtedly regarded the Old Testament text as authoritative. He assumes that what the text says God says, which comes out strikingly in chapter 1. Even so vaguea formula as ‘it has been testified somewhere’ to introduce a quotation from Psalm 8 (2:6ff.). is in itself an evidence that the author wished to back up his discussion of the humanity of Jesus with scriptural support, although he does not specify the original context. The fact that the text is regarded in this authoritative way is of vital importance for a right understanding of the argument and purpose of the epistle. If as seems probable one of the writer’s aims is to clear up difficulties which the readers were having in deciding on a satisfactory approach to the Old Testament, the epistle itself becomes a useful guide, not only for its original readers, but also for the modern reader. Much of what might on the surface appear irrelevant falls into place when the more general question of the Christian approach to the Old Testament comes into focus.
One question which arises is whether the writer always does justice to the Old Testament context. Some have suggested that for him the context held no significance, but this would be an exaggeration.39 He certainly applies the Old Testament text at times in a new way, as when he applies to the Son words originally spoken of God (1:8), but it is questionable whether it can be maintained that the author has ignored the context. The same applies to the development of the rest theme from Psalm 95 in chapters 3 and 4. It would be more correct to say that our author brings out the latent and extended meaning of the original text. Such a principle permits him to apply his Melchizedek theme in a way which looks on the surface as if he is basing his argument on the silence of Scripture, rather than on its statements (cf. 7:3).
Our next consideration must be to discover whether the kind of development seen in the Jewish sect at Qumran has any relevance as background to this epistle. Certain features suggest a connection, such as the dominance of the priestly caste at Qumran and the evidence that some interest existed among the sectarians on the Melchizedek theme.40 The Qumran community had some interest in angels and this might suggest a connection with the readers of this epistle. But interest in angels was widespread among the Jews of the intertestamental period. Moreover, it appears as part of the so-called Colossian heresy (Col. 2:18).41 Another feature is the extensive interest among the sectarians in biblical exegesis42 and there is certainly some parallel with the writer of this epistle. As the exegetes of Qumran were more concerned with the application of the text to their own day than to its historical context, so our author tends to stress the present relevance while not, however, ignoring the context. There may be some parallels between the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus Christ, but the writer of this epistle has no doubts that Jesus is superior to all others and is in any case the final revelation of God to man.43
One feature which may have some bearing on our discussion is the conjunction of the priestly and kingly aspects of Messiah in the Qumran community although not apparently linked in the same person. The priestly Messiah of Aaron was distinguished from the Messiah of Israel.44 By way of contrast the presentation of Jesus in Hebrews is of a priest-king after the order of Melchizedek.
The Qumran community observed certain rites particularly of a purificatory nature. This purificatory theme occurs in Hebrews, but is not tied to outward rites. In fact the readers are told to move on from elementary doctrines like ablutions (6:2). Nevertheless the idea of purification is present, but applied in a spiritual manner, as the statement in 10:22 about hearts being sprinkled clean from an evil conscience shows. There is some suggestion that the purificatory rites at Qumran might have developed as a substitute for the cessation of sacrifice. One of the reasons for the location of the community in the Judean desert was because the sectarians had become dissatisfied with the arrangements for the temple sacrifices in Jerusalem. It is not without significance that the epistle to the Hebrews concentrates on the ‘better’ sacrifice of Christ.
In view of all this there is justification for the view that the Qumran literature and cultic practices throw some light on the milieu to which the readers of this epistle belong, although it is questionable whether any direct contacts can be assumed.
It has long been maintained by interpreters of this epistle that a strong strand in the background is Hellenism,45 particularly the variety of Hellenism seen in the writings of Philo of Alexandria.46 Much has been written on the relation between our epistle and Philo’s writings and it will be possible to give here only a brief summary of the salient points. Philo as an exegete is notorious for his use of allegorization in an attempt to make the Old Testament text relevant for his contemporaries. His aim in this was to trace the main concepts of his Greek environment back to Jewish sources. To accomplish this apologetic aim he paid little regard to the historical context. Yet it will at once be seen that although the writer of this epistle may at times border on an allegorical tendency, he differs radically from Philo in that he treats seriously the historical context. The whole of his argument would fall to the ground if the historical basis were denied. When discussing the Israelites’ quest for ‘rest’, he never suggests that the wilderness wanderings were not historically significant, and indeed he builds upon the fact that the Israelites actually disobeyed God and were excluded from entering the promised land through unbelief.
Both Philo and our author, in spite of their differing methods of exegesis, share in common a high regard for Scripture. They both use extensively the Septuagint version and introduce the text with similar formulae of citation. Moreover, there are many significant words and phrases which appear in both Philo’s writings and this epistle. A few common ideas may be mentioned to illustrate this point. The significance of names is clear from Hebrews 7:2 and this is a kind of deduction familiar to Philo. Both writers abound in antitheses like the contrast between the earthly and the heavenly (cf. Heb. 8:1ff.; 9:23f.), between the created and the uncreated (9:11) and the passing and the abiding (7:3, 24; 10:34; 12:27; 13:14).
This fondness for antitheses has raised the question whether our author, like Philo, was indebted to the Platonic theory of ideas. There has been a difference of opinion over the answer to this question. Some have maintained that this theory so dominates the epistle that the author must be regarded as an Alexandrian Jew who has learned his approach from contact with Philo’s teaching. There may superficially seem to be some parallels with the Platonic theory which regards what is seen as unreal, but as a shadow of the reality behind it. Certainly much of the epistle is taken up with the concept that the ceremonial is but a shadow of which Christ is the superior reality to which it points. But it is questionable whether this idea is indebted to the Platonic theory. It is better explained by the author’s conviction that in many points Christ is better than the old order – a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a better sanctuary and a better covenant. This author’s approach is more biblical than Philo’s because he is working with a different key.
This is not to deny the author’s Hellenistic background, but rather to affirm that he did not arrive at his interpretation through the application of Hellenistic ideas. Nevertheless, his background equipped him to express in Hellenistic forms what he had already deduced from the Christian conviction that Jesus Christ was the key to the understanding of the Old Testament.
Still within our discussion of background we need to apply ourselves to the problem of the relation between this epistle and Pauline thought. We have already seen reason to reject the view that Paul was the author, but that does not mean that it is of no consequence to discuss whether the author has been exposed at all to Paul’s theology, and whether his approach may be considered to be a development from Paul’s position.
It is valuable to note first the many features of Paul’s theology which are shared by the letter to the Hebrews.47 Certainly the Christology is very similar. The pre-existence of Christ and his part in creation, which is a major feature in the Christological passage in Colossians 1:15–17, is stressed in the introductory passage in Hebrews 1. As Paul sees Christ as the illuminator of the believer, so Hebrews sees him as reflecting the glory of God (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4 and Heb. 1:3).
Alongside this high Christology we also find a stress on the humiliation of Christ (Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:14–17). This remarkable combination of exaltation and condescension shows that Paul and our writer have come to the same understanding of Christology. Our writer does not seek, any more than Paul does, to explain the paradox; but there is no doubt that, for both, the godward and manward side of the nature of Christ was a basic conviction. Whereas our letter expounds an aspect of Christ’s person and work which does not occur in Paul, his Christology is essentially the same. Linked with the self-humbling of Christ is the idea of his obedience (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8), which for both writers is set over against the disobedience of other men.
Although Paul does not deal with Christ as high priest, he portrays his work in the figure of sacrifice and this provides an important link between the two authors (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:28). Since sacrifice plays such an important part in the argument in Hebrews, it is important to note that it is certainly not a unique idea, but was shared by the early church as one way of explaining the death of Christ.
Another common feature between Paul and Hebrews is the importance attached to the new covenant (cf. 2 Cor. 3:9ff.; Heb. 8:6ff.) Both show this new covenant to be better than the old. Paul speaks of the greater splendour of the new, although he does not deny that the old had a splendour of its own. Hebrews, however, is rather more blunt in declaring that the old is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). There is no fundamental difference between them over the significance of a covenant mediated by Christ himself.
In his catalogue of heroes of faith, the writer gives pride of place to Abraham. He has already mentioned him earlier in the epistle in reference to his descendants (2:16); in reference to the promise of God to him (6:13); and in reference to his relation to Melchizedek (7:1–10). A similar high regard for Abraham is found in Paul’s epistles (Rom. 4:1ff.; 9:7; 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22; Gal. 3:6ff.; 4:22). In this connection we might note that Hebrews sometimes cites Old Testament passages which Paul also cites, e.g. both cite Psalm 8 (Heb. 2:6–9; 1 Cor. 15:27); Deuteronomy 32:35 (Heb. 10:30; Rom. 12:19); and Habakkuk 2:4 (Heb. 10:38; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11).
The above evidence is sufficient to show that the letter to the Hebrews, while not written by Paul, is very much in the same theological mould. It will not do to drive a wedge between them or to suppose that Hebrews is a later development from Paulinism. It is truer to say that although both are distinctive developments, they are not totally divorced from the mainstream of early Christian opinion.
It remains only to enquire whether there are points of contact between Hebrews and other books of the New Testament. Some have seen parallels with Johannine literature, especially with the idea of Jesus Christ as the intercessor for his people.48 Most would agree that John 17 presents Jesus in such a role praying for his people in a manner which would well link up with the idea of Jesus the high priest interceding for his people in Hebrews 7:25. There is strength in this comparison, which adds weight to the contention that Hebrews has links with the various streams of early Christian tradition. It cannot be affirmed for certain that the author of Hebrews knew of John’s Gospel, but it is not outside the bounds of possibility that he was acquainted with a tradition which preserved at least the fact, if not the content, of Christ’s prayer for his disciples. The intercessory theme occurs also in 1 John 2:1f., where the idea of Christ as our advocate appears.
Apart from the Johannine literature, we may also note that there are some similarities between Hebrews and Stephen’s speech in Acts.49 These have led some to conclude that Luke was the author of both works. Nevertheless, questions of authorship apart, it is significant that both stress Abraham’s call and both attach importance to a temple not made with hands. There is some agreement between Hebrews and Acts 7 in the approach to and assessment of Old Testament history.
There can be little doubt in view of the above discussion that Hebrews cannot be divorced from the mainstream of New Testament literature. There is nothing to suggest that the general readers of the early Christian literature would have had difficulty with the drift of argument in this letter, nor may we suppose that they would have seen no relevance in it.
There is no difficulty in locating the major themes of this letter, but it is not easy to see how they all fit together. This is the main task of the theologian. It is based on the reasonable assumption that the author has not thrown together a mass of unrelated themes, an assumption which is supported by the orderly nature of the arrangement. It is clear that he has planned his work with care. Whenever diversions occur in his train of thought they are not permitted to interfere with the main development of his argument. We shall first seek to discover whether there is one key idea, which would explain why prominence is given to such themes as the Son, the high priesthood, the sacrificial system and the new covenant. What binds these together into a unity?
We note at once from the introduction to the epistle (1:1–3) that the writer is insisting on the finality of the Christian revelation. Whatever God has made known before is now superseded by his revelation through his Son. The fact that the writer at once introduces the uniqueness of the Son suggests that he is not certain that his readers are convinced of this. But it is not at once apparent why the Son is introduced at this point, and why it is not until 2:9 that he is identified as Jesus. This cannot be accidental and the reason for it must supply some clue to the drift of his thought. There is no doubt that the status of Jesus Christ as Son plays a leading role in the epistle as a whole, even in those parts which concentrate on Jesus as high priest. We may perhaps see the early introduction of Jesus as Son as an indication that it is through him that a new era in God’s dealings with men has been inaugurated. All that had happened under the old covenant has now been superseded by a better covenant. It is really the implications of this new covenant which form the main aim of the letter. It will become apparent that the Son is the key figure in the inauguration of the new covenant, a mediator who cannot be bettered.
We shall first explore the character of the Son as he is set out in this letter. The presentation of Christ is undoubtedly of an exalted nature as is at once apparent in the opening verses, which not only introduce the Son, but make some extraordinary statements about him. We may conveniently summarize the Christology under three aspects: the pre-existence, the humanity and the exaltation of the Son.
The pre-existence of the Son is emphatically affirmed by the fact that he is said to be the agent through whom all things were created (1:2). He clearly existed before the material creation. He preceded successive periods of world history (the ages). Such an exalted Christology is therefore the starting-point for the argument of the epistle. The pre-existence theme is also supported immediately by the character of the agent in creation – as the glory and image of God – and by the fact that he continues to uphold all things by his power. In the course of the epistle there are further hints which agree with this concept of Christ’s pre-existence. In the writer’s application of Psalm 8 in 2:9 there is the implication that Jesus was made to adopt a status – lower than the angels – which he did not naturally have. In 7:3 Melchizedek is made like the Son of God, not vice versa, which must mean that Christ predated Melchizedek. It is possible also that 10:5ff. bears witness to the fact that in the incarnation a body was prepared for the Son.
It seems evident that when the writer speaks in terms of the Son’s pre-existence he is thinking of the Son as sharing the divine nature. Such expressions as the reflection (apaugasma) and very stamp (charaktēr) of God’s nature (1:3) are sufficient to demonstrate this. Moreover, the fact that the Son plays a part in creation shows that he performs the same function which is elsewhere in Scripture attributed to God. Further, the upholding of all things is said to be ‘by his word of power’, which parallels the many references to the power of Yahweh in the Old Testament. It may be said, in fact, that the whole argument of the epistle rests on the fact that the Son holds a unique position in relation to God, which undergirds his effectiveness as mediator and intercessor. It shows the basic reason for the superiority of Christ as high priest. That the writer has not just invented this is seen from the Old Testament support which he collects in chapter 1, particularly the passage from Psalm 45:6, 7 which he attributes in 1:8 to Christ, although the wording is addressed to God.
Our next consideration must be the humanity of the Son. This follows directly from the necessity for the incarnation. Clearly a high priest who was divine could not otherwise represent mankind. To be a true representative the Son must become man. This is grasped in 2:17 where the writer shows that the Son had to be made like his brethren in order to fulfil the function of a merciful and faithful high priest. If the pre-existence and divine nature of the Son is a basic assumption of the writer, so is the true humanity. It is not without significance that the name Jesus, which carries with it allusions to the human life of the Son, occurs nine times in this letter. In most cases where it occurs it stands at the end of the clause and therefore attracts added emphasis (cf. 2:9; 3:1; 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; 12:2, 24; 13:12, 20).
Some of the clearest references to the earthly life of Jesus outside the Gospels occur in this epistle. The agony in Gethsemane seems to be directly alluded to in 5:7ff., where Jesus’ loud cries and tears are mentioned. The sufferings of Jesus are of vital importance to the argument of the whole epistle and are mentioned various times. These sufferings are specifically said to have taken place ‘in the days of his flesh’. The ministry of Jesus is alluded to in 2:3. The hostility which he roused against himself is mentioned in 12:3. Such events as the cross (12:2), the resurrection (13:20) and the ascension (1:3) are assumed to be basic knowledge.
In addition, we may note what the writer says about the attitudes and reactions of Jesus. By implication through an Old Testament quotation (Isa. 8:17–18), he is said to have exercised faith in God (2:13). He is also seen to be a man of prayer (5:7) and to have shown godly fear (5:7).
The question must next be faced whether the Son of God in becoming man became fallen man and the answer according to our author must be emphatically in the negative. He twice affirms the sinlessness of Jesus (4:15; 7:26), while at the same time he agrees that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. This shows that he does not consider the sinlessness to be the result of non-exposure to the normal trials and tensions of life, but rather to be an evidence of a positive conquest over sin.
Another aspect of the humanity of Jesus in this letter is the emphasis on his perfection. Although the concept of his being made perfect through suffering (2:10) raises problems, these are lessened if the idea of perfection is seen to consist in bringing a process to completion. The writer cannot conceive that the whole plan of salvation could stand if Jesus had not suffered, and he sees this as part of the process of consummation. Another passage which brings out the same thought is 5:8–9 where the author says that though Jesus was a Son he learned obedience. This does not mean that he was reluctant to obey or that there was a time when he was not obedient, but it affirms that the experience of Jesus showed the Son to be obedient. It was only because of this that he has become the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.
There are many passages in this letter which point to the representative nature of Jesus Christ, an important feature if he is to be an effective high priest. He is said to have shared the same nature as men in order to defeat him who held men in bondage to death (2:14). It is for the same reason that the incarnation is said to be fitting (2:10). The main qualification for the high priest was to be like his brethren (2:17). In no clearer way could the writer establish his point about the necessity for the true humanity of Jesus. To be a representative he had to experience what man experiences. None other than a true man could possibly have done this.
We need to pass from a consideration of his humanity to the theme of the exaltation of Jesus. At strategic points in the argument the Son’s status at the right hand of the majesty on high is mentioned. We meet the exalted Son first in the opening verses as if, even before he dwells on the humiliation involved in the incarnation, the writer wants his readers to know about the exalted position of the Son. Moreover, the fact that the Son is seated shows that his work is already completed. The focus falls on his post-resurrection achievement. It is the writer’s way, not only of referring to the ascension, but also of showing the positive advantages of the whole mission of Christ. To be seated in so exalted a position gives the Son the most advantageous status for his work of intercession, although the high-priestly work is not actually mentioned until a later stage. Before going on to discuss the new covenant in chapter 8, the writer again reminds his readers that our high priest is seated at the right hand of God (8:1). The same applies to 12:2, just prior to the passage on discipline.
In addition to these references to the session of the Son at the right hand of God, we discover various descriptions of the Son which assume his exaltation. He is described as heir of all things (1:2), which does not simply point ahead to a future inheritance, but indicates what he has already entered into. There is a sense in which the Son’s full realization of his inheritance is yet unfulfilled until he has put all his enemies under his feet. Yet even believers are said to inherit the promises (6:12) and some aspect of present realization cannot, therefore, be denied to the supreme heir of all things. Another aspect of the Son is the idea of the forerunner, which comes into the description of Jesus as high priest in 6:20. This is of particular interest for the writer, for he is concerned throughout with man’s approach to God, and it serves his purpose well to show that Jesus has already gone into the heavenly sanctuary. Christ as forerunner is at once seen to be superior to the Jewish high priests, but this superiority is a theme which occupies the writer in several sections of the epistle. It was clearly of great importance to him to demonstrate in a preliminary way the infinite advantages which Christ by nature had in his work as high priest.
So far we have been concentrating on what the letter says about the nature of the Son. We come next to note the various ways in which the superiority of the Son is illustrated. First of all there is a stress on the Son’s superiority to angels (1:5–2:9). It may not at first be evident why the writer is concerned to establish this. It may be supposed that the readers had a particularly high regard for angels and had not been able to appreciate to what degree our high priest is so much superior. It seems likely that many were contending that angels were superior to Jesus Christ, in which case their problem was not that Jesus was made a little lower than angels, but that he was always superior to them. The fact that this comparison with angels supplies the main thrust of chapters 1 and 2 shows the importance which the author placed on the whole comparison.
But he then goes on to affirm the Son’s superiority to Moses. He does this in 3:1–6, where having compared Moses, the faithful one who was nevertheless only a servant, with Christ as a Son, he has no hesitation in declaring the superiority of the latter. As he develops his Moses theme to include the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites, this leads him to show that our leader is superior to Joshua, who was unable to give the people rest.
The superiority theme is further developed by showing our high priest’s superiority to Aaron. This will be particularly demonstrated in our next section on the Son as high priest. Not only does the writer show the superiority of Jesus, because of the insufficiencies of the Aaronic line with its constantly repeated sacrifices and its everchanging succession of priests, but also because he belonged to the superior order of Melchizedek. Indeed, the Melchizedek theme is introduced largely in order to demonstrate a viable alternative order of priesthood, which would at the same time be superior. To those who revered the Aaronic priesthood as the only legitimate means of approach to God, the demonstration of Christ’s superiority to Aaron would be an indispensable line of argument.
Although this theme is of prime interest to the writer, he does not introduce it at once. In fact, he introduces it gradually in order to build up his argument to a climax. It is mentioned almost incidentally in 2:17 and 3:1 and then not again until 4:14. Even then the theme is briefly touched on to introduce the Melchizedek theme, only to be delayed once more by the diversion over apostasy, which then leads to a return of the theme at 6:20. This somewhat truncated handling of the theme cannot be accidental and must, therefore, be designed to concentrate the readers’ attention on its paramount importance.
In the early references certain features are brought out in passing. The high priest had to be like his brethren (2:17); he had to be merciful and faithful (2:17); he had to make expiation for the sins of the people (2:17); above all he had to be able to sympathize with the people he represented (4:15). In the first more extensive passage in 5:1ff., the main qualification stressed is that of being appointed by God. The writer has no doubt that Jesus, the Son, fulfils all of the above-mentioned requirements. The fact that Jesus is seen, on grounds of these qualities, to be eligible for the office of high priest leads into the main discussion over Melchizedek, for whatever qualities he possessed, Jesus lacked one essential qualification for eligibility to the Aaronic priesthood: he belonged to the tribe of Judah, not Levi. There was no way, therefore, of maintaining that Jesus was a high priest of the Levitical type. If he was to be a high priest at all it would have to be of a different kind, and the writer’s inspiration leads him to identify that new order of priesthood with Melchizedek. He was probably led to this idea from the explicit statement of Psalm 110:4 which then led him back to the original reference in Genesis 14:17–20. Since we know there were speculations about Melchizedek in the Qumran literature, it is not impossible that the readers may already have been primed about Melchizedek, although the writer raises issues and applies the idea in a way which is totally new.
The particular aspects of Melchizedek’s high-priesthood which he brings out may be briefly summarized under the following headings. First, it is different from Aaron’s. The difference does not simply reside in its superiority. Nor does it lie in the priestly functions, for by definition the function of the priest is to act for God before men and for men before God. Both Aaron and Melchizedek did this. But where Melchizedek differs radically from Aaron is in the order to which he belongs. The former is in a class of his own. It is different in that it rests on a different quality of life (the power of an indestructible life, 7:15, 16).
Secondly, we note that Melchizedek’s order is timeless. His priesthood is ‘for ever’ and therefore not subject to the many limitations which affected the Aaronic priests. This timeless element is strangely developed from the silence of the Genesis account in relation to the beginning or ending of Melchizedek’s life. But the writer is convinced that the Scripture means to support this enduring quality.
Thirdly, the order of Melchizedek is royal. Not only does the Genesis account call Melchizedek king of Salem, but the writer to the Hebrews adds his interpretation ‘king of peace’. The main point is that unlike Aaron’s order, another exists which is royal. This provides a further aspect which demonstrates the superiority of the latter. Far more effectively than Aaron ever could, Melchizedek provides a ‘type’ for the royal priesthood of Christ.
Fourthly, we may note that Melchizedek’s order is changeless. It is in strong contrast to the constantly changing personnel of the Aaronic order. Provision had to be made for the continuance of a line of succession, so that when one high priest died another was raised up to take his place. Such constant change was not necessary with the order of Melchizedek.
In so many respects the order of Melchizedek is seen to be superior to that of Aaron that it may be wondered why no effective use had been made of the idea in the intervening centuries between Melchizedek and Christ. The reason must be that Melchizedek comes into his own only when the anti-type is seen. In other words Melchizedek gains his significance through Christ, not vice versa. Indeed, Melchizedek himself is said to be made like the Son of God.
Against the background of our high priest after the order of Melchizedek, the writer thinks of the service he performs and is particularly influenced by the ritual followed in the Levitical order on the Day of Atonement. This was the day of greatest significance for the Aaronic high priest, for it was the day on which he and he alone was permitted into the holy of holies. It was necessary for him to take in sacrificial blood as an atonement to be sprinkled seven times on the mercy seat (Lev. 16). This sacrificial idea provides a remarkable illustration of the significance of the sacrificial death of Christ.
The fact that the writer goes into some detail in describing the holy of holies (9:1ff.) shows that for him there was a close connection between the Aaronic ritual and the self-offering of Christ. The Levitical cultus was seen to be ‘a copy and shadow’ (8:5) of the heavenly sanctuary. The thought moves from the earthly tabernacle to the heavenly.
But not only is the location of the offering different, the offering itself is of a different kind. The high priest, in a quite unprecedented way, offers himself. It does not worry the writer that the Old Testament analogy breaks down, for the self-offering of Christ is the climax of his exposition and at once makes Christ’s high-priestly work totally unique. In 9:14 he affirms that Christ’s offering is through the eternal Spirit, which marks it out as incomparable when set alongside the shedding of the blood of hapless animals. He also shows that Christ’s blood can purify the conscience, which the Levitical offerings could not.
Of paramount importance to the writer is the effectiveness of the sacrificial death of Christ. He several times emphasizes that it was ‘once for all’ (7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10). There was never any question of a repetition. It was totally inconceivable that such an offering could ever be inadequate, nor would the re-offering of such a sacrifice be intelligible (cf. 9:26). The writer is convinced that the uniqueness of Christianity rests in the central act of Christ in giving himself as an offering on the cross for the sins of his people.
Much of the section 8:1–10:18 is taken up with the demonstration of the superior sacrifice that Christ has made. Nowhere else in the New Testament is the sacrificial aspect of the work of Christ brought out so forcefully. Any doctrine of the atonement which is based on the New Testament must take full account of the testimony of this epistle on the significance of the blood of Christ. There are certain results from the self-offering of Christ which are brought out, which have a bearing on the application of his work.
First, we note the purification for sins, which not only appears in the introduction in 1:3, but recurs at other times (cf. 9:23; 10:2f.). The removal of the guilt of sin which is integral to the idea of atonement is a particular interest of this epistle. The writer is faced with the fact that the old Levitical order could not remove sins (10:4), but he is convinced that what is lacking in the old is amply covered in the new through Christ. The cleansing theme reaches its climax in 10:22 where the readers are exhorted to draw near to God because their hearts have been cleansed from an evil conscience (cf. 9:14).
Secondly, we find that stress is laid on the perfection theme. Through Christ’s single offering he is said to have ‘perfected for all time those who are sanctified’ (10:14). This is another feature of the superiority of Christ’s offering, for the law could make nothing perfect (7:19). It should be noted, however, that this feature of Christ’s work lends no support to the theory of sinless perfection. The perfection theme in Hebrews runs parallel to Paul’s doctrine of justification, although approaching it from a different angle.
Thirdly, the concept of sanctification needs further emphasis, for it occurs not only in the passage just cited (10:14) but also in 2:11; 10:10, 29; 13:12. Sanctification and purification are closely linked, but the former is specifically concerned with setting apart for a holy purpose, for which a process of becoming holy is indispensable. But it is important to note that in the references mentioned above it is not the individual who sanctifies himself. This is the work of God through Christ. This emphasis on sanctification shows that although the offering of Christ is once for all, his work on man’s behalf is nevertheless continuing, as is also his work of intercession (4:15; 7:25).
No survey of the theology of Hebrews, however brief, would be complete without some mention of the new covenant. Since at the heart of the Christian memorial to Christ’s death in the Lord’s Supper, there is reference to the new covenant, the teaching of this epistle on the theme has special significance. Although the writer states that the old is obsolete (8:13), there is some continuity between the old and the new. The old, like the new, was ordained by God. It was God’s provision for his people. Immediately after mentioning the obsolete character of the old covenant, the writer goes on to speak with evident appreciation of the furniture of the centre of worship under that covenant (9:1ff.).
Moreover, both old and new covenants were provisions of God’s grace for those who could not make any provision for themselves. The recipients of the new covenant had no greater claims upon God than those of the old. The greater significance of the new did not rest in an agreement between God and a better people. It is superior entirely because it has a better mediator. It is based on a more effective removal of sins.
The extended quotation from Jeremiah 31:31–34 in Hebrews 8:8–12 draws attention to the inward character of the new covenant. Its results will, therefore, be of a high ethical order. When God’s laws are written on men’s hearts they will work out in men’s lives. This inward character, therefore, marks out the new covenant as clearly superior to the old.
But how does the writer think of the application of his rather theological debate about the nature of the Son, the high priest and the sacrificial system? When he reaches the conclusion of this part of his letter, he makes a threefold exhortation in 10:19–25, which shows that he has a distinctly practical approach. 10:22 mentions faith, 10:23 refers to hope, and 10:24 to love. These three responses sum up the Christian’s reaction to all that Christ has done (cf. Paul’s treatment of the same three qualities in 1 Cor. 13). In addition to these specific exhortations, the writer devotes a whole chapter (11) to illustrations of faith. He further assures his readers that their new position will not absolve them from the need for discipline (12). There is in fact a nice balance between doctrine and practical living in this epistle, which makes it valuable and relevant not only for the original readers, but also for their modern counterparts.
It is within the context of the new covenant that the warnings against falling away (2:1–4; 6:1–8; 10:29) have relevance. To turn one’s back on such a marvellous covenant would be tantamount to recrucifying the Son of God, amounting to a total rejection of Christianity. These passages must not be isolated from the epistle as a whole. They are intended to warn against the serious consequences of rejecting the gracious provisions of God.
The writer makes much of the concept of faith and it is important to compare his teaching on the subject with other New Testament writers, especially the apostle Paul. The statement in 11:1 that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, shows the main idea is a close connection between faith and hope. This is undoubtedly the most distinctive feature of the heroes of faith listed in chapter 11. These great men of the past were forward-looking. The basis of their exploits was seen to be trust in God who would turn their present distresses into ultimate victory. There is, therefore, a close connection between Old Testament piety and faith in God. Faith provided the confidence in God which was so needed in times of Israel’s stress. As the writer contemplates the history of the past he is not unmindful of the existence of unbelief, as he shows so vividly in chapters 3 and 4.
But we need to enquire in what ways the writer brings out the specifically Christian aspect of faith. Clearly Christ has made a difference. He is described as the pioneer of our faith as well as its perfecter (12:2). The readers are exhorted to look to him. This Christ-centred quality of faith is a development of the Old Testament trust in God. Yet the rewards of faith are to be shared alike by the faithful people of old as well as the present Christian believers (cf. 11:40).
It is noticeable that there is an absence of the characteristic Pauline view of faith as personal commitment to Christ. That does not mean to say that this writer conceives of any other way to appropriate the benefits of salvation other than through faith. But he assumes it rather than expounds it. He is concerned about the understanding of those who have already become partakers of the Holy Spirit (6:4). He wants to ensure that they remain steadfast (cf. 3:6; 10:23).
We cannot better conclude this brief outline of the main teaching of the epistle than by drawing attention to the magnificent prayer with which the epistle itself concludes (13:20–21). It sums up the close connection between the doctrinal and ethical aspects of the whole theme. It mentions the nature of God (God of peace), the resurrection of Christ, the function of Christ (shepherd), the blood of the covenant, and the practical application (that you may do what is pleasing in God’s sight). It is both a prayer and a statement rolled into one.