Читать книгу Preaching from Hebrews - James Earl Massey - Страница 2

Advance Praise for

Preaching from Hebrews…

Several years ago, after James Earl Massey spoke at our seminary, one of my students followed me out of the chapel service to ask, “How can I become that kind of preacher?” I couldn’t give a succinct answer but this book is a good step in that direction. Preaching from Hebrews demonstrates Dr. Massey’s love for the Scriptures, his meticulous scholarship, and his creative homiletical insights. Any careful reader will come out a better preacher.

J. Ellsworth Kalas Senior Professor of Homiletics Asbury Theological Seminary

Preaching from Hebrews is a masterpiece of seasoned insights from the esteemed biblical scholar and master preacher James Earl Massey…Massey takes us inside the mind of the author of Hebrews and showcases the preaching prowess and interpretive genius of this first-century follow of Jesus. No one who can offer a more comprehensive and compelling look at Hebrews than James Earl Massey. This is a “must read” for all students of the Bible and all preachers. It will make you want to preach from Hebrews!

Curtiss Paul DeYoung Professor of Reconciliation Studies Bethel University

As an exegetical surgeon, Dr. James Earl Massey carefully and precisely dissects the book of Hebrews and produces a commentary that is both biblically and theologically preachable. In Preaching from Hebrews, Massey demonstrates an intimate understanding and ready use of scripture in centering the book of Hebrews within the overall plan and comprehensive purpose of the whole counsel of God. His functional and applicable employment of the Greek language along with his special occasion sermons from various texts within the book of Hebrews make this volume a necessity and not merely a luxury for those who are serious about rightly dividing the Word of truth.

Robert Smith, Jr. Professor of Christian Preaching Beeson Divinity School

In Preaching from Hebrews, James Earl Massey brings together his unique skills as a biblical scholar and homiletician to create a new and different kind of book. In Part One, Massey provides an insightful commentary into the Book of Hebrews. In Part Two, he looks at Hebrews through the eyes of a preacher, bringing to bear his considerable skills as a one of the most significant homileticians of his age. This book enables today’s preachers to do quality exegesis in Hebrews and provides understanding about how context matters, how preaching themes can be developed, and how sermons can be produced from those ideas and themes. Massey provides examples from some of the greatest preachers who have ever lived and practical examples from his own preaching work. In the end, Massey’s greatest gift in this book may be to foster a new template for how preaching books should be written. I recommend it to all who want to grow in their preaching skills.

Jeffery W. Frymire Associate Professor of Homiletics Asbury Theological Seminary (Orlando)

My friend James Earl Massey loves the book of Hebrews. Get into this notebook of research findings and see for yourself! His years of in-depth study, with the intent of preaching from Hebrews, have yielded bountiful fruit in this volume. He takes pains to unearth theological and historical detail, then uses his discoveries to create a valuable resource for announcing the Good News.

Donald A. Demaray Emeritus Professor of Preaching Asbury Theological Seminary

Dr. Massey has given us a short guide to preaching from Hebrews that takes the history of the book and its place in the New Testament canon seriously. By carefully chosen examples, he shows us what can be done to make the text live in the lives of God’s people today. A great achievement.

Gerald T. Bray Research Professor Beeson Divinity School

This extraordinary study of the Letter to the Hebrews is an exhilarating pilgrimage into the heart and mind of James Earl Massey. His seasoned embodiment of the vocation of biblical hermeneutics and homiletics bears fresh witness to the challenge of preaching Christ to diverse audiences in modern times.

Cheryl J. Sanders

Professor Christian Ethics

Howard University School of Divinity

Contents

Advance Praise for Preaching from Hebrews…–i

Foreword–xi

Preface–xv

Part I: Hebrews in Focus

1. The History and Influence of Hebrews in Early Church Life–19

2. Unit Reflections–49

Part II: Preaching from Hebrews

3. The Author’s Hermeneutic –75

4. Themes of “Holiness” and “Perfection”–93

5. The Author's Homiletic–105

6. Preaching from Hebrews–123

III. Illustrative Sermons

An Advent Sermon: He Was Like Us–157

A Lenten Sermon: The Days of His Flesh–163

A Stewardship Sermon: On Being Responsible–169

All Saints’ Sermon: Stay in the Race!–174

A Commitment Sermon: Our Noblest Pursuit–183

A Communion Sermon: Remember Where You Stand–188

Ascension Sunday Sermon: This Jesus–195

An Easter Sermon: Brought Back from the Dead–202

For Further Study–207

Index of Proper Names–217

Foreword

James Earl Massey holds together two traits that ought to characterize every minister of the Gospel but that often seem lacking or disjointed today: gravity and grace. Although he has a great sense of humor, there is nothing frivolous or cheaply funny about him. His words carry weight. He is a person of serious intent, and his preaching is marked by purpose. In a culture where words are frequently inflated, defaced, and manipulated, in a world where “words strain, crack, and sometimes break,” as T. S. Eliot put it, Massey speaks with clarity and eloquence—and out of the depths.

Such gravitas, in pulpit, pen, and personal devotion is balanced with a grace-filled life of service to Jesus Christ and his church. This is evident to all who know James Earl Massey, and I have known him well as friend and mentor for more than twenty-five years. His long and varied ministry has been marked by what St. Paul called “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22). His spirituality—deep but not pretentious—shines through in his demeanor and discipline, in his humility, compassion, and consideration of others. True godliness is the byproduct of having lived and walked with Jesus. It is evident that this is the source of both Massey’s character and his calling.

Massey is a master communicator in pulpit and classroom alike. He has served both church and academy in diverse roles and settings. For twenty-two years he served as senior pastor of the Metropolitan Church of God in Detroit, a congregation he founded in 1954, the year of Brown v. Board of Education. His commitment to human dignity for every person made in the image of God and to civil rights for every citizen of the land was shaped by Martin Luther King Jr., his colleague and friend, and by Howard Thurman, his mentor and inspiration.

Massey’s voice became known throughout the world—and this is how he first influenced me—as the speaker on the “Christian Brotherhood Hour,” the international radio broadcast of his denomination, the Church of God (Anderson). His work as a missionary educator in Jamaica shaped his perspective on life outside of the country where he was born. His labors as dean of the chapel of Tuskegee University (1984–1989) and dean of Anderson School of Theology (1989–1995) have left an enduring legacy for good at both institutions.

The listing of these assignments reveals much about the pilgrimage of James Earl Massey, but not everything. While deeply anchored in the Wesleyan theology and the Holiness traditions of his own denomination, Massey’s ministry has reached across the universal Body of Christ. In 1966, he participated in the World Congress on Evangelism held in Berlin and co-chaired by Billy Graham and Carl F. H. Henry. This conference was a forerunner of the Lausanne Movement for World Evangelization, which was launched in 1974 with Massey again taking a leading role.

Over the years, Massey has served the church well as a scholar and writer of distinction. His more than twenty books have covered a wide range of pastoral theology (especially homiletics), biblical scholarship, and spiritual uplift. He has also written for numerous magazines and periodicals and has served as a senior editor at Christianity Today. His work continues strong today with new publications and numerous invitations to preach and present lectures in churches and schools, large and small, across the breadth of this country and beyond.

And now we have from the pen of James Earl Massey another book of theological depth and biblical wisdom, Preaching from Hebrews: Hermeneutical Insights and Homiletical Helps. In some ways, this study is the culmination of a lifelong interest in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Of all the books in the New Testament, Hebrews is the one that best illuminates the Old Testament in light of the New. At the same time, it is also the one most shrouded in mystery, for there is much about it that we do not know: Who wrote it? When was it written? For which community of believers was it intended? Why was there so much debate about its canonicity in the early church?

Massey reviews these historical and critical issues, but his primary focus is on the epistle’s central theme: the supremacy of Jesus Christ. In Hebrews, temptation is real, sin is serious, atonement is necessary, salvation is abundant, and all of this flows from one of the highest Christologies in all of early Christian literature. In Hebrews, Jesus brings a superior covenant, a better sanctuary, and a new life of discipleship shaped by faith and holiness.

Massey delves deeply into the rich theology of this important letter, but his real aim is to offer practical help to the preaching pastor by showing how one moves from text to sermon. In his Homiletics, Karl Barth wrote that authentic preaching should not only be about the Bible but also from the Bible. Massey demonstrates here exactly how that works.

In this closely textured study of the epistle to the Hebrews, Massey has brought together several genres of writing: literary analysis, historical overview, theological exposition, biblical commentary, and a manual for preaching. The many books James Earl Massey has written across the years fill one of the most often-turned-to shelves in my own library, and I am eager to add this one to it. Preaching from Hebrews, I predict, will become an enduring masterpiece.

Several years ago I offered the following tribute to Dr. Massey. The words still ring right today:

While many people seek greatness but only attain mediocrity, James Earl Massey has been lifted to greatness while seeking simply to be faithful to his calling. Beyond his many accomplishments, at the core of Dr. Massey’s being there is an essential decency, humility, and spirituality that is compelling. Never one to give himself to minor absolutes, he has modeled, with courage and compassion, the burdensome joy of a herald whose life reflects the message he proclaims. In the words of the great Howard Thurman, his life is “a great rejoicing!”

Timothy George

Timothy George is founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and general editor of the Reformation Commentary of Scripture.

Preface

The Letter to the Hebrews is one of the most intriguing books within the New Testament and an important bridge book between the two Testaments. In a way that is unparalleled by any other New Testament writing, this letter captures strategic accents of the Christian gospel and applies them with aptness to highlight how the exalted Christ ministers to believers struggling with the demanding details of life. When this message is rightly understood and aptly treated in teaching and preaching, there can result a deepened appreciation for the ongoing ministry of Jesus, a quickened faith in God, and a settled commitment for faithful living as a Christian pilgrim.

This book is for those who seek help toward understanding the letter to the Hebrews and who desire to use it in teaching and preaching. Thus, there is extended treatment of historical matters and the central theological perspectives found in the letter before guidance is offered about how to preach from it. Commentary on the message of the Letter is given as Unit Reflections in Chapter 2; the intent has been to sharpen the focus of the text and expose the theological flavor and force its Auctor supplied. The sermons supplied in this book are all based on the New Revised Standard Version (1989) or its immediate predecessor, the Revised Standard Version.

This book is an expanded treatment of the Newell Lectures in Biblical Studies given in 1986 at Anderson School of Theology. The lectures were afterward expanded for a course on Hebrews that I taught as a Visiting Professor of Preaching at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1987. Some of these materials were used again in 1992 during the Annual Conference on Preaching at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; in 1994 at Princeton University during sessions there of the American Academy of Ministry; during the 13th Annual Samford University Pastor’s School at Beeson Divinity School in July 2000; and in a January 2003 course on Hebrews at Beeson Divinity School. The welcome given the presentations by so many working pastors and graduate students confirmed anew in me the importance of sharing these hermeneutical and homiletical helps on a wider scale. Thus this book.

It only remains for me to report that the unit reflections that appear as chapter 2 were first published in an earlier form as serial pieces in Vital Christianity magazine (May–July issues, 1986) under the heading “Jesus and the Believer: Studies in the Letter to the Hebrews.” They were later published as the commentary section on Hebrews in True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary (ed. Brian K. Blount et al. [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007], pp 444–60). I am grateful both to Warner Press, Inc., and to Fortress Press for granting permission to re-use the reflections in expanded form as part of this book.

James Earl Massey

Part I: Hebrews in Focus

1. The History and Influence of Hebrews in Early Church Life

I. Hebrews in Early Church Life

Who the first recipients of the Letter to Hebrews were cannot be answered with unquestioned certainty, but the presence of so many sentences and phrases from it in First Clement, another church document usually dated around ad 96, argues well that believers living in Rome might have been the letter’s original target audience. Written by one Clement of Rome, a major leader in the church there ca. ad 90–100, First Clement is a letter sent by the church at Rome to the church at Corinth after learning about some troubles there that needed correcting. The salutation begins, “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth,” but the writing person, tradition maintains, was one Clement, who was either the pastor or the leading elder in the church at Rome.1

Clement was profoundly influenced by the thoughts and expressions in the Letter to Hebrews, and his letter to Corinth uses actual quotations from the writing and makes distinct allusions to its message, all of which evidences that the Letter to Hebrews was one of his resources.2 The following list of references provides a ready set of these correspondences.

The traditional dating of ca. ad 96 places First Clement within the sub-Apostolic period, a time within the last one-third of the first century, just thirty or so years after the death of Peter and Paul. If the tradition that Tertullian (ca. 155–220) reported is accepted, namely that Peter was the one who ordained Clement,3 then the document Clement wrote is the work of an immediate follower of that apostle. In First Clement 5:1b, Peter and Paul are lauded as “noble examples of our own generation,” indicating closeness to them in time and, some believe, that Clement was acquainted with the two apostles. That both Peter and Paul were now dead is clear from Clement’s words about each: “[Peter] having thus given his testimony went to the glorious place which was his due” (5:4); “[Paul] taught righteousness to all the world, and when he had reached the limits of the West he gave his testimony before the rulers, and thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place—the greatest example of endurance” (5:7).4

If Tertullian was correct in reporting that Peter ordained Clement, and since First Clement borrowed so readily from Hebrews, then it might well be presumed that the Letter to Hebrews was written by someone who had also known Peter and/or Paul, as Clement did. While this possibility should not be stated dogmatically as fact, one thing is clear: the borrowing Clement did from Hebrews as he wrote does suggest that the Hebrews letter was known within the setting of the church at Rome before the end of the first century.

A second important source in tracing the history and influence of the Letter to Hebrews in the early church is the ancient ten-volume Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili (ca. 260–ca. 339), bishop of Caesarea. Writing to give a detailed report of the succession of orthodox leaders and teachings of the church at a time when heretical and deviant groups were multiplying and bringing the Christian faith under increased attack by critics, Eusebius traced the course of orthodoxy in the most prominent regions of the Empire world and identified as well those persons and groups responsible for erroneous and divisive teachings.

Published in its final form in ad 325, the Ecclesiastical History treats in chronological order the major leaders, events, fortunes, and problems at four major centers of the church from the time of its founding after the resurrection of Jesus down to the time of Eusebius, its writer. Book 1 tells about the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ; Book 2 reports the activities of the apostles and tells how Peter and Paul died. In Book 3, Eusebius reports the traditions about which writings were used in the churches as a basis for teaching, worship, and personal edification, and which writings were either questioned or rejected. In reporting those traditions, Eusebius referred repeatedly to those who were his predecessors in ministry, and many statements from them about the Letter to Hebrews appear in the history he prepared.

The student of Ecclesiastical History will notice Eusebius’s very useful method of treating the same topic or event more than once and the strategy he demonstrated in repeating certain comments and aspects of history in order to shed light on the different periods he covered in reporting about the ongoing history of the church. With respect to authoritative writings, Eusebius stated this as his planned method of reporting about them:

I will take pains to indicate successively which of the orthodox writers in each period used any of the doubtful books, and what they said about the canonical [endiathekon] and accepted [homologoumenon] Scriptures and what about those which are not such.5

In applying this method to what his predecessors had to report about the Letter to the Hebrews, Eusebius began with a presumably early accounting of how the church at Rome viewed the work: “And the fourteen letters of Paul are obvious and plain, yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was rejected by the church of Rome as not being by Paul, and I will expound at the proper time what was said about it by our predecessors.”6

By “our predecessors,” Eusebius meant certain major leaders honored in the Eastern church: Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155–ca. 220); Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254); and Dionysius the Great (died. ca. 264), bishop of Alexandria from 247 to 264.7 Although Eusebius reported traditions from Western church leaders, it seems that he favored Eastern church views—probably influenced by his schooling under the leaders there—and his comments on the opinions of the leaders there are usually more extensive.

In Book 3 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius reported on the recognition accorded the Epistle of Clement (=First Clement) and mentioned as commonly known fact that its writer had borrowed heavily from the Letter to the Hebrews:

In this he has many thoughts parallel to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and actually makes some verbal quotations from it showing clearly that it was not a recent production, and for this reason, too, it seemed natural to include it among the other writings of the Apostle. For Paul had spoken in writing to the Hebrews in their native language, and some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this same Clement translated the writing. And the truth of this would be supported by the similarity of style preserved by the Epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews, and by the little difference between the thoughts in both writings.8

This comment by Eusebius appears in that section of the history in which he was citing the tradition about those who “first succeeded the Apostles, and were shepherds or evangelists in the churches throughout the world”9—Clement being named among them, along with Luke, and both Clement and Luke were understood to have been part of the Pauline circle. The view that Paul authored Hebrews was widely held among the Eastern churches, and Eusebius included quotes from many Eastern leaders about their views on that authorship.

In his reporting, Eusebius gave testimony that the Eastern church viewed Hebrews as both authoritative and apostolic because it was considered a Pauline writing. Eusebius knew, however, that some churches and leaders in the West did not view Hebrews as a Pauline work. Eusebius honestly reported the controversy because a part of his concern was to tell what the whole church had been saying “about the canonical and accepted Scriptures and what about those which are not such.” As he wrote about all this, Eusebius had before him documents that had preserved the traditions honored in at least four major church centers of his day: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.10

II. Hebrews in the New Testament Canon

It is important to note what was known and honored within the strategic church centers of the first and second centuries because, as we have seen, certain localities became prominent centers of tradition for faith and order. Those centers were also places where collections of authoritative documents were gathered and preserved and copied for use by local or even distant groups of believers. By examining and comparing those traditions, Eusebius traced how specific persons and writings were regarded and why that regard became fixed. Each region and church center tended to honor those writings which possessed “canonicity, or something like it, in a particular church for a particular period.”11 The major church centers in the East where a canonical tradition developed were Caesarea, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Constantinople. The major church centers in the West to which the ancient writers referred in discussing canonical literature for the church were Rome, Carthage, and Lyons.12

The Greek term kanon means “measuring rod,” a “bar” by which a standard measurement was determined. The word itself appears in four places in the New Testament literature, all within the Pauline letters: 2 Corinthians 10:13, 15, 16, and Galatians 6:16. In the first three uses, Paul was writing about the regulations he followed in handling his ministry, the rules under which he served as a preacher of the gospel. In his use of kanon in Galatians 6:16, Paul referred to what is normative for belief and behavior. By the second century, the term was widely used within the churches of the empire, and it denoted the basic faith of the Christian confession. Origen (c. 185–c. 254) was largely responsible for establishing this usage. By the fourth century, kanon was being used to denote the list of writings viewed as authoritative for stating the Christian faith and guiding the affairs of the church.

Those who referred to any certain writing as “canonical” had certain understandings about demands that writing met which could certify it as such: (1) distinct criteria were used to assess the writing as worthy of use for public worship; (2) an early date and use for that writing could be affirmed, backed by word from the closest church leader who could testify about its existence and use in certain places; and (3) solitary notices about the writing could be checked against more generally known references and uses of it.

The earliest listing of the books in our New Testament appeared in the Easter Letter written and sent by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373), to the clergy in his district in ad 367. As bishop, Athanasius was announcing the date of Easter for that year, and he purposely enumerated the writings that were authoritative for church use.13 Still earlier, in preparing the Decrees of the Synod of Nicaea in c. 350, Athanasius had used the expression “not belonging to the canon” in discussing The Shepherd of Hermas document. One of the principal contributions Athanasius made to the church was to list those church writings that he and others considered canonical. Those he listed are the same twenty-seven writings we refer to as the New Testament. Later in that same fourth century, those same twenty-seven books were given special recognition as canonical by the clergy present at two general councils, namely the Council of Hippo in ad 393 and the all-African general council at Carthage in ad 412. The recognition by the councils of these selected church writings as canonical did not make them authoritative; that recognition only certified the already established place of authority these writings had within the church.

In singling out Hebrews as part of the canon, the fact that this letter was known before the close of the first century attests to its early appearance, and the fact that Clement of Rome quoted from it suggests its presumed use in Rome at an early date.

The Letter to the Hebrews appears in the oldest listing of the New Testament canon, usually associated with the writings of Paul.14 The traditional ascription of Hebrews to Paul within the Eastern church secured a firm place for this writing within the New Testament. But it must not be overlooked that there was no common view among the church leaders in the East about how Paul was related to the writing. The tradition about Paul’s exact responsibility as possible author of Hebrews was quite mixed and complex. The main question concerned the difference between the writing style in Paul’s other letters as compared to that in Hebrews—Hebrews is written in refined Greek, while the known Pauline writings are not.15 The churches in the West disputed Pauline authorship of Hebrews because of its theology, especially its teaching about the apparent impossibility of pardon for an apostate (see Heb 6:4–8). Interestingly, although the Letter to the Hebrews gained entrance into the canon on the strength of the Eastern tradition that Paul wrote or was behind its creation, the present positioning of Hebrews in our English versions places the letter after Paul’s writings rather than among them. This order is based upon the Latin Vulgate, the translation work of the learned and noted Jerome (c. 345–c. 419), reputedly the ablest biblical scholar of the Western church at that time. The Latin Vulgate is a Western rendering that has had a primary influence upon our English Bible since it was the version on which the first English Bible was based. Although later English translations of the Bible have been made directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts rather than the Latin renderings, the order established for the books of the New Testament in the Latin Vulgate has continued as found there. Jerome was a scholar of the Western churches, and knowing the tradition within them of non-Pauline authorship of Hebrews, he placed this letter behind Paul’s writings rather than in the midst of them. Jerome thus paid tribute to the tradition in place in the West regarding Hebrews, although he was personally influenced by the ancient Eastern tradition that Paul was responsible for writing the letter.

III. Authorship and Audience

The belief within the churches in the East that Paul the Apostle was responsible for Hebrews was ancient, as we have seen, but so were the questions about how he might have been responsible. Clement of Alexandria (c. 155–c. 200) suggested that Hebrews is Luke’s polished Greek translation of a writing Paul originally made in Hebrew (or Aramaic), which would account for its difference in style from that apostle’s other acknowledged writings. Eusebius gave the following report about Clement’s views on this:

And as for the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says indeed that it is Paul’s, but that it was written for Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke, having carefully translated it, published it for the Greeks; hence, as a result of this translation, the same complexion of style is found in this Epistle and in the Acts but that the [words] “Paul an Apostle” were naturally not prefixed. For, says he, “in writing to Hebrews who had conceived a prejudice against him and were suspicious of him, he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name.”

Eusebius added:

Then lower down he adds: “But now, as the blessed elder used to say, since the Lord, being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through modesty, since he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not inscribe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, both to give due deference to the Lord and because he wrote to the Hebrews out of his abundance, being a preacher and apostle of the Gentiles.16

Origen (c. 185–c. 254) also took note of the better Greek diction found in Hebrews and suggested that one of Paul’s disciples or co-workers might have prepared the letter from notes taken while Paul was teaching (or dictating). Eusebius quoted Origen’s view as that scholar had stated it in his Homilies on Hebrews:

Furthermore, he discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his Homilies upon it: “That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences in style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle.”

Eusebius continued:

Further on, he adds the following remarks: “But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us is twofold, some saying that Clement, who was the bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.17

Eusebius quoted a brief comment Dionysius of Alexandria (died c. 264) made about Hebrews. The comment was excerpted from a letter Dionysius wrote to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, commending the memory of those who had suffered martyrdom at Alexandria under Emperor Decius. Testifying about their steadfastness of faith, Dionysius likened them to “those of whom Paul testified, they took joyfully the spoiling of their possessions.”18 The words quoted in that tribute are from Hebrews 10:34, and Dionysius’s ascription of them to Paul shows his view that Paul wrote Hebrews.

According to Tertullian (c. 155–c. 220), the noted apologist and theologian in the Western church, there was an equally ancient belief in the West that it was Barnabas, Paul’s companion, who wrote Hebrews. In writing his treatise On Modesty, Tertullian quoted from Hebrews 6:1, 4–6 to make a point about discipline as an apostolic dogma and mentioned Barnabas as the writer.

For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinance.”19

In his call to serious Christian living, Tertullian appealed to the strong witness of one who was part of the Pauline circle, and his attribution to Barnabas of that quotation from Hebrews shows his belief concerning who wrote it.

It is easy to understand how the view that Barnabas wrote Hebrews could make its way within certain of the churches. As a Levite, whose family, position, and work gave him an intimate knowledge of temple life, Barnabas had the background to treat the sustained argument about priestly ministry with which much of Hebrews deals. Hebrews ends, also, with the author describing his work as logou tes parakleseos, “a word of exhortation,” (13:22), a description that reflects the style of preaching Barnabas and Paul did in synagogues (see Acts 13:15ff). Then too, Barnabas was known within the earliest Christian circles as a “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36), a tributary sobriquet about his character and caring spirit.20

Ancient tradition in the Eastern church notwithstanding, the general consensus since the sixteenth century has been that Hebrews is a non-Pauline work. During the sixteenth century, a critical reassessment began among scholars studying the ancient traditions of the church; the conflicting views of the Eastern and Western sectors of the church were seriously studied, and other alternatives regarding the authorship of Hebrews were set forth and debated.21 Major Greek scholars of that period expressed doubt that Paul wrote Hebrews, partly due to the recognizable differences between the Greek of his acknowledged writings and that found in Hebrews, and partly because of the restriction voiced in Hebrews 6:4–6 about non-forgiveness from God for apostates. Martin Luther (1483–1546) at first followed common custom in associating Hebrews with Paul, as his lectures on Hebrews during 1517–18 show. His view changed across the next decade, and his final consideration about who wrote the epistle is documented in a sermon he preached in 1537 on 1 Corinthians 3:4–5, a text in which Apollos is named: Luther commented about Apollos as “a highly intelligent man; the epistle of the Hebrews is certainly his.”22

The case against Paul’s being the author of Hebrews is stronger than the case for his being its writer, although William Leonard wrote a strong defense in his favor.23 Hebrews is pure Greek, and the writer’s style is more florid than Paul, even considering the fact that Paul often used a secretary. Hebrews is filled with sentences with symmetry, euphony, and grand cadences (i.e., 1:1–4; 7:1–3), and effective word-groupings and sonorous compounds abound.24 The way Hebrews quotes from the Old Testament is different from Paul’s typical manner and even the version of the Old Testament differs from the version Paul used.25 Then too, the writer’s self-confession at Hebrews 2:3 that he was a second generation believer rules Paul out as the author.

Classical scholar William M. Ramsey (1851–1939) suggested in a 1908 study that Philip the Evangelist wrote Hebrews and that Paul endorsed the writing by adding the last verses.26 Ramsey dated Hebrews between ad 55–57, written while Paul was imprisoned in Herod’s palace in Caesarea (Acts 23:35). Philip the Evangelist had settled at Caesarea near the port (Acts 21:8), and he had continued a ministry there along with his four daughters.27 Ramsey further suggested that Hebrews was initially sent to the church in Jerusalem, the purpose being to reconcile parties there who held contending views about the meaning, merits, and promise of Judaism.

A few years earlier, in 1900, Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930) published a journal article in which he proposed that Priscilla wrote Hebrews, aided perhaps by her husband Aquila.28 This, he suggested, would explain why there is no name attached to the letter as its author and why there is no opening paragraph of greeting, the fear being that prejudice against herself as a woman leader might hinder some within the Pauline churches from accepting her message. As for her leadership role, Harnack called attention to the fact that Priscilla (or Prisca, as Romans 16:2 names her, using the diminutive) is always named first when listed with her husband in New Testament records. She and her husband also knew Timothy, to whom reference is made in 13:23, the three having been intimates with Paul. Harnack also suggested that the pilgrimage motif in Hebrews might have been influenced by the travel associated with their work and that their craft as tentmakers was a natural backdrop for being sensitive to the tabernacle theme. Harnack’s theorizing is problematic at more than one point, but especially at the point of the Greek wording at 11:32. There the writer asks rhetorically, “And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of....” Although the personal pronoun me in that second sentence (11:32b) could be either masculine or feminine, the verb used there, “tell,” (diegoumenon, “to narrate with fullness”) is a distinctly masculine participle in form. Harnack viewed this as a neutral use, but the masculine form argues against feminine authorship of Hebrews, unless Aquila played the dominant role in writing it.29

Charles P. Anderson has suggested more recently that Epaphras, a close companion of Paul, wrote Hebrews.30 Epaphras was mentioned by Paul in Colossians (1:7; 4:12–13) as the chief worker in the Lycus Valley, where congregations had been established in Laodicea and Heirapolis. The suggestion also labels Hebrews as the letter “from Laodicea” to which Paul referred in Colossians 4:16, and the similarity of concern for Christian maturity in both Colossians (4:12) and Hebrews (5:14; 6:1; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:2) is viewed as connectional. Robert Jewett, in his Letter to Pilgrims, a commentary on Hebrews, has agreed with Anderson, writing:

Hebrews was written by Epaphras to the Lycus Valley situation at approximately the same time as Colossians was sent, which would be the winter of ad 55–56, according to my chronology of Paul’s life.31

The “situation” referred to is explained as an incipient Jewish Christian gnosticism that threatened the apostolic message about the superiority of Jesus Christ over all angelic figures.

The name of Silas has been put forward as author of Hebrews, and so has that of Timothy.32 The case for Silas as author has received strong support. According to Acts 15:22, Silas was one of the “leading men among the brethren” in the early church, and, like Paul, he was both a Hellenist and a Roman citizen, as Acts 16:37 tells us. Silas was a chief missioner with Paul during the apostle’s second missionary journey; he was well-known among the Pauline churches and an able co-partner within the Pauline circle. Silas was secretary (and perhaps joint-author) with Paul in writing to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1), and according to 1 Peter 5:12 (where his name is given as Silvanus, the Latin form of Hebrew Silas), he served as Peter’s secretary in writing 1 Peter. But an even stronger case can be made for Silas as writer of Hebrews when the following factors are considered: Hebrews and 1 Peter have many strategic words in common and their doctrinal emphases agree in pointed detail; both letters reflect the same church problems; a setting of persecution is common to both works; the two writings give Old Testament passages the same focused treatment; and both Hebrews and 1 Peter were known at Rome at an early date.33

From among the many names put forward across the centuries as a suggested solution to the problem of who authored Hebrews, the greatest weight of “evidence” is on the side of Silas or Apollos, with a stronger probability that Apollos wrote the work.34 Both Apollos and Silas were sometime members of the Pauline circle; both were Hellenized Jews and quite fluent in the Greek language.35 According to Acts 18:24–28, Apollos was a second-generation Christian—as was the author of Hebrews (2:3), but there is some question whether Silas was such. In 1 Thessalonians 2:7, Paul refers to himself and Silas (and Timothy?) as “apostles of Christ,” a statement which might be viewed in a rather inclusive way since Silas was a sharer in apostolic mission, but it is possible that Silas was an apostle in his own right.36 If this was so about Silas, or if he had himself heard Jesus during his earthy ministry, then Hebrews 2:3 would rule him out as writer of Hebrews.

Although no final word can be given yet about who wrote Hebrews, some factual statements can be made about its author:

1. The writer was a Hellenist by background and experience.

2. The writer was quite adept in the midrashic style.37

3. The writer was a master of rhetoric, with thought patterns marked by pointed imagery, wordplay, and dramatic vibrancy.

4. The writer was an experienced exegete and sermonizer.

5. The writer was familiar with Alexandrian thought and terminology, although it is not clear to what extent Platonic or Philonic views were purposely used in the general argument of Hebrews.38

6. The writer was more familiar with the Septuagint (LXX) text of the Old Testament than with the Hebrew text; the Greek alone was used.

7. The writer seems acquainted with Pauline thought but handled the kerygma with some independence,

8. The writer was a second-generation Christian (2:3).

9. The writer knew the people being addressed (5:11–12; 6:9–10; 10:32; 13:7, 19, 23).

10. The writer knew Timothy (13:23).

11. The writer completed and sent the letter before the destruction of Jerusalem.39

According to the New Testament description of Apollos, his personal traits and background match most, if not all, of the factors enumerated above. The Acts 18:24–28 passage introduces him as “a Jew” bearing the Latin name Apollonius (= Apollos), a “native of Alexandria,” and “an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures,” with a passion for “showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.” Interestingly, the Alexandrian church preserved no known account of any association between Apollos and the Letter to the Hebrews, but neither did that church preserve any mention of his connection with Paul. First Clement, written in Rome, mentions him, however, citing Apollos as “a man approved [andri dedokimasmeo] by apostles.40 Perhaps Priscilla and Aquila, his Christian tutors, had Apollos come to Rome and minister after they returned there following their years abroad as exiles due to the edict Emperor Claudius issued in ad 49–50 expelling all Jews from the capital city (see Acts 18:1–3).41 By approximately ad 57, Priscilla and Aquila were back in Rome, leaders of a house-church assembly (Rom 16:3–5a), and, given their history of ministry together with Apollos in Corinth and elsewhere, they could well have introduced not only his name but even Apollos himself to believers there in Rome.

Mentioning the possibility that Apollos and the Christians in Rome knew each other is admittedly tenuous, since there is no clear evidence that they did, but mentioning that possibility is also necessary because the Hebrews letter reflects the author’s knowledge of (or about) the godly leaders (apostolic figures?) who had nurtured their faith (2:3–4; 13:7), a knowledge of their background learning as Hebrews (6:1–2), an awareness that they were a closely knit fellowship (6:10; 10:24–25), and knowledge that some of them had suffered persecution and losses because they were ardent Christians (10:32–34).

The mention of Rome is also necessary, because of all the places suggested as the destination of the letter (Jerusalem, Corinth, Alexandria, Colossae, Ephesus, et al.), Rome best suits what seems indicated in the letter as the locale of its intended recipients.42 The reference in 10:32 to the group’s “hard struggle with suffering” could suggest either the time when Claudius exiled Jews from Rome (ad 49–50, several years after the Christian faith had taken root there) or the period of severity under Nero during the mid- to late-60s. Given the circumstance that further problems were anticipated (12:3–4, 7, 12–13), the author wrote to remind the believers about the meaning and guaranteed future of a maintained faith in Jesus (10:15–19; 13:6, 20–21).

Timothy, whom Paul had introduced to the church at Rome (Rom 16:21), had just been “set free” (Heb 13:23), presumably from imprisonment in or near the place of writing. The author shared this news, aware that those acquainted with Timothy would appreciate it. The author also shared greetings from those with him who were “from Italy” (Heb 13:24b), knowing that many would be encouraged by word from them. “Those from Italy” is usually taken as an indication that he was writing to Rome or to some place in Italy.43 And since the author made no mention of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem—an event that would have strengthened his argument—the Letter to the Hebrews should be dated probably after ad 64 but certainly before ad 70.44

Rome, the center of the empire, was the city of cities, even for a man like Paul whose Jewish heritage made Jerusalem, the Holy City, a treasured place in his heart. A great populace was active there. The metropolitan area was vast, the population was polyglot, and different ethnic and cultural groups existed side by side in diversity, social distance, and in spiritual need. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (54 bc–ad 39) in one of his Moral Essays wrote revealingly about how Rome’s vast populace had changed the face of the city, lamenting, “Here reside more foreigners than natives.”45 “Have all of them summoned by name and ask of each: ‘Whence do you hail?’ You will find that there are more than half who have left their homes and come to this city, which is truly a very great and a very beautiful one, but not their own.”46

Some of those foreigners were Jewish, but so were some of the natives. Aquila and Priscilla were known to have lived in Rome (Acts 18:2), part of a Jewish community that was there as early as 139 bc.47 The Jews in Rome enjoyed a constituted freedom there. Helped by the influence of Herod the Great (47–4 bc), whom Caesar favored, Jews throughout the Diaspora organized their own community life, enjoyed religious freedom, and were exempt from military service.48 Julius Caesar even permitted the Jews in Rome to send money back to Jerusalem to support the temple system. But there were times when Jews in Rome suffered from repressive measures, as in ad 19, and Suetonius reported about how Claudius expelled Jews from Rome in ad 49–50 (which Acts 18:2 reflects).49

Rome was home to many Jews, and the social differences their religious beliefs demanded was not usually a problem for the authorities. It is believed that Claudius rescinded religious toleration regarding Jews when social strain developed within Rome’s Jewish community after Christian Jews began aggressively evangelizing about Jesus as the Christ. As Suetonius reported it, “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” When Claudius died in ad 54, Jewish exiles returned to the city, but conflict between church and synagogue doubtless continued, and, in time, conflict between church and state. Historian E. Mary Smallwood has written:

The recognition of Christianity as a religion distinct from and hostile to its parent Judaism seems to have been made in Rome by the 60s, but precisely when and how the Roman authorities made the distinction is not known.50

Whenever that distinction was made, the Christian Jews felt the brunt of its consequences, and the writer of Hebrews sent his letter to address the believers who were experiencing strain (10:32–39; 12:3–13, 28–29) and the temptation to return to radical Judaism so as to avoid economic pressures and property loss, since Mosaic Jews normally enjoyed legal standing.51 The reference in Hebrews 10:32–34 states that some Christian Jews had experienced imprisonment. This letter anticipated further troubles, so it must have been written far enough after ad 49 for that earlier time of trouble under Claudius to be referred to as “those earlier days.”

The title “To Hebrews” appears in all manuscripts of that letter, both papyrus and vellum, from at least the third century. Whether that title is original or was added by scribes to indicate the contents and presumed audience of the letter is not known, but no manuscripts of Hebrews have an alternative title.

Given the title of the letter, it is necessary to state that the particular Hebrews being addressed in this letter were Jews who had acknowledged Jesus as Lord (2:3). They not only knew “the basic teaching about Christ” (6:1) but they were part of a community with memories of the preaching and happenings associated with the active presence of one or more apostolic figures (2:3–4).52 Some members of the community could be described as radical Hebrews: they were persons who regularly spoke Aramaic or Hebrew and were still influenced by Judaism’s feasts, laws, circumcision, and so forth, even though they believed that Jesus is the Christ. Some other members could be described as relational Hebrews: they were Hellenists rooted in Greek culture, steeped in Judaism but using Greek as their daily language and the Septuagint (LXX) as their Bible. Acts 6:1 and 7:48–50 shed light on the distinction made here between the two classes of Hebrews who had become followers of Jesus. Given the elegant Greek used to write this letter and the fact that all of the Old Testament texts quoted in it are from the Septuagint (LXX) rather than the Hebrew text or Aramaic Targums, the author of Hebrews wrote with Hellenistic Jews in focus but with concern for the entire Christian community there in Rome.

IV. Argument and Outline of the Letter

Intent on helping his readers understand the meaning and significance of Jesus, the writer exhorted them to stop thinking in cultic terms and to stop trusting cultic forms, because through his death Jesus opened “the new and living way” (10:20), which grants believers an “eternal redemption” (912). He reported that the old covenant offered to Jews has been superseded by a new one offered to all people (Heb 10:16–18 = Jer. 31:33, 34b). He reminded them of Jesus’ status as God’s Son (1:1–2; 4:14)), the promised Christ (3:6, 14), and he interpreted passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that announce his person and work. Thoroughly informed by both the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostolic message, the writer explained that the old covenant regimen of animal sacrifices represented and foreshadowed the offering Jesus made to God of himself, and he urged the readers to understand that by that deed all believers are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (10:10). Because of this, animal sacrifices are no longer necessary, nor the priesthood that administered them. This Christ-centered hermeneutic is fully in line with the apostolic teaching they had heard and known, and the writer warned that forsaking Jesus to trust in an obsolete ritualistic order was to commit apostasy (6:4–6; 10:26–31).

The readers were exhorted, therefore, to “pay greater attention to what we have heard” (2:1) because it “was attested to us by those who heard [the Lord]” (2:3). They were advised to “consider” (3:1; 12:3), to “take care” (3:12), to “exhort one another” (3:13), to hold their confidence “firm” (3:14), to hold fast to their “confession” (4:14; 10:23). They were instructed to “recall” and “remember” (10:32), and urged to “go on toward perfection” (6:1), to show “diligence” (6:11), and to maintain faith (10:39). They were exhorted to “lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely” (12:1), to “run with perseverance” (12:1), to look steadily to Jesus (12:2), and to pursue peace with everyone (12:14). They were to continue exercising mutual love (13:1) and to remain free from “love of money” (13:5). Some persons had already abandoned the fellowship (10:25), and the writer cautioned the rest against neglecting to assemble. The conditions the group faced demanded such instruction, and the writer sent it in an encouraging letter flavored with the evident caring of a pastoral heart.

The Letter to the Hebrews is a dynamic restatement of the Christian faith. The message is in a sequence that reminds, informs, illuminates, warns, encourages, and challenges. The structural pattern of Hebrews is unique among the New Testament writings. Unlike the Pauline letters, which are mainly twofold in structure, with one extensive doctrinal section followed by an application section, Hebrews has several sections in which doctrinal segments alternate with exhortational application sections:

Viewed thematically, however, the letter may be outlined as follows:

Introduction: A Doctrinal Manifesto about Jesus (1:1-4)

1 God’s Son as His Supreme Agent (1:5–4:13)Superiority of the Son over Angels (1:5–2:18)The Son’s Relation to God (1:5–14)Exhortation Based on the Contrast (2:1–4)The Son’s Relation to Believers (2:5–18)Superiority of the Son over Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)The Son Greater than Servants in the Household (3:1–6)Exhortation Based on the Contrast (3:7 –19)The “Rest of God” Explained (4:1–10)Exhortation to Full Obedience (4:11–13)

2 Jesus the Great High Priest (4:14–10:39)The Priesthood of Jesus Introduced (4:14–10:39)The High Priestly Ministry Explained (5:1–4)Jesus as Divinely Appointed High Priest (5:5–10)Exhortation to Become Mature (5:11–6:3)The Awesome Problem of Apostasy (6:4–8)A Call to Diligence in Faith and Service (6:9–12)The Surety of Hope Set on Jesus (6:13–20)Melchizedek as Type of the Son’s Priesthood (7:1–28)Melchizedek Preceded Levitical Priesthood (7:1–10)Imperfections of the Levitical Order (7:11–19)The Perfection of Jesus as High Priest (7:20–28)The Old Covenant Contrasted with the New One (8:1–13)The Earthly Sanctuary Contrasted with the Heavenly One (9:1–28)Animal Sacrifices Contrasted with Jesus’ Death (10:1–18)Animal Sacrifices as a “Shadow” (10:1–4)Jesus’ Offering of Himself Brings Reality (10:5–18)Exhortation to Gain Real Access to God (10:19–31)Exhortation to Faith and Perseverance (10:32–39)

3 The Meaning and Necessity of Faith (11:1–12:29)Faith Defined (11:1–3)Faith Illustrated (11:4–40)Faith and Disciplined Living (12:1–11)Exhortation to Steadfastness in Faith (12:12–17)The Privileged Position of the Believer (12:18–29)

4 Concluding Remarks (13:1–25)Christian Relationships (13:1–6)Christian Duties (13:7–17)Personal Expressions (13:18–25)

1. Irenaeus of Lyon (ca. 175–ca. 202) referred to Clement as Bishop in Rome “in the third place from the apostles” (perhaps meaning that after the apostolic leadership supplied there by Peter and Paul, Clement followed Linus and Anacletus). See his Against Heresies, III.iii.3.

2. For an extended study of all the scriptures Clement used in his writing, see Donald A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testament in Clement of Rome (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1973); see especially pp. 179–95 for Clement’s use of the Hebrews letter. See also Edgar J. Goodspeed, New Solutions of New Testament Problems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), pp. 110–15; Ceslas Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, Vol 1 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1952), pp. 177–78.

3. Tertullian, Prescription of Heretics 32:1–2.

4. Quotations from First Clement are from The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1, trans. by Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912), Loeb Classical Library edition.

5. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. III:iii.3. One of the better study editions is supplied by Loeb Classical Library: Vol. 1, English translation by Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926); Vol. 2, English translation by H. J. Lawlor and John E. L. Oulton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932).

6. Ecclesiastical History, Bk. III.iii.5.

7. In Bk. VII.l, Eusebius referred to Dionysius as “the great bishop of the Alexandrians,” a clear indication of his esteem for that church leader whom he quoted so often and approvingly. Interestingly, Dionysius of Alexandria had been a favorite pupil of Origen, and Origen a prized pupil of Clement of Alexandria; all three had been head of the Catechetical School there, Clement from 190 to 202, Origen for twenty-eight years, and Dionysius for fourteen.

8. Ecclesiastical History, Bk. III.xxxviii.1–3.

9. Ecclesiastical History, Bk. III.xxxvii.4.

10. See the Introduction, Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, especially pp. xxxiii–xxxiv. See also J. B. Orchard, “Some Guidelines for the Interpretation of Eusebius’ Hist Eccl. 3:34–39,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, edited by William C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), Vol. 2, pp. 393–403.

11. Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1912), p. 178.

12. Ibid., pp. 182–97. See also Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1881 fifth edition), especially pp. 337–50, 428–55.

13. For an extract from the Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of Athanasius, see Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1912), Appendix E, pp. 213–17.

14. Hebrews has been positioned in many different orders within the letters of Paul. It is positioned between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy in the Greek Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent.), Codex Vaticanus (4th cent.), Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent.), and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th Cent.). Other arrangements have been between Philippians and Philemon, after Philemon, after Titus, but always associated in some way with Paul’s works. In the earliest papyrus manuscript of Hebrews (p. 46), usually dated c. ad 200, Hebrews is positioned between Romans and 1 Corinthians. On these different positionings, see Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980 reprint = 1892), pp. xxx–xxxii. See also W. H. P. Hatch, ‘‘The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament,” Harvard Theological Review, XXIX (1936), pp. 133–55.

15. On the style of Hebrews, see Alexander Nairne, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1917), pp. cxlv–clxv; William Henry Simcox, The Writers of the New Testament: Their Style and Characteristics (Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1980 reprint), pp. 39–59, 92ff.

16. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., Bk. VI.xiv.2–4.

17. Ibid., Bk. VI. xxv.1l–14.

18. Ibid., Bk. VL.xli.6

19. Tertullian, “On Modesty,” chapter XX, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1925), p. 97.

20. For an extended treatment of the case for Barnabas as author of Hebrews, see F. J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles: and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical Setting (London: S.P.CK, 1937), especially pp. 183–84, 198–99.

21. For an excellent survey covering Hebrews research across most of the sixteenth century, see Kenneth Hagen, Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Beze: 1516–1598 (Tuebingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981).

22. See Martin Luther, “Lectures on Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews,” Luther’s Works, vol. 29, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing Co., 1968), especially pp. 109–241; Kenneth Hagen, A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther: The Lectures on Hebrews (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1974), especially pp. 19–30; Martin Luther, Weimar edition of his works, vol. 45 (Weimar, Germany: Hermann Boehlau, 1911), p. 389.

23. See William Leonard, The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1939).

24. For the treatment of the Greek style and diction in Hebrews, see James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (International Critical Commentary) (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1924), especially pp. lvi–lxiv.

25. See E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), especially pp. 156–57,160–61, 170–71, 176–77,178–79, 187.

26. William M. Ramsey, Luke the Physician: and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), see pp. 301–28.

27. Philip the Evangelist is to be distinguished from Philip the Apostle. The Evangelist was at first one of seven deacons of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5) and was a Hellenist (Greek-speaking Jew), while Philip the Apostle was a Galilean (John 1:44) who probably used Palestinean-Aramaic mainly.

28. “Probabilia uber die Adreesse und den Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes,” in Zeitschrift: fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 1 (1900), pp. 16–41.

29. For a recent feminist statement to reestablish the case for a woman writer of Hebrews, see Juliana Casey, Hebrews (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier,Inc., 1980), pp. xiii, xvii.

30. See Charles P. Anderson, “Who Wrote ‘The Epistle From Laodicea’?” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXV (1966), pp. 436–40; idem., “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter Collection,” Harvard Theological Review, LIX (1966), pp. 429–438; idem., Hebrews Among the Letters of Paul (Studies in Religion), vol. V [1975–76], pp. 258–66.

31. Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981), p. 10.

32. On Timothy as possible author, see J. D. Legg, “Our Brother Timothy: A Suggested Solution to the Problem of the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Evangelical Quarterly, vol. 40, (October–December, 1968), pp. 220–30. On Silas as the author, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction: Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1947, 2nd ed.), pp. 463–66. Thomas Hewitt also favors Silas as author in The Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale Press, 1960), pp. 29–32.

33. According to 1 Peter 5:13, that epistle was written at “Babylon,” the Christian code-name for Rome. See also the similar usage in the Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21.

34. See especially the strong statement for Apollos as writer that Ceslas Spicq has supplied, L’ Epitre aux Hebreux, vol. 1 (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1952), pp. 197–219.

35. On the major members of the Pauline circle, see F. F. Bruce, The Pauline Circle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmaus Publishiug Co., 1985). For Silas, see pp. 23–28; for Apollos, see pp. 51–57.

Acts 18:24–28 reports the background of Apollos. The aner logios in verses 24 is usually translated “an eloquent man,” but it should be understood to include the sense of “cultured, learned.” On Silas as a Hellenist, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction: Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1947, 2nd ed.), pp. 9–17.

36. On this, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction: Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1947, 2nd ed.), p. 11.

37. On midrash as a genre commonly used in the early Christian preaching, see Bo Reicke, “A Synopsis of Early Christian Preaching,” in The Root and the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology, written by Anton Fridrichsen and others (London: A. & C. Black, Ltd., 1953), p. 133. See also George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (The Anchor Bible) (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co., 1976, 2nd ed.), pp. 246ff. 36.)

38. The debate continues over the extent to which the writer of Hebrews knew or was influenced by Alexandrian thought as represented in the works of Philo Judaens. The issue has been explored by many, but the following works are recommended: Sidney G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews (Zurich, Switzerland: Evz-Verlag, and Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1965); Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1970); Charles Carlston, “The Vocabulary of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd, edited by Robert A. Guelich (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 133–60.

39. If the author of Hebrews wrote after the destruction of the temple, mentioning that destruction would have strengthened his argument as found in chapters 7–10. See the treatment of this and other factors in John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), especially pp. 200–220.

40. First Clement, 47:4. See The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, trans. by Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912), p. 91.

41 Suetonius, in his Life of Claudius, xxv.4, reported that “since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” It is believed that the “disturbances” had to do with party struggles between Hebrew Christians who were zealous for Jesus as the Christ and those who resisted such teachings as anti-Judaic and heretical.

42. See, among many others, Ernest Findlay Scott, “The Epistle to the Hebrews and Roman Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review, vol. 13 (1930), pp. 205–19; Gerhard Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1946), p. 22; William Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951), pp. 171–72; See also Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), especially pp. 142–51. See also Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 693–701.

43. Raymond E. Brown has commented, “That the work was addressed to an Italian city other than Rome is implausible: It has to be a city with considerable Jewish Christian heritage and tendency, where Timothy is known, where the gospel was preached by eyewitnesses (2:3), and where the leaders died for the faith (13:7)—no other city in Italy would have matched all or most of those descriptions” (Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity [New York: Paulist Press, 1983], p. 146n313).

44. On the dating of Hebrews, see John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westmiinster Press, 1976), pp. 200–220; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990, rev. ed.), especially pp. 20–22, 99n57; William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), pp. lxiii–lxvi.

45. Seneca, Moral Essays, vol. 2, trans. by John W. Basore (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951 reprint = 1935), p. 431.

46. Ibid.

47. See E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1976), especially pp. 210–16. See also A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1971); Wolfgang Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate, edited by Karl Paul Donfried (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing house, 1977), pp. 100–119.

48. See Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175 B.C.–A.D. 135), vol. 3, revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, (Edinburgh, Scotland T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1973), especially pp. 73–81, 95–100.

49. See Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: Claudius 25:4 (Loeb Classical Library) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929), vol. 2, trans. by J. C. Rolfe.

50. E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1976), p. 217.

51. “A factor which remained almost completely constant was the political tolerance of the Jewish religion, and above all that freedom of movement without which the Jewish communities could not have developed a life of their own” (Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175 B.C.–A.D. 135, vol. 3, revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman [Edinburgh, Scotland T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1973], p. 114.

52. Concerning the “attestations” enumerated in 2:3–4 see Charles Kingsley Barrett, The Signs of an Apostle (London: Epworth Press, 1970).

2. Unit Reflections

Introduction: A Doctrinal Manifesto about Jesus (1:1–4)

1:1–4. The Letter to the Hebrews begins on a high note, with a doctrinal manifesto about Jesus as God’s Son and supreme agent of ministry. The writer’s beginning statement is a beautifully worded periodic sentence in Greek, but modem translators usually break that single sentence into shorter ones for easier reading (as, for example, the three-sentence format in the New Revised Standard Version and in the New English Bible). The contrast in verses 1–2 between God’s prophetic servants and his Son, Jesus (first named at 2:9), should be readily understood. The prophets were all limited by their humanity and historical circumstances, while the Son speaks of his Father with a full inside view of the divine will. There is thus a fullness and finality to what the Son has said, and there is an ultimacy to what he as Son has done.

Next, in verses 3–4, all that the Son has done to make a complete “cleansing for sins” is mentioned, and his holy character and exalted status are celebrated as evidences for his sufficiency. Thus, to be seated now “at the right hand of the Majestic One on high” is both his privilege and his due. But the “sitting” suggests more: It suggests that the work he set out to do has been done and that his work stands worthily completed. His sitting with God implies both a responsibility now completed and his first estate restored. Obtaining “a more excellent honor,” or “name,” than any of the angels implies that God rewarded the Son for his excellent but costly ministry as the promised Suffering Servant.

I. God’s Son as His Supreme Agent (1:1—4:13)

A. Superiority of the Son over Angels (1:5–2:18)

1. The Son’s Relation to God (1:5–14)

1:5–14. After the lofty doctrinal pronouncement about Jesus as Son of God, the writer then proceeds to document the Son’s superior status over angels by calling into use selected texts from the Hebrew Scriptures. Some of the texts he used are viewed as words spoken by God to the Son (1:5 quotes Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; and 1 Chron 17:13; vv 8–9 quote Ps 45:6–7; vv 10–12 quote Ps 102:25–27, and v 13 quotes Ps 11:01). Some other texts are viewed as words spoken by God about the Son, with angels being addressed (v 6 quotes Deut 32:43).

The writer’s use of Psalm 2:7 as God’s utterance to the Son reflects the understanding of the early church about the God-bestowed kingship that Jesus holds. This psalm was one of many that were viewed as Messianic in import. Originally part of a coronation liturgy from the time of David the King, the wording of the psalm reports God’s pleasure with the one being installed as king over the nation. Here in Hebrews, that commendation is cited in tribute to Jesus as the kingly Son; it is an acclamation of his worthiness to receive honor and to be obeyed. The early church did so honor him, and Psalm texts were among the lively tributes utilized in worship settings as well as in church writings such as this epistle.

The citation of Psalm 45:6–7 in verses 8–9 points to the supreme virtue of Jesus as the One who always honored the will of God in his decisions and deeds: “You have loved righteousness and hated evil.” The word “righteousness” will appear six times in this letter (1:9; 5:13; 7:2; 11:7, 33; 12:11), and later, in 5:13–14, the writer will make an appeal to his readers to develop character within that righteousness, so that by moral discernment and a love for what is right, genuine spiritual growth can steadily take place in their lives.

In verses 10–12, Psalm 102:25–27 is quoted, and this was probably to emphasize the eternality of the Son over against the changing patterns and systems of human history. The faithful are being reminded that they are secure through the unfailing ministry of an eternal, unchanging Lord. This emphasis will again be in view at 13:8, where the writer proclaims that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and throughout the ages.”

2. Exhortation Based on the Contrast Between Jesus and Angels (2:1–4)

2:1–4 The “therefore” in 2:1 introduces an important conclusion to the writer’s statement about the status of Jesus. We must give serious attention to him—or suffer the sad consequences for failing to do so. Although angels have been sent as “servant spirits,” intimately involved in human ventures, God has backed their word and work, punishing all who refused to honor what those servant spirits were sent to accomplish. The word Jesus has given is the ultimate and final word from God, and is therefore indispensable. It is the word about salvation, and in its richest dimensions, a salvation brought into effect and fully guaranteed only for those who seriously listen to Jesus and look to him with right understanding about who he is. The exhortation is a warning about what is lost by those who, having heard the message about salvation, selfishly and faithlessly “drift away [from it].”

3. The Son’s Relation to Believers (2:5–18)

2:5–18 Having completed his preliminary statement about the superiority of Jesus over angels, and having issued a warning not to be part of the awesome fate of those who neglect the witness and work provided by the Son of God, the writer moves on in 2:5–18 to begin a discussion about how the Son stands related to those who do believe on him.

In this section of Hebrews we get our first insight from the writer about the extent to which Jesus as Son fully identifies with our humanity and its attendant experiences. Like the first humans, Jesus lived for a while “lower [in condition] than angels” (2:9), but unlike them he never failed the high purpose for which he entered the world. He too had to live by faith, by a steady trust in God as he lived his way across the years. The writer documents the Son’s need for faith by quoting Isaiah 8:17b, using it at 2:13 as a confessional word from the Son about his life under God—“I [myself] will firmly trust in him.” The writer thus accents attention upon Jesus as religious subject in order to highlight the importance of Jesus as religious object. In so doing, the writer’s insight into the human experience of Jesus accents his obedience in pilgrimage; it shows him as a figure of hope for those who look to him as the worthy “pioneer of their deliverance” (2:10). In looking to Jesus, the writer asserts, we can maintain our bearings, discern our possibilities, and anticipate our future. That future will ultimately involve life within another order which God has planned for his people: thus the expression “the coming world [order]” (2:5), a world (Gk. oikoumene, “inhabited, ordered community”) under the manifest lordship of Jesus as exalted Son, now raised above the present world order and “crowned with glory and honor because of the [particular] death he suffered” (2:9). The sovereignty humans lost by sinning stands modeled in him in his victory over temptation, sin, and death. Jesus now heads the household of the faithful who will inherit the new order when this old earth order passes away.

What Jesus accomplished benefits all who identify with him. Jesus was a “pioneer” in our interest, intent to lead “many sons to glory” by his delivering deed of salvation. The “many sons” are, with him, full members of the very family of God. This was the concern of the incarnation. Jesus wanted to identify fully with humans in our plight, even becoming subject to death, so that he could make death itself his victim—from inside the experience. According to 2:14–16, the grand result for believers is release from the fear of death. Angels did not need such help; humans did, and Jesus eagerly made that help available.

At 2:17–18, the high priesthood theme is introduced to highlight further the great ministry of Jesus to believers. It is the theme the writer will continue to unfold and accent across the bulk of the letter. It is the rather extended treatment of this theme, together with the many details connected with the Day of Atonement ritual, which provides grounds for viewing this writing as written to and for Hebrews. (This letter is the only New Testament writing that explains the ministry of Jesus in terms of a high priesthood.) As one who suffered the round of human experience, Jesus can represent us well since he understands and identifies with our needs; he is before us as a victorious winner and with us as a sympathetic and strategic helper. The believer need only cry out for his assistance.

B. Superiority of the Son over Moses and Joshua (3:1–4:13)

1. The Son Greater Than Servants in the Household (3:1–6)

3:1–6 Having set forth the high rank and great ministry of Jesus on behalf of his people, the writer issues an exhortation “consider Jesus.” That word “consider” (Gk. katanoesate ) was a call to fix the mind and heart upon him. The titles that follow increase the weight of his exampleship and importance for the believer. Jesus is “apostle” and “high priest” of our confession. This introduces a planned comparison between Jesus and Moses, the point being to show that Jesus has a superior ministry to that of Moses. Although both Moses and Jesus held appointments from God, were faithful to their calling, were deliverers of their people, established covenants, were suffering servants, and had face-to-face dealings with God, the ministry of Jesus was superior because he is Son, while Moses was but a servant within the household of God. The confession of the church centers in Jesus, who is God’s superior messenger (“apostle”) and the perfect representative of the needy people (“high priest”). In both instances of service, Jesus acts on behalf of others. Thus, however great others have been in their service for God, Jesus is worthy of greater honor. Problems abound when Jesus is not properly “considered,” when his personhood and ministry are not kept in proper focus. As Son, Jesus presides over the “house[hold] of God” (3:5–6). The belonging is conditional: it happens through faith and steady “confidence and pride in our hope.” A right pride in belonging stimulates faithfulness to the family name and leadership.

2. Exhortation Based on the Contrast (3:7–19)

3:7–19 The second warning section of the letter begins at 3:7–4:2. This section recalls Israel’s failure in the wilderness, and the sad consequences of that failure by a people called by God to live as his nation.

The writer quotes Psalm 95:7–11 as he reported God’s displeasure with the generation that provoked him by its waywardness and sin. It was a generation that lacked a listening ear for God’s word. That generation was united in a shared sin, and its members fell in a shared fate. God let them succeed at sinning, but the gains were fleshly and destructive. The gains of sin are always deadly, making the disobedient losers. God had offered them “rest,” but their sinning blocked the benefits of the offer.

3. The “Rest of God” Explained (4:1–10)

4:1–10 The privilege God offered the earlier generation still remains open. The promise God originally made still holds: one can “enter God’s rest.” Our period of time does not make us “come short” (Gk. husterekenai, “arrive too late”) of it because the promise about “rest” involved something more than settling peacefully in the geographical spot called Canaan. The “good news” about rest involves more than a promised land; it involves a promised life in the will of God. The levels of fulfillment in the promise begin to be experienced when the promise meets with “faith in [on the part of] the hearer.” Israel first heard the promise, which included cessation of warfare after victory over the enemies blocking their entrance into Canaan, but that generation did not even enter Canaan “because of unbelief” (3:19). God was not obligated to bless those who resisted his terms, but neither was he so displeased that he withdrew the offer of rest. A future realization was implied in the promise, and at the highest level of fulfillment. Possessing Canaan was not all that God had in mind for ancient Israel, and salvation here and now is not all that God has planned for believers now, the writer explains. The people of God will enjoy a coming “Sabbath Rest” at the dawning of “another day” (4:8b), the reference here being to the ultimate life with God.

4. Exhortation to Full Obedience (4:11–13)

4:11–13 “Let us be eagerly diligent (Gk. spoudazo, “concentrate with eager interest to succeed”), therefore, to enter into that rest.”

A full striving will mean staying open toward God in heart and mind, with eagerness to hear his word in order to know and do his will. The reference in 4:12–13 to “the word of God” as a confronting sword no doubt recalls the encounter Joshua experienced with the angelic commander of the Lord’s forces just before his attack upon Jericho (Josh 5:13–15). When Joshua realized that he was confronted by the Lord’s angelic messenger, he fell submissively before him, listening for instructions. The writer here appeals to his readers to take the listening posture before the word of God. Openness to that word keeps one on good terms with God, to whom all are unavoidably accountable.

II. Jesus the Great High Priest (4:14—10:39)

A. The Priesthood of Jesus Introduced (4:14–16)