The Letter (Epistle) to the Hebrews
From Brown, R.E., Introduction to the New Testament,
pp 684-704 (footnotes omitted)
Basic Information
General Analysis of the Message
Literary Genre, Structure
The Thought Milieu
By Whom, From Where, and When?
To Which Addressees?
Issues and Problems for Reflection
By all standards this is one of the most impressive works in
the NT. Consciously rhetorical, carefully constructed, ably written in quality
Greek, and passionately appreciative of Christ, Heb offers an exceptional
number of unforgettable insights that have shaped subsequent Christianity.
Yet in other ways Heb is a conundrum. Our treatment of the
Pauline letters usually began with a subsection entitled Background, based on information in the respective letter about the author, locale,
circumstances, and addressees. Heb tells us virtually nothing specific about
any of these issues, and almost all our information pertinent to background
must come from an analysis of the argumentation advanced by the author.
Therefore we shall begin with the General Analysis of the argumentation.
Let me caution that the "Division According to Contents" in the
accompanying Summary Page (used in the. Analysis) is simply a convenient
way of highlighting some of the main ideas. It makes no pretense of being the
structure intended by the author of Heb - for that readers must consult the
first subsection following the Analysis, which treats Literary genre
and structure and pays particular attention to the structure detected by A.
Vanhoye (accepted by many today). Subsequent subsections will be concerned with Thought milieu, By whom/where/when, Addressees, Issues for reflection, and Bibliography.
Basic Information
Date: 60s or more likely 80s.
From: Not specified; greetings extended from "those
from Italy." To: Addressees not identified but, based on content, to
Christians who are attracted by the values of the Jewish cult; surmises would
place them at Jerusalem or Rome, with the latter more likely.
Authenticity: Author not identified; later church
attribution to Paul now abandoned.
Unity and Integrity: Not seriously disputed. Formal
Division: (see p. 690 below for Vanhoye's proposal).
Division According to Contents:
1:1-3: Introduction
1:4-4:13: Superiority of Jesus as God's Son
1:4-2:18:
Over the angels
3:1-4:13:
Over Moses
4:14-7:28: Superiority of Jesus' priesthood
8:1-10:18: Superiority of Jesus' sacrifice and his ministry
in the heavenly tabernacle inaugurating a new covenant
10:19-12:29: Faith and endurance: availing oneself of
Jesus's priestly work
10:19-39:
Exhortation to profit from the sacrifice of Jesus
11:1-40:
OT Examples of faith
12:1-13:
The example of Jesus' suffering and the Lord's discipline
12:14-29:
Warning against disobedience through OT examples
13:1-19: Injunctions about practice
13:20-25: Conclusion: blessing and greetings.
General Analysis of the Message
In the eschatological context of the last days,
the Introduction (1:1-3) immediately
affirms the superiority of Christ over all that has gone before in Israel. The
main contrast is between two divine revelations: one by the prophets and the
other by a preexistent Son through whom God created the world and who has now
spoken to us. The description, in language that may be drawn from a hymn,
shows that the writer
is interpreting Christ against the background of the OT portrayal of divine
Wisdom.
Just as Wisdom is the effusion of God's glory, the spotless
mirror of God's power who can do all things (Ws 7:25-27), God's Son is the
reflection of God's glory and the imprint of God's being, upholding the
universe by his word of power (Heb 1:3). Going beyond the Wisdom pattern,
however, the Son is a real person who made purification for sins; and that
accomplishment is intimately related to the Son taking his seat at the right of
the Majesty.
Superiority of Jesus as God's Son (1:4-4:13).
This
extraordinarily "high" christology is now worked out in the Son's
superiority over the angels and over Moses. Superiority over the angels (1:4-2:18) is
worked out through a chain or catena of seven OT quotations in 1:5-14 that
match the designations of the Son in the introductory description of 1:1-3.
The super-angelic
status of Christ {685} as Son is sublime exaltation indeed, if we remember that
in the Jewish heritage angels were "sons of God," that in DSS two
angels who were respectively the spirits of truth and of falsehood dominated
all humanity, and that angels were the mediators of the Law. Particularly
significant is Heb 1:8-9 in which, employing the words of Ps 45:7-8, the writer
has God address to Jesus words never addressed to an angel: "Your throne,
O God, is forever and ever... therefore (O) God, your God has anointed you with
the oil of gladness" - one of the important NT texts where Jesus is called
God (BINTC 185-87). In NT times there was a danger among some of placing angels
above Christ, but we need to be cautious about assuming that such an error
circulated among the intended audience of Heb To assert the exalted status of
Jesus, superiority over the angels may have seemed to the writer an obvious
illustration.
As frequently in Heb, the descriptive (doctrinal) section
leads into a moral exhortation (2:1-4): If the message of the Law declared by
angels was valid, how can we escape if we neglect the great salvation declared
by the Lord Jesus and "attested to us by those who heard"? (The quoted
clause seems to place the writer of Heb not with the apostolic witnesses but
with the next generation.) One finds introduced in 2:5-18 an outlook that
colors the christology of Heb, viz., combining lowliness and exaltation. Using
Ps 8:5-7 the author points out that God's Son who was for a while made lower
than the angels now has everything subject to him. To a community that is
despondent because of hardship the author holds up in Christ God's plan for
humanity: not exaltation without suffering but exaltation through suffering. If
the exaltation of God's Son was soteriological, he was not concerned with
saving angels. Rather Christ tasted death for every human being; and God has
brought many to glory through Jesus, the pioneer of their salvation made
perfect through suffering (2:10). This theme of the wandering people of God
being led by Jesus the forerunner to the heavenly sanctuary and place of rest
will recur again in 4:11,14 and 6:20. In his role as pioneer the Son partook of the flesh and
blood of the children of God, and was made like his brothers and sisters in
every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest to
make expiation for the sins of the people. Because he himself has suffered and
been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted (2:14-18). This
portrayal, which will be developed in greater detail in chaps. 4-5, represents
one of the great NT testimonies to the incarnation.
Superiority over Moses (3:1-4:13) is exemplified in
3:1-6 by the greater glory of the builder over the house building, of the son
over the servant in a household (cf. Jn 8:35). "The apostle and high
priest of our confession" is {686} another example of the magnificent
titles given to Jesus. In 3:7-4:13 the writer once more turns to exhortations
based on Scripture, but now centered on the exodus of Israel. The Christians
addressed are in danger of growing weary because of discouragement. Those among
the Israelites who were disobedient failed to achieve the goal of entering
God's rest in the Holy Land. Similarly this is a testing for those who believe
in Jesus, as Heb 4:12 makes explicit in one of the most famous passages in the
NT, describing the word of God as sharper than any two-edged sword piercing
even between soul and spirit, able to discern reflections and thoughts of the
heart.
Superiority of Jesus' Priesthood (4:14-7:28).
The opening
verse states the dominant theme: "We have a great high priest who has
passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God." Although Heb and John
share the notion of an incarnation, we do not find in John a description of the
reality of Jesus' humanity comparable to that offered by this section of Heb A
high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, Jesus was tested in
every way as we are, yet without sin (4:15). Like the Israelite high priest
Christ has not exalted himself but was appointed by God, a point illustrated by
royal coronation psalms (5:1-6). Describing Jesus' suffering in the days of his
flesh when he brought prayers and supplications to the One who had the power to
save him from death (5:7-9), the writer affirms that Jesus learned obedience
despite his being Son. (These verses show familiarity with the tradition of
Jesus' passion whereby he prayed to God about his impending death.
When he was made
perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him (cf. Ph
2:8-9).
In 5:11-14 the writer turns again to exhortation, reprimanding
the immaturity of the recipients who can still take only milk, not solid food.
The description of six points of elementary teaching in 6:1-2 is a bit embarrassing for Christians
today - would that many knew even those! That apostasy from Christ is a concern
of the writer becomes clearer in 6:4-8 (also 10:26-31), as he warns that there
is no repentance after being enlightened (i.e., baptized: Jn 9; Justin, Apology 1:61.12;
65:1). Yet he gives rhetorical assurance that he has no doubts about the future
of his addressees, whose loving work will {687} not be overlooked by God
(6:9-12). God is faithful to promises, and that serves as a guarantee for the
effectiveness of Jesus' intercession in the inner heavenly shrine as a high
priest according to the order of Melchizedek (6:13-20). The whole of chap. 7 is
devoted to the superiority of this priesthood possessed by Jesus over the
levitical priesthood (and could be treated with chaps. 8-10 of Heb as well as
with the chaps, that precede). Through the DSS (11 Q Melchizedek) we
have learned more about the mysticism that surrounded Melchizedek as a heavenly
figure. Actually,
however, to understand the argument in Heb little more is needed than the OT
and the rules of contemporary exegesis, e.g., the failure to mention
Melchizedek's ancestry permits one to argue as if he had no father or mother.
Several points constitute the superiority of Melchizedek: He blessed Abraham;
his priesthood was accompanied by the Lord's oath; and above all a priest
according to the order of Melchizedek is eternal (Ps 110:4). There is no longer
a need for numerous (levitical) priests who are replaced after death because
Jesus who has the Melchizedek priesthood continues forever, making intercession
(7:23-25) When he
offered himself, this holy, blameless, undefiled high priest, separated from
sinners and exalted above the heavens, effected a sacrifice that is once for
all (7:26-27).
Superiority of Jesus' Sacrificial Ministry and of the Heavenly
Tabernacle of a New Covenant (8:1-10:18).
The idea that Jesus is a
high priest before God leads to the notion of a heavenly tabernacle. Ex
25:9,40; Ex 26:30, etc., describes how God showed Moses the heavenly model
according to which the earthly tabernacle was built. In Heb 8:2-7 this
antecedent may be influenced by a Platonic scheme of reality in which the
heavenly tabernacle set up by God is true, while the earthly tabernacle is a
copy or shadow. The levitical priests who serve this shadow sanctuary have a
ministry inferior to that of Christ, even as the first covenant is inferior to
the second covenant mediated by Christ. Heb 8:8-13 (see also 8:6), picking up
the language of new covenant from Jr 31:31-34, makes it clear that the first
covenant made with Moses is now old, obsolete, and passing away.
In chap. 9 the writer presents a prolonged comparison between
Jesus' death and the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) carried out in
the transportable sacred edifice of Israel's desert wanderings, the Tabernacle
or Tent {688} with its divisions, curtains, and altars. Although the developed
comparison may stem from the author, the fact that both he (9:5) and Paul (Rm
3:25) appeal to the image of the hilasterion, the place of expiation
where the blood of the sacrifices was sprinkled to wipe out sins,
suggests a wider
awareness that Jesus' death could be compared to levitical sacrifices. What is
unique to Heb is the parallel drawn between the high priest going once a year
into the Holy of Holies with the blood of goats and bulls and Jesus going once
for all into the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood thus ratifying the new covenant. There
he now appears in the presence of God "on our behalf" (9:24); and
having been offered once to bear the sins of many, he will appear a second time
to save those who are eagerly waiting for him (9:28).
The superiority of the sacrifice of Jesus made with his own
blood is reiterated with emphasis in 10:1-18, e.g., "for all time a single
sacrifice for sins" (10:12). The basic thesis is that God prefers
obedience to a multiplicity of sacrifices. The obedience of Jesus' sacrifice is
phrased in 10:5-9 through a passage from Ps 40:7-9: "A body you prepared
for me... Behold I have come to do your will as it is written of me at the head
of the book." This sacrifice has made perfect forever those who are being
given a share in Jesus' own consecration; their sins are forgiven, and so there
is no longer a need for offerings for sin.
Faith and Endurance: Availing Oneself of Jesus' Priestly Work
(10:19-12:29). Through the way opened by Jesus, those whom the writer calls
"brothers" should enter the Holy Place by Jesus' blood with faith,
hope, and love, meeting together as a community (10:19-25). If they sin
deliberately, there is no longer a sacrifice for sins, but horrible punishment:
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God"
(10:26-31).
Yet there
is no reason for discouragement. In times past after they were first converted
and baptized ("enlightened"), they joyfully accepted abuse,
affliction, and persecution. Now again they need endurance and faith so as to
save their souls {689} (10:32-39). In 11:1-40 the writer, having begun by
giving a famous description of faith ("The assurance (or reality) of
things hoped for, the conviction (or evidence) of things not seen"),
launches into a long list of OT figures who had that kind of faith or faithfulness.
At the end (11:39-40),
faithful to his contrast between the old and the new, he points out that all
these people of faith did not receive what had been promised, for "God had
foreseen something better for us, so that without us they should not be made
perfect."
As a transition (12:1-2) the writer urges his readers,
"surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses," to keep their eyes
fixed on Jesus, "the pioneer and per-fecter of faith." In 12:3-13 he
points out that they would not really be God's children without the discipline
of suffering that God applies. Jesus endured great hostility whereas the
readers have not yet endured to the point of shedding their blood. Heb 12:14-29
dramatizes penalties for disobedience from the OT; it ends with the warning that
God is a consuming fire, echoing Dt 4:24.
Final Exhortation (13:1-19).
Containing Heb's only detailed
concrete ethical injunctions, this is the area in which Heb comes closest to
Pauline style. After some imperatives on issues of community life
characteristic in NT works, Heb 13:7 appeals to the faith of past leaders in the
history of the community who preached the gospel. One can appeal to the past because
"Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (13:8) - another
unforgettable example of the eloquence of writer. But the writer also appeals
for obedience to the present leaders who watch over the readers' souls (13:17).
Conclusion (13:20-25). The exhortation closes with a blessing
invoked through "the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord
Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep" (13:20). Amidst the greetings, the
references to Timothy who has been released and those from Italy are some of
the very few clues in Heb as to the place of origin and destination.
Literary Genre, Structure
In 1906 W. Wrede, a distinguished German scholar, published a
work the title of which can be translated "The Literary Riddle of the
Epistle to the {690} Hebrews." H. E. Dana comments, Heb "begins like
a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and closes like an epistle."
Yet there are problems
with the application of each of those genres to Heb Despite its careful
exposition of the superiority of Christ, Heb is not simply a theological treatise. The writer has expounded his doctrine for the apologetic purpose of preventing
the addressees from abandoning faith in Christ in favor of the idealized values
of the Israelite cult. In regard to Heb as a sermon, Heb calls itself a
"word of exhortation" (Heb 13:22), and there are clauses such as
"we are speaking" (Heb 2:5; Heb 5:11; Heb 6:9). Using the categories
of Aristotelian rhetoric (p. 412 above), Attridge (Hebrews 14) states,
"It is clearly an epideictic oration, celebrating the significance of
Christ." But there is also an element of deliberative rhetoric, for Heb
calls for action in terms of faithfulness and perseverance. Today some
distinguish a homily (which is tied closely to the text of Scripture) from a
sermon (which is more topical) - the argumentation in Heb draws heavily on
Scripture. As for being a letter, only the instructions in chap. 13 and,
in particular, the Conclusion in Heb 13:20-25, give Heb a resemblance to
the letter form known from Paul's writings.> Perhaps we should settle for the
relatively simple description of Heb as a written sermon or homily with an
epistolary ending.
The structural analysis of Heb by A. Vanhoye has had wide
influence. Working
with features like catchwords, inclusions (i.e., the end of a section matching
the beginning), alternations of genre, Vanhoye detects an elaborate concentric
composition, consisting of an Introduction (Heb 1:1-4) and Conclusion (Heb
13:20-21), surrounding five chiastically arranged sections
(each of which has several
subsections):
I. Heb 1:5-2:18: The name
superior to the angels (Eschatology)
II. Heb 3:1-5:10: Jesus faithful
and compassionate (Ecclesiology) III. Heb 5:11-10:39: The central exposition
(Sacrifice)
IV. Heb 11:1-12:13: Faith and
endurance (Ecclesiological paraenesis)
V. Heb 12:14-13:19: The peaceful
fruit of justice (Eschatology).
Certainly many of the features Vanhoye points out are present
in Heb; it is a work artistically planned with careful structure. Attridge's
analysis of the {691} structure (Hebrews 19) is heavily influenced by
Vanhoye's; he regards it as a definite advance over simple catalogues of
contents and thematic structures, which, he complains, often focus on
christological affirmations that skew the text by making it primarily a
dogmatic work. Yet concentration on content need not have that result, and too
formal an approach may be in danger of divorcing Heb from the clear apologetic
goal that it seeks to achieve by stressing the superiority of Christ.
Is it a contradiction
to encourage that attention be paid both to a formal approach that respects the
complexity of the work and to a more thematic study? Because this NT Introduction is intended to give a basic familiarity with the contents of each NT book, I
chose to follow a thematic approach in the General Analysis above; but
readers are encouraged to pursue further investigation by availing themselves
of insights from the formal approach.
Thought Milieu
Beyond the issue of structure is the question of the writer's
intellectual milieu and background. We may begin with parallels to Philo. The
writer of Heb manifests allegorical skill in his appeals to Scripture,
a skill similar to that
exhibited by Philo (see Sowers, Hermeneutics) and by the Epistle of
Barnabas. Heb's description of the penetrating power of God's word (4:12)
resembles Philonic language (Quis rerum divinarum heres 26; §130-31). As
with Philo, sometimes the thought categories he employs have parallels in
contemporary philosophy, particularly Middle Platonism (p. 88 above).
This does not mean the
writer of Heb was a formal or well-trained philosopher. He is less thorough in
terms of philosophy and Platonism than is Philo; but he had at least a popular
acquaintance with ideas of his time. In both writers cultic images are used to
symbolize other elements. For Heb 8:5 and Heb 9:23-24 the Israelite sacrifices
and liturgy in the earthly sanctuary are copies or shadows of the corresponding
realities in the heavenly sanctuary, even as the Law is a shadow of the good
{692} things to come (10:1). Yet Heb's contrast between the earthly and the
heavenly in relation to cult does not stem simply from the nature of the
factors involved. In part it stems from the eschatological change introduced by
Christ, and
es-chatology is not one of Philo's (or Plato's) emphases. Thus the relation to
Philo is at most indirect: some of the same thought milieu but no direct
familiarity.
Much more dubious is the attempt to find a gnostic background
in the imagery of Heb Both Bultmann and Käsemann had detected this in the
picture of Jesus the pioneer or forerunner leading the wandering people of God
to their heavenly rest (although Käsemann later acknowledged that the thrust to
find gnostic elements was overdone). In gnostic thought the souls or sparks of
the divine from another world
that are lost in this material world are led by the revelation of the gnostic
redeemer from this world to the world of light. Also there are examples of
dualism in Heb, e.g., the earth below and the heavenly country (Heb 11:15-16);
two ages (Heb 2:5; Heb 6:5; Heb 9:26). There are serious objections to the
gnostic proposal, however. Although we know Middle Platonism existed in the
thought ambiance of the late-lst century world in which Heb was written, we are
not certain how developed or widespread gnosticism was. Dualism was not
confined to gnosticism. The portrait of a pioneer leading the people of God has
a sufficient backdrop in the Moses/Joshua role of leading Israel to the
Promised Land, which is mentioned prominently in Heb Also, the way in which
Jesus played a role as a pioneer was through his suffering (Heb 2:9-10) - a
very ungnostic idea.
After the discovery of the DSS at Qumran there was
considerable enthusiasm for thinking that Heb might be associated with
Christian Jews of that background, indeed, might be addressed to Essene
priests. The DSS
sectarians were fiercely opposed to apostasy, and so those who had become
Christians might have had a guilt complex impelling them to return. The Qumran
community also had a strong priestly and liturgical cast and was very
close-knit; those who had left to follow Christ might have had a deep nostalgia
for what they had left behind. It is generally thought that the Qumranians did
not participate in the cult of the Jerusalem Temple, whence perhaps Heb's
failure to call upon that Temple for its examples. The DSS employ the new
covenant motif even as does Heb Most scholars, however, are skeptical about
Qumran influence on Heb The Qumran Temple Scroll has God direct the
building of the Temple, and so there should have been in Heb no reluctance to
appeal {693} symbolically to an ideal Temple. The writer's idea of Jesus as a
priest according to the order of Melchizedek is almost the opposite of the
Qumran expectation of a priestly Messiah descended from Aaron. As recipients,
Christians from a Qumran ambience are no more plausible a target of Heb than Christians
influenced by another form of Judaism. Attridge (Hebrews 29-30) contends
correctly, "There is no single strand of Judaism that provides a clear and
simple matrix within which to understand the thought of our author or his
text."
Another hypothesis appeals to Ac 6:1-6 (and the sequel
constituted by Stephen's speech in Ac 7) which distinguishes between two
species of Jewish Christians (both of whom made Gentile converts): the
Hellenists who in the person of Stephen took a radically deprecatory stance toward
the Jerusalem Temple (7:47-50), and the Hebrews, who in the person of Peter and
John went regularly to the Temple (3:1). Could the writer of Heb have been a
Hellenist preacher trying to win over Hebrew Christians
to his persuasion? Many think of John
as a Gospel of Hellenist theology, and Heb is close to John in its attitude
toward replacing the Israelite cult. Although (pp. 697-98 below) the title
"To the Hebrews" stems far more likely from an analysis of the
contents, could it have had more literal roots? Albeit attractive, this
hypothesis too remains unprovable.
If the contents do not identify the background of Heb with a
clearly defined vein of thought or ideological group, do other questions
pertinent to Heb help?
By Whom, From Where, and When?
By whom? Some refer to Heb as pseudonymous; but
"anonymous" is more accurate since no claim is made within the work
about its writer. Yet by the end of the 2d century some were attributing Heb to
Paul. Reflecting Alexandrian tradition, Beatty Papyrus 2 (P 46, our earliest
preserved text of the Pauline letters (containing ten addressed to
communities), places Heb after Rm 29. Acceptance as a work of Paul came slower in the Western
church. Both in Alexandria and Rome, however, in official late-4th and
early-5th century canonical lists, Heb was counted within the fourteen Pauline
letters, sometimes placed before the personal letters (1-2 Tim, Titus, Phlm),
more often at the end of the collection. Gradually the name of Paul was introduced
into the title of the work, appearing both in the Vulgate (and English
translations drawn from it) {694} and the KJV. Factors that contributed to the
attribution to Paul include: (a) The appearance of the name of "brother
Timothy" in 13:23- otherwise Timothy's name is found only in Acts and ten
letters of the Pauline corpus, and he is called "brother" by Paul in
1 Thess 3:2; Phlm 1; and 2Co 1:1 (and Col 1:1). Yet Timothy must have been
close to many other Christians as well, (b) The benediction and greetings in
13:20-24 (and to a lesser extent, the ethical imperatives of chaps. 12-13)
resemble a Pauline letter ending, (c) Hab 2:3-4, cited in Heb 10:37-38, is used
by Paul in Ga 3:11; Rm 1:17. Yet the writer of Heb does not relate the passage
to justification by faith rather than by works, which is the Pauline
interpretation, (d) Elements in the phrasing and theology of Heb have parallels
in works bearing Paul's name.
Nevertheless, the evidence against Paul's writing Heb is
overwhelming. The elaborate, studied Greek style is very different from Paul's,
as Clement and Origen already recognized. Common Pauline expressions
("Christ Jesus," some ninety times) never appear in Heb More
important, the outlook is not Paul's. Whereas the resurrection is a major
factor in Paul's theology, in Heb it is mentioned only once (13:20, in a
subordinate clause); and conversely the major Heb theme of Christ as high
priest does not appear in Paul. Paul denied that he received his gospel from
other human beings; God revealed the Son to him (Ga 1:11-12). How could he have
written that the message was declared first by the Lord "and attested to
us by those who heard" (Heb 2:3)?
Among those who do not accept Pauline authorship,
the two most common
suggestions for authorship involve a known companion of Paul or a figure
totally unknown, with the latter as the most common choice. The most learned
figure of the patristic era, Origen, was content to leave anonymous the actual
writer (whom he thought a possible secretary of Paul), remarking that only God
knew who wrote Heb Others made guesses about the writer or (if they assumed he
was Paul) about the secretary he employed. Tertullian attributed Heb to
Barnabas; and, in fact, the early-2d century Epistle of Barnabas has an
Alexandrian style of allegory similar to that of Heb However, that
"epistle" is also anonymous, and the attribution of it to Barnabas is
no more solid than the attribution of Heb to Paul. Other ancient attributions
of Heb were to Luke and {695} Clement of Rome. Luther attributed it to Apollos,
described in Ac 18:24
with attributes that could fit the writer (a Jew, a native of Alexandria,
eloquent, well versed in the Scriptures); and that suggestion has attracted a
considerable following. Priscilla and Aquila had contact with Apollos (Ac
18:26), and each of them has been proposed as writer. Silas and Philip have
also been suggested.33
We have to be satisfied with the irony that the most
sophisticated rhetorician and elegant theologian of the NT is an unknown. To employ
his own description of Melchizedek (7:3), the writer of Heb remains without
father or mother or genealogy. The quality of his Greek and his control of the
Scriptures in Greek suggest that he was a Jewish Christian with a good
Hellenistic education and some knowledge of Greek philosophical categories. His
allegorical style of hermeneutics has parallels in Philo and in Alexandrian
interpretation; but that interpretation was taught elsewhere, and so the claim
that the writer of Heb came from Alexandria is unproved. Those from whom he
learned about Christ (2:3) may have had a theological outlook similar to that
of the Hellenist movement and its freer attitude toward the Jewish cultic
heritage.
From where? The dubious thesis that Heb was written from
Alexandria would be of little service in any case, for we know nothing of the
origins of the Christian church in Alexandria. The argumentation in Heb based
on the Jewish liturgy and priesthood has made Jerusalem or Palestine a more
prominent candidate. (Yet Heb's presentation of the liturgy reflects
"book-knowledge" of the LXX more than attendance at the Jerusalem
Temple, which is never mentioned.) As we saw above, parallels have been found
between the attitude of Stephen, the Hellenist leader at Jerusalem, and that of
the writer of Heb; both depend heavily on the Scriptures and distrust a divine
house made with hands.
Actually, however, according to Ac 8:4; Ac 11:19, the Hellenists functioned
mostly outside Jerusalem and even outside Palestine. The greetings extended to
the readers from "those who come from Italy" (Heb 13:24) reminds some
of the presence of Roman Jews at Jerusalem on Pentecost (Ac 2:10); and indeed,
if the letter was addressed to Roman Christians, Ac 28:21 suggests frequent
correspondence between Judea and Rome. Nevertheless, {696} theories about the
place whence Heb was sent are almost as much a guess as theories about the
writer.
When? This question is partially related to the answer to the
previous questions. At the lower end of the spectrum, the writer of Heb does
not belong to the first generation of Christians since apparently he is
dependent on those who heard the Lord (Heb 2:3); and his readers/hearers have
been believers for a while (Heb 5:12; Heb 10:32). At the upper end, a limit is
set by/ Clement 36:1-5 (probably written in the late 90s, but not later
than 120) which echoes Heb 1:3-5,7,13. Thus the most frequent range suggested for the writing
of Heb is ad 60 to 90, with scholars divided as to whether it should be dated
before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (hence to the 60s) or after
(hence to the 80s). If Paul, Apollos, Aquila, or Priscilla wrote the work, a
date no later than the 60s would be suggested since most of them would have
been dead by the 80s. The release of Timothy (from captivity: 13:23), a
seemingly historical factor, is not an obstacle to a later date; for Timothy
was younger than Paul (see p. 655 above) and could well have lived into the
80s.
The main supporting factor for dating in the 60s is the
silence of Heb about the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (ad 70). A
reference to that destruction could have reinforced the writer's thesis that
Jesus replaced the Jewish liturgy, priesthood, and holy place. However, nowhere
in the letter does the writer show any interest in the Temple (and it may not
have been the major holy place for him since in the OT God did not command that
it be built); thus we have no way to know how its destruction would have fitted
into his argumentation. The references to the cult in the present tense (Heb
8:3; Heb 9:7; Heb 13:11) do not prove that sacrifices are continuing in the
Temple; for
Josephus' Ant, written twenty years after the destruction of the Temple,
also uses the present tense.
A supporting factor for a writing date in the 80s is the
strong emphasis on the replacement of the Jewish feasts, sacrifices,
priesthood, and earthly place of worship - indeed the first or old covenant is
being replaced by the new (8:7-8,13). The earlier Christian picture had been
one of radically renewing the institutions of Israel; but after 70 and the
destruction of the Temple the perception changed, as can be witnessed in John
(pp. 334, 344). Christ was now seen to have replaced what went before.
Similarly it was in the last third of the century that the custom of using
"God" for Jesus became more prominent. However, although
theologically Heb seems more at home in the 80s, one must {697} recognize that
an argument for dating that draws on comparative theology is very weak, since "advanced"
theological insights did not all come at the same time in every place. Nothing
conclusive can be decided about dating, but in my judgment the discussion about
the addressees into which we now enter favors the 80s.
To Which Addressees?
Let us begin with the letter's title. Most scholars agree that
the title "To the Hebrews" was not supplied by the author. Yet
it appears in Beatty Papyrus 2 (P 46), the oldest ms. we possess, and was
already in use ca. 200 in Egypt and North Africa. (No other rival title
has ever appeared as a destination.) Almost certainly it represents a
conjecture attached to the work because of an analysis of the contents that
deal so largely with Israelite cult.
What can be determined about the addressees and their locale
from the contents of Heb? Three stages are reflected in the letter,
the first two of which
are in the past, (a) At the beginning, in the author's estimate, they were
properly enlightened (and baptized into Christ; see p. 686 above). The
community received the Christian message from evangelists whose work was
accompanied by the working of miracles. The activity of the Holy Spirit was
part of that experience (Heb 2:3-4; Heb 6:4-5). Whether through Jewish
upbringing or through Christian evangelization the addressees valued the
religious wealth of Judaism. The argumentation supposes that the community of
Christians who read/ heard Heb would understand allusive reasoning based on the
Jewish Scriptures
and had both a good knowledge of and favorable attitude toward the cultic
liturgy of Israel, (b) Then (how soon?) they were afflicted by some type of
persecution, hostility, and/or harassment (10:32-34). They were deprived of
property, and some were put in prison. Imprisonment suggests the involvement of
local officials against the Christians.
(c) By the time Heb is written the crisis of active
persecution seems to have passed, but there is ongoing tension and despondency,
and future danger. Abuse from outsiders is still an issue (13:13), but more
seriously members of the group are becoming "dull" and
"sluggish" (Heb 5:11; Heb 6:12) and have wrong ideas. An exaggerated
nostalgia for the Jewish roots of the Christian proclamation seems to be part
of the picture. Specifically, the author thinks that some put too much value on
the Israelite cultic heritage, not appreciating the enormous change brought
about God through Christ whereby what belongs to the {698} old covenant is
passing away. Furthermore, it seems that there were even some in danger of
abandoning altogether the riches brought to them by faith in Christ. Apparently
those affected by this outlook had already ceased meeting together in prayer
with other Christians (10:25). The arguments advanced in Heb about the
superiority of Christ
(especially over Moses) and the replacement of the Jewish sacrifices and high
priesthood, along with the exhortations that accompany these arguments, are
meant both to inculcate a proper understanding of the gospel and to discourage
any backsliding. The author warns sternly about the difficulty of receiving
forgiveness for a deliberate sin committed after receiving knowledge of the
(Christian) truth. He uses the example of endurance during past persecution to
encourage steadfastness now, amidst present hostility which may well increase.
What emerges from an analysis of the letter about the history
of the addressees is very general; and so the Christian community of almost
every city in the ancient world has, at one time or another, been suggested as
the destination of Heb The greatest attention, however, has been on Jerusalem
and Rome. The suggestion about the Jerusalem area is related to the
assumption that the addressees were Jewish Christians who were constantly
tempted to return to their ancestral religion by the attraction of the Temple
liturgy and sacrifices which they could see continuing in Jerusalem. In this
theory a Christian in Italy, who was writing to these Jewish Christians living
in Palestine or Jerusalem to urge them not to abandon Christ, included
greetings from "those from Italy" (13:24). By way of evaluation, the
idea that some of the addressees were Christians of Jewish ancestry is not
implausible. Yet Gentile Christians often shared the mentality of the strain of
Jewish Christians who converted them (p. 301 above); and so it is quite
possible that a mixed community of Christians was addressed, rather than simply
Jewish Christians. The idea that the proximity of the Temple constituted the
magnet drawing the addressees to the Israelite cult fails to take into account
that there is no reference to the Temple in Heb, and that a book-knowledge of
the LXX Scriptures could supply Heb's picture of the cult. Indeed, the failure
to mention the Temple militates against Jerusalem/Palestine as the place
addressed. Moreover, how would the persuasive thrust of Heb fit what we know of
Jerusalem Christians? Our evidence suggests that, after the Hellenists were
driven out ca. ad 36, Jewish Christians in Jerusalem did worship in the
Temple (Ac 21:23-24,26); and so, if Heb was written to them before 70, why
would they need a directive not to return to what they had given up? If Heb was
written after 70, how could Christians return to a sacrificial cult that no longer
functioned? {699}
Some difficulties are avoided by the subthesis that Heb was
addressed to a special Jerusalem group, e.g., to converted priests (Ac 6:7) who
presumably would not have been allowed to offer sacrifice after professing
Jesus, or to the Jewish Christians who fled from Jerusalem in the 60s rather
than join the revolt against Rome and could no longer go daily to the Temple.
Yet even with those groups could a second-generation Christian, not of
apostolic rank, writing in the 60s, have hoped that his corrective or
dissuasive would be influential in a city where James, the brother of the Lord
and faithful adherent of the Jewish cult, had such eminence? Why would the
author compose in elegant Greek a dissuasive to Jewish Christian priests
who would have known Hebrew as part of the liturgy, or to Jewish Christians of
Judea for whom Hebrew or Aramaic would have been a native language?
The theory that Heb was addressed to the Christian community
in the Rome area41 is more recent (seemingly first proposed about 1750).
What factors favor it? Ac 18:2 implies that Jewish Christians were among Jews
expelled from Rome under Claudius (ca. ad 49?); and so no matter whence Heb was
sent to Rome, there could have been Christians from Italy42 42 to send back greetings. The reference
to past sufferings and imprisonment of the community addressed (10:32-34) could
make excellent sense if Heb was written to Rome in the 80s, for the Roman
Christians had been fiercely persecuted by Nero in 64-68 when both Peter and Paul
died there. Heb's challenge to the present generation of addressees, "You
have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood" (12:4), may suggest
a date before the 90s when under the Emperor Domitian investigations of
exclusive Oriental cults endangered Christians (pp. 805-9 below).
The parallels between themes in Paul's letter to the Romans ca. 58 and Heb could be explained if Heb were written to the same community a
decade or two later. Of all Paul's letters Rm is the most sensitive to the
values of Judaism; it {700} also uses a considerable amount of Jewish
liturgical language (p. 563 above). Heb could have been written to correct
exaggerations in those attitudes. Paul urged the Romans (12:10) to be leaders (prohegoumenoi)
of one another in honor. Heb 13:7 refers to the leaders (hegoumenoi) of
the addressees who in the past set an example by "the outcome of their
conduct" (their death? martyrdom?) and faith (those who died under Nero?),
and 13:17 refers to leaders at the time of writing (80s?) who are accountable
for the care of souls. I Clement 21:6, written from Rome ca. 96-120, speaks of honoring "our leaders." There are also parallels
between Heb and 1 Peter, written from Rome; but we shall reserve those to the
next Chapter where the thought-background of 1 Peter will be discussed.
A major argument for a Roman destination is that knowledge of
Heb was attested at Rome earlier than at any other place. As we saw in
discussing dating, a passage from Heb is cited in I Clement written in
Rome and thus within a relatively short time after the writing of Heb being
written. In mid-2d century Justin, writing at Rome, shows knowledge of Heb One
cannot explain this easily by claiming that Heb was known in Rome because it
had been sent from that city, for writers of the Roman church have views
different from those in Heb.
More probable is the view that Heb, designed as a corrective work, was received
by the Roman church but not enthusiastically appropriated there. Indeed, such
an explanation is almost necessitated by Rome's attitude toward the canonical
status of Heb Even though Alexandrian and Eastern knowledge of Heb is first
attested nearly a century after Roman knowledge,
the letter was accepted as canonical
in the East rather quickly and attributed to Paul. Apparently Rome did not
accept such an attribution, for throughout the 2d century. Roman writers fail
to list Heb as Scripture or among the letters of Paul.
One may theorize that the Roman
community which first received Heb knew that it did not come from Paul but from
a second-generation Christian teacher. Although he was worthy of respect, he
did not have the authority of an apostle (an attitude understandable in a
church priding itself in having two apostolic "pillars," Peter and
Paul (1 Clement 5:2-7)). Trinitarian controversies helped to change the
picture, for Heb (especially 1:3) was invaluable in the orthodox defense of the
full divinity of Christ against the Arians. Then the opinion that {701} Paul
wrote Heb won the day in the larger church (ca. 400), and Rome was
willing to accept it as the fourteenth letter of the apostle.
I have gone into the subject of addressees at greater length
because it is more important than when and from where Heb was written. If Heb
was written to Rome, addressing a generation later than that which received Rm
and just before the generation reflected in 1 Clement, we have an
insight into the ongoing struggles of a Christian community that proved to be
one of the most important in the history of Christianity.
Issues and Problems for Reflection
(1) The (high) priesthood of Jesus Christ is a major theme of
Heb. To some
extent this development is a surprise since the historical Jesus was emphati
cally a layman, critical to some degree of Temple procedure and treated with
hostility by the Temple priesthood. The solution of Heb that his was a priest
hood according to the order of Melchizedek may be original, but the idea of
Jesus' priesthood is found in other NT works, chiefly in relation to his death.
In particular, Jn 10:36 and 17:19 use in reference to Jesus "consecrate,
make holy," the verb employed by Ex 28:41 for Moses' consecration of
priests. Many think that the description of the seamless tunic stripped from
Jesus be fore he died was influenced by the tunic of the Jewish high priest
(Josephus, Ant. 3:7.4;§161).
Does the idea of Jesus' priesthood stem from picturing his death as a
self-offered expiatory sacrifice? Rm 3:25 describes Christ in this way (see
also 1 Jn 2:2).
(2) After reflecting on the texts in the preceding paragraph,
one may ask how the appropriation of Israelite liturgical language (Tabernacle,
Temple, priest hood, sacrifices, feasts) for Jesus affects the use of that
language for later Christians. The attitude has not always been consistent.
Even some literalist groups do not mind speaking of the church or the Christian
community as a temple; the language of tabernacle or temple is used for the
Christian meeting house by groups that proclaim themselves Bible Christians.
Many have no ob jection to the description of Holy Thursday/Easter as a
Christian Passover. Yet they may reject vigorously the terminology of sacrifice
and priest in Christian {702} cult, despite the fact that already ca. 100 Didache 14 finds Mai 1:11 ("pure sacrifice") fulfilled in
the eucharist. In loyalty to the once-for-all outlook of Heb, churches that do use sacrificial terminology often stress that the eucharist is no new sacrifice
but the liturgical making-present of the sacrifice of Christ. Although already ca. 100 I Clement 40:5; 42:1,4 juxtaposed the Jewish high priest, priest,
and levite to Christ, the bishop, and the deacon, the first clear use of
"priest" for the principal Christian eucharistic minister (the
bishop) comes at the end of the 2d century.
By the 4th century all eucharistic
ministers were considered to be Christian priests, sharing in Christ's
priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. It is worth reflecting on
what values the use of Israelite cultic language preserves, and the problems it
raises. (See pp. 722-23 below for the priesthood of believers.)
(3) A somewhat different issue is raised by comparing Heb with
other NT thought on the eucharist. Except for a possible reference in 9:20, Heb
does not mention the eucharist; but it seems most unlikely that the author
would not have known of it. Is the silence accidental? In other NT thought, Lk
22:19; 1 Co 11:24-25, "Do this in remembrance of me," and 1 Co 11:26
, "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
death of the Lord until he comes" imply an ongoing eucharistic ritual
re-presenting the sacrifical death of Jesus. How would the author of Heb with
his idea of a once-for-all offering of Christ (Heb 7:27) have reacted to that
view? A few radical scholars have argued that Heb was written in part to reject
an ongoing eucharistic cult. Scholars also debate whether for Heb the one
sacrificial offering of Jesus on the cross continues in heaven, the sphere of
the eternal. In that case may we do justice to the thought of Heb by suggesting
that the eucharist should be seen as an earthly participation in that continued
sacrifice?
(4) Even though continuity is not totally rejected, more
specifically than any other NT work, Heb speaks of the obsolescence of the diatheke, "covenant," that God made with Moses, e.g., 8:13.
That covenant is becoming obsolete,
growing old, ready to vanish away (also 10:9: He takes away the first in order
to establish the second). In the opposite direction some today would com
pletely do away with the terminology "Old" and "New" in
reference to either covenant or testament, substituting "First" and
"Second," or "Israelite" and {703} "Christian."
Does that shift render
justice to the various insights about newness in the NT (especially with its
references to "new covenant") that do not have the connotation of
replacing the obsolescent? On a deeper level many Christian theologians deny
that the covenant of God with Israel (through Abraham? through Moses?) has
become obsolescent or been replaced. In its declaration Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council 2 warned "the Jews should not be presented as rejected...
by God, as if such views followed from the Holy Scriptures." Leaving aside
all connotations of rejection, however, how should Christians react to the covenant
between God and Moses? Can they say that it is still valid and yet, in loyalty
to Paul and Heb, not be bound by its demands?
(5) At the time Heb was written, the
Tabernacle had not existed in Israel for a thousand years. Why does the author
of Heb draw his analogies from the Tab- ernacle or Tent (e.g., chap. 9) rather
than from the Temple? Was his choice dictated by the fact that God was
portrayed as instructing Moses how to build the Tabernacle (Ex 25-26) whereas
God was not reported in the OT as dictating how to build the Solomonic Temple
(2 Ch 2-3) or the Second Temple after the Exile (Ezr 3)?
Moreover, the Temple had been
subjected to considerable prophetic correction, and that had not been true of
the desert Tabernacle. Also, even though God had dictated how to build the
earthly Tabernacle, it no longer existed; that fact may have served the author
as a model for reasoning how the levitical sacrifices and priesthood might
cease to exist even though God had dictated their performance. Finally, the
Tabernacle was the sacred cultic place for Israel in its desert wanderings, and
Heb is addressed to Christians depicted as a wandering people on its way to
heavenly rest. Jesus could be portrayed as entering the heavenly sanctuary of
which the earthly Tabernacle was only a copy and preparing the way for people
to follow. |
These Courses