Hebrews, EPISTLE TO THE. The title of the epistle in the earliest MSS. is simply 'To Hebrews.' This title is probably not from the hand of the writer, but due to some copyist who embodied the writing among others. The term 'Hebrews' is a national title given to all those descended from Abraham, in opposition to Gentiles or Greeks (2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5; cf. Heb. ii. 16); or in a narrower sense it is applied to Jews still speaking a Semitic language, in opposition to Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jews (Acts, vi. 1). It is probably used in the more general sense here, and the title merely suggests, what is evident, that the epistle was addressed to persons of Jewish descent. The opinion that the letter was addressed to Hebrews in general, wherever they might be, cannot well be maintained, owing to the many local and personal references, and the details of history given by the author. He hoped to see the Hebrews soon, as he had been with them before (xiii. 19, 23). In their earlier history they had suffered persecution and the spoiling of their goods (x. 32), some of them had been or were in bonds (xiii. 3, x. 34), although their afflictions had not yet gone so far as martyrdom (xii. 4), unless it may be that some of those having the rule over them had so suffered (xiii. 7). Their circumstances and the lapse of time, and probably also the disappointment of their hopes of the coming again of Christ (x. 37), had not been without a wearing effect upon them; their Christian enthusiasm had grown cold (x. 25), and they had not advanced, or rather had fallen back, in their Christian knowledge and experience (v. 11-14); and though distinguished by liberality to their poorer brethren, as they had always been (vi. 10), they were wavering in their faith, and in danger of falling away from it (ii. 1-3, iii. 12, vi. 4, x. 25-29); they had need of patient endurance (x. 36, xii. 1 et seq.) and fear lest any of them should seem to come short of the rest of God (iv. 1, xii. 15). Terrible warnings are uttered by the author in regard to the sin of apostasy and the impossibility of recovering to the faith those who fall away after being enlightened (vi. 4-8, x. 26-31, xii. 15-17), although that for which they were in danger of renouncing their Christian faith is nowhere distinctly stated. From the general drift of the epistle, however, it may be inferred that what the author feared was a relapse into Judaism, and hence he exhorts them to break conclusively with the old dispensation and go forth without the camp (xiii. 9-14).
The question of the locality where persons having such a history and living in such circumstances must be sought has been very differently answered. The traditional view has been, under the assumption of the Pauline authorship of the epistle, that the church in Jerusalem was addressed. And perhaps this is still the prevailing opinion. There are, however, serious obstacles in the way of this opinion. The church in Jerusalem must have still contained many who had seen and heard the Lord, while those here addressed had only been evangelised by those who heard him (ii. 3). Such facts as these: that the epistle is in Greek, and by a writer who knows the Scriptures only in Greek, and who, though hardly a native of Palestine, stands in such relations to the Hebrews as he does; that they are interested in Timothy, the devoted minister of St Paul (xiii. 23); that the church, so far from being poor, is able to minister to the necessities of the saints (vi. 10); and that the author seems to count upon the sympathy of his readers with his advanced views—these facts are rather against Jerusalem. On the other hand, the idea that the Hebrews must have been exposed to the seductions of an imposing ritual, which could only be the Temple service, has little support in the epistle. The author's references to the Old Testament ritual are purely theoretical, and have no bearing on the existing practices; he reasons entirely on the written scripture, on Judaism as founded by Moses, and his arguments would be understood by Jews everywhere, as the system of thought and the feelings against which he directs them were common to them in all places. Others have thought of Alexandria. The author is certainly a man of Alexandrian culture, and the line of thought he pursues would be very natural if addressed to Alexandrian Jews. It is almost a fatal objection to this view, however, that, though the epistle was early known and highly valued in the church of Alexandria, not a trace of a tradition appears that they were the recipients of it. Clement believed that the epistle was written in Hebrew, and addressed to Jerusalem by St Paul. In modern times some have advocated the claims of Rome. The first references to the epistle are found in the letter of the Roman Clement to the Corinthians (c. 96 A.D.). The consistent tradition in Rome, too, is that the epistle is not by St Paul; and the reference to Timothy, and to those of Italy (xiii. 24) would, on this view, find a natural explanation, and also, perhaps, some remarkable coincidences between the epistle and that to the Romans. The Church of Rome, however, must have always been greatly Gentile, and references like xiii. 7, 17 preclude the idea that a Jewish section of a church was addressed.
The authorship of the epistle is involved in equal obscurity. In the earliest times opinion was divided. In Rome and the West the consistent tradition is that the epistle is not Pauline. In Africa Tertullian refers to it as by Barnabas (De Paudie., c. 20). In Alexandria and the East, on the other hand, it is regarded as Pauline, either immediately, or mediately through a translator (Clement), or some one who had given the Pauline thoughts form and expression (Origen). Augustine gave in to the Alexandrian view, and since his time the Pauline authorship was accepted in the West. At the Reformation Luther suggested Apollos as the author; and Calvin either Luke or Clement of Rome. Modern scholarship is virtually unanimous in the opinion that the epistle is not from the hand of St Paul. This view is based on many things, as upon the language, which is purer Greek than any other New Testament writing; upon the rhetorical, rhythmical, and flowing style, and the carefully planned and systematic form of the treatise, which has none of the abruptness and sudden transitions characteristic of the Pauline writings; upon the fact that the author appears to be ignorant of Hebrew, quoting always the Septuagint, and basing his reasoning on its renderings, even when it deviates from the Hebrew; upon the different formulas employed in citing Scripture; and particularly upon the author's system of thought, which reflects Alexandrian Jewish philosophy in some places, and which, though reaching the same conclusion with St Paul that Christianity has fulfilled and superseded the old economy, reaches it by a different road. The place of St Paul's circle of legal ideas—guilt, satisfaction, imputation, justification by faith—is taken by a circle of ideas having reference to worship of God: sin is uncleanness hindering the sinner from drawing nigh to God; the blood of Christ purifies the conscience so as to serve the living God (ix. 14); hence redemption is conceived as the work of a perfect High-priest. Faith is generalised into a realising of the unseen (chap. xi.); and the Spirit does not appear to occupy the place he has in the Pauline writings as the source of the new Christian life. Modern scholarship has not succeeded in suggesting any new name as author of the epistle, opinions being divided in favour of Apollos, Barnabas, Clement, Luke, and Silas.
It has been thought that if Jerusalem had fallen before the author wrote he would certainly have used this fact to support his teaching that Judaism had been transfigured into Christianity, and consequently that the epistle dates before 70 A.D., probably about the beginning of the Jewish war (67 A.D.). It must be acknowledged that owing to the author's theoretical method of reasoning on Judaism, which would apply to it whether the temple and ritual remained or not, this argument is not very strong, and others prefer a later date. The epistle is largely used in Clement's Epistle, which is usually assigned to about 96 A.D.
The persons to whom the epistle is addressed being such as above described, its theme is, the finality of Christianity as a religion. This finality is shown by a continuous contrast with Judaism. The contrast has three main steps, which move, so to speak, backwards or inwards, accompanied always by earnest exhortation. (1) Chap. i.-ii., Christ, the Son, exalted because of death to be head of the new world of redemption. Contrast with angels. (2) Chap. iii.-iv. 13, Christ, the Son, the faithful leader into the rest of God. Contrast with Moses and Joshua. (3) Chap. iv. 14-x. 18, Jesus, the Son of
God, the heavenly High-priest, and true sacrifice. Contrast with Aaron, with the earthly tabernacle, and with the sacrifices of bulls and goats. On this follows a splendid passage of exhortation (chap. x. 19-xii. 29) on the application and personal appropriation of the truths just taught. And finally (chap. xiii.), a more personal conclusion.
See the commentaries by Bleek (3 vols. 1828-40), the same, Commentary (1 vol. 1868); Tholuck (3d ed. 1850); Delitzsch (1857, trans. Clark); M. Stuart (new ed. 1876); Biesenthal (1878); Angus (1883); Lowrie (N.Y. 1884); A. B. Davidson, (Clark, Handbooks); Keil (1885); Lünemann (in Meyer, Eng. trans.); Weiss (in Meyer, 1888); Rendall (1888); Edwards (1888, Expositor's Bible); Westcott (1889); Lange (Eng. trans.); also Riehm, Lchrbegriff des Hebrüerbriefs (1859). Full literature in Lange's Commentary (Clark).