1. Roeth believes it to have been sent to the church at Ephesus; Baumgarten Crusius, to the joint church of the Ephesians and Colossians,
2. Under the second class, Jewish believers generally, or in Asia Minor, or Spain, or Rome, or Alexandria, or elsewhere, have been named as the parties to whom it was addressed.
3. The authorities in favour of the third view are numerous, consisting of the great majority both of the ancient fathers and modern critics. The reasons for this opinion are,—(1.) The weight of ancient authority; for it is sipported by the testimony of Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and the great body of the fathers. (2.) The in- scription which the Epistle bears,—Ipds ‘E€peiovs. Credner and Bleek regard this title or inscription as proceeding from the author of the Epistle; and though this view should be rejected, the antiquity of the inscription is beyond doubt, as it was known to the fathers of the second century, and appears in such ancient versions as the Vetus Itala, and the Peshito. The word ‘E€pz/ovs is, however, of uncertain application, de- noting, according to New Testament usage, either Hebrews by religion and nation, as in Phil. iii. 5, 2 Cor. xi, 22, or the Jews of Palestine who used the Aramzan language, in opposition to the Hellenists,—Jews born out of Palestine, and using chiefly the Greek language, as in Acts yi. 1, The analogy of the title of an early Gospel, whether a separate Gospel or an Arameean original of Matthew's Gospel, Eiayyéasoy xal? “EEpaious, is conceived to fix the meaning of the term in the latter sense, as it is used in the in- scription to the Epistle. (8.) Zhe general tenor of the Epistle, as it contains no allusions to any previous heathenism on the part of those to whom it was addressed, and no dis- cussion of the points on which controversy at one time prevailed between the Gentile and Jewish Christians; it presupposes familiar knowledge of the rites and services of the temple on the part of its readers, and warns them against the temptation to which they were specially exposed,—apostasy to Judaism, in consequence of the powerful hold which the Levitical worship, in daily observance before them, had upon their earliest associa. tions. (4.) Particular references which occur in the Epistle. In ch. xiii. 12, “ Without the gate” is a phrase which a Jew resident in Palestine could alone fully understand; in ch. x. 82-84, the persecution alluded to accords with what we know of the sufferings of the primitive Christians in Jerusalem; in ch. ix, 5, “ It is not necessary,” seems to imply a local and personal acquaintance which the readers were presumed to possess of the objects to which reference is made.
SECT. 1.] ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 119
The main objection to this view rests on an alleged discrepancy between ch. xii. 4, and Acts viii. 1-8, and xii. 1. It is said that those to whom the Epistle was sent had “not yet resisted unto blood,” while both Stephen and James had suffered martyrdom. The persecution in which these saints fell happened in a.p. 38, and a.p. 44. Be- fore the Epistle was written, there was time for another generation to arise, to whom the language might apply with sufficient accuracy, ‘“‘ Ye have not yet resisted unto blood.”
4. Moses Stuart assigns reasons for supposing Cxsarea to have been the place where the church of Jewish converts existed to whom the Epistle was sent. Paulwas not its first teacher, and no such claim is urged in the Epistle. He had many opportunities for becoming acquainted with the Christians there, Acts ix, 30, xviii. 22, xxi. 8-18, xxiv. 28,27. The city was inhabited by rich Jews, who, if converted, might have become liable to spoliation, Heb. x.34, Grecian games were celebrated in this city, and hence such allusions as occur in ch. x. 82, xii, 1. Timothy is mentioned in the Epistle, and Timothy was with Paul at Caesarea. Czesarea was but two days’ journey from Jerusalem, and the Jews residing in it could understand the temple-service as clearly. as the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves,
Dr Dayidson argues that the church in Caesarea would in all probability have a large proportion of Gentile converts, and it is certain that the first convert in Czesarea was Cornelius, a Gentile proselyte, Acts x. He inclines to the opinion that Jerusalem was the church which first received the Epistle.
EXERCITATION VI. ONENESS OF THE CHURCH.
1. Oneness of the church—Mistake of the Jews about the nature of the promises. 2. Promise of the Messiah the foundation of the church; but as including the covenant. 3. The church confined unto the person and posterity of Abraham—His call and separation for a double end. 4. Who properly the seed of Abraham. 5. Mistake of the Jews about the covenant. 6. Abraham the father of the faithful and heir of the world, on what account. 7. The church still the same.
1. Tue Jews at the time of writing this Epistle (and their pos- terity in all succeeding generations follow their example and tradi- tion) were not a little confirmed in their obstinacy and unbelief by a misapprehension of the true sense and nature of the promises of the Old Testament; for whereas they found many glorious pro- mises made unto the church in the days of the Messiah, especially concerning the great access of the Gentiles unto it, they looked upon themselves, the posterity of Abraham, on the account of their being his children according to the flesh, as the first, proper, and indeed only subject of them; unto whom, in their accomplishment, others were to be proselyted and joined, the substance and foundation of the church remaining still with them. But the event answered not their expectation. Instead of inheriting all the promises merely upon their carnal interest and privilege,—which they looked for, and continue so to do unto this day,—they found that themselves must come in on a new account, to be sharers in them in common with others, or be rejected whilst those others were admitted unto the inheritance. ‘This filled them with wrath and envy; which greatly