Hebrewess, Hebrew Woman (T.?*), Jer .34', l)t lo'-, in contra-st to slaves of other nationalities. Kx 1'* "'■ I'J 2' [E], in contrast to Egyptians.
A. LUKYN WILLI.VMS.
HEBREW LANGUAGE.— See LANGUAGE.
HEBREWESS.— See Hkbuew. •• HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
t. Aim mill Ct'utrai Iiiea. 11. .Method.
(1) Clirist and Propheta.
(2) Chri.st and Aiif^Is.
(3) Christ and .Mosci.
(4) Christ and .Varon.
(fi) ChrM and .Molchizodek. lit Theolofrlcal Import.
(.1) Chrlstnlofv— (a) Incarnation; (b^ Earthlv Life of .JciHs ; (c) State of Hunilliatlou ; (</) Chrl.ifs Pricsthooil, («) the M.lrhizedek TvTie, (S» the Aaronlc Tvpo ; (f > Theory of Hidemption ; tA) Christ's I'rlesthood In Heaven ; (ff) Salvation. (2) Fatherhood rif God. Iv. Relation to I'hilo V. Relation to St. Paul, vi. Was the Aiuhor .lew or GontUot vll. .lew or Gentile Reader.^? vlll. Location of First Reatlers. Ix. l)Kte. X. .\ilttior. Luerature.
i. AIM AM> Cf.n'TRal Idfa.- This Epistle i.-< one of the most important writings in the NT. It contains a di.stinct type of Christian thought, and In that respect may be clas.sed with the Synoptic (io.spels. the I'auline Epistles, and the (idspcl of John, which al.so contain, each, a dis- tinctive coiueplion of the good that came to the world through Je.sus Christ. It is in aim
• Hommel, loc. ell. pp. l.'iO, Ml.
♦ Or may there have been a temporary and partial attack frnii: tile south early In the wainlerini;.'*, .Hiieli as Nu 'Jll-3 )H-rhaps liiill'ates? .Ii; 11(^21 inav ponslhly refer to (he .same time.
; So llommel, who lijentlllcs the Khtihiri witli those after «liom Mehron was called l.Ij: |I"i. lie thinks It is pniiterlv lilentlCitl with Klieher in (tn 4t'iK, and represclits part uf the tillte of .\sher wiei came Into Palestine tiefore the other II. I.rews {l,v. eil. p •iili).
S Pnifessor Drr (f^ptmifor, March 1S97I arKUea Btronuously tor the llrst years of Amenhotep ll., B.C. I449-UJ3.
•• loiiyriahl, lS»fl, 6k
and method an apologetic writing, intended to help certain ChristiaiLS, who had no true insiglu into the nature and worth of the Christian re- ligion, to reach a better understan<ling of iu excellence, and so to fortify them against tempta- tions to aposta.sy. But the apologetic argument rests on a very definite theological position. The author has a very clear idea of the nature, and a very high estimate of the value, of Chris- tianity, lie attaches to it the value of the perfect and therefore the final religion, and he assigns to it this value because he regards It as the religion of free, unrestricted access tu (iod. This is the central dogmatic thought of the Kplstle. as In- dicated in 7i'\ where Christianity is by implica- tion set forth as the religion of the better hope through lohich loe draw nUjh unto God. No re- ligion, in the WTiter's judgment, can be satis- factory which does not establish intimate relations between God and man. Herein, for him. lies the great Inferiority of Levitlcalism in comparison with Christianity. He conceives of Levitlcalism a.s a religion wlilch kept men at an awful distance, and the veil between the holy and the most holy place Ls in his view the symbol of that radical defect. It is self-evident to him that a religious system which shuts God up in a dark inaccessible shrine cannot be the perfect form of religion. It must evenlually give way to a better. Christianity is that better religion. It knows of no veil, and no inaccessible holy place. Christ Is not tmly a High Priest, but a forerunner, irpidpoiun : where He goes, though it be Into the very presence of God, all believei-s In Him may follow.
II. Mini 10 Ii. — This is the radical con tra.st between Christianity and Levitlcalism. This central con- trast, however. Is suggestive of many others, and the nielhod adopted by the writer in the prose- cution of his apologetic aim is to exhibit in detail the points in which the religion of the NT is superior to that described In the books of Moses. His idea of Christianity is that it is the best possible religion ; but what he sets himself to prove is that it Is better than the Levitlcal religion. It is not ditlicult, however, to read between the lines, and to see behind the apologetic belter the dog- matic best.
The comparison of the two religions runs through the whole theoretic part of the Epistle from 1' to 10". It begins at the circumference and ends a' the centre. The central truth is the prle.'stly performance of Christ by which we are brought into filial relations with God. But the compari- son begins with the agents of rerelatiou, and pri>- ceeds from that starting-point to compare the agents of redemption. Cnder each of these two categories two sets of agents are ascribed to the old religion: prophets and angels under the head of revel.ation, and Moses and Aaron under the head of redemption. Thus there are four separate comparisons to be made — (1) between Christ and prophets. (2) between Christ and angels, (;i) be- tween Christ and Moses, (4) between Christ and Aanui. The first is made in I'-', the second in I'-n. the third in It'-", and the fourth in S'-fl^.
(I) Christ and Prophets. — The contrast is lea.sl emphatic in reference to the prophets, as they might be looked im as beli>ni.'lng in spirit to tin- new liispcnsallon rather than to the olil Levitlcal one. Hut there Is a latent :intllhesls here also, traceable in the words carefully selected to describe pro- phetic revelation, — To\viitpui!, ToXerpiTurt. These adverbs convey the idea ihat the ancient revelation was fragmenliiry (In many parts) and tropical (in many modes') ; and ll Is implied, though not ix- pressly stated, that the revclalloii made by Christ was free from both defect-s — lomplete and real, and therefore final. All this is in effect said by t'harlej Serihnrr't i<oiu