Our author is in thorough sympathy with St. Paul's conception of Christianity as a spiritual reliijian. He sees not less clearly than the apostle the utter worlhle.ssness of rites ami ceremonies, except as a shadow of good things to come. He makes no allnsicm to circumcision, but doubtless he would h;vve been in full sympathy with the Pauline polemic against those who attached re- ligious value to that rite. His own controversy is with those who attach overweening imiiortance to Levitical ceremonial ; but it is not less thorough- going than the apostle's, and it rests upon the same principles and postulates.
< luce more, our autlio" is at one with St. Paul in his conception of Christianity as a religion ot free grace. His own conception of it as the religion of unrestricted access to God is an exact equivalent. It is the same truth set in a different aiaithesis. St. Paul opposed grace to legal works, our author opposes the privilege of free access to the distance at which Levitical regulations kept worshippers from God. The counsel ' Draw near' presupjioses a gracioiLs Father to be aj)- proached, from whom all spiritual good may be confidently expected: pardon of sin, seasonable succour in all times of temptation. In Hebrews as in Uom. and Gal. salvation is a free gift.
vi. Was tiik Atrnoi: Ji;\v oi: (iiiXTii.K? — Whether the author of our Kpistle was a born Jew or a Gentile cannot be decided. The style and the rhetorical structure of the writing make for the latter alternative, the familiarity with Jewish in- stitutions for the former. Both might be com- bined in a Jew of Alexandrian Hellenistic culture like Apollos, with whom, since l^nther threw out the suggestion, there has been a disposition to identify the author, though the hyiiothesis has no support in ancient tradition. The question of nationality is of subordinate importance. The only question of vital interest in connexion with the theological import of the Epistle is wlietlier the author represented the standpoint of Jewish Chris- tianity with it-s limited .sympathies and its con- tracted religious ideas. A tendency to take this view of his position has been more or less apparent in some recent contributions to the exegetical literature of the subject. In so far as it is adopted, it makes the understanding of the book hopeles.s. AVe cannot too firmly grasp the fact that in his
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
3:{7
essential ideas the writer soars hl;;li above all Jewisli-Cliristian narrowness. In his method of interpreting Scripture, in his modes of armiment, and even in some of his subordinate conceptions, he may be a man of his time and peo|>le ; but in ids great central thought of Christianity as the relif;ion of free access and of spiritual reality, h(^ belongs to all time and to all peoples. Whether he came before St. I'aul or after him in point of time, he is of the .same spiritual brotherhood. Me has seen with open face the true nature and the grandeur of the Christian faith.
vii. JKW oi: GKXTIl.K Kk.vdkus ? — In a.sserting the universal outlook of our author, we were obliged to admit that on the face of his work he seems to concern him.self only with ilewish readers. Till recent times no doubt has been entertained that tlie in.scription Tu tlic Ili-hri'in.s, though not cjriginal, correctly indicated iis destination. Hut of late there has been a tendency, supported by weighty names, to set this tradition aside, iuid to hold that the lirsl readers must have been Gentiles, not Jews. Among those wlio share this opinion are Schiirer, Weizsiicker, Ptleiderer, and, above all, von Sodeii. Among the grounds on which this hypothesis is made to rest are such a.s these : the fundamentals eunnierated in ti'- are such a.s were suitable for catechumens of pagan antecedents ; the expres- sion 'the living (iod ' (0'<) suggests an antitliesis between the true Hod and pagan idols, and the moral exhortations, addressed to the readers, pos- se.ss special appro))riatene.ss only when conceived as meant for Gentile Christians. The nunieroiLs phrases which seem to imply readers of lleb. ex- traction are expl-iined .so as to harmonize with the hypothe.sis, by the assumption that, at the time when the Epistle was written, the Gi'nlile Church had served itself heir to the title and privileges of the elect people. To the (piestion, what need for so elaborate a plea for Christianity versus Levitical- ism in an Epistle written for Gentile Christians ? the answer given is : The type of (Jentile Chris- tiaidty the author had to deal with was an eclectic syncretistic .system, into which an amateur attach- ment to Levitical institutions entered as an ele- ment, and became so strong as to endanger the Chrisiian faith with which it was associated, especially in a time of persecution.*
That :in nniount of inirenulty lirt'i Ir'lmi expended In support of this hypolliesis, suttlL'iunt "to njiike it ajipear {>Iausitil<>, is fmnl\ly ailriiittcd. Hut that tlie case has been pruveii we are far from tlilnkin^. Wo svinpalhi/e with .Menei^oz when he .says : * What strikes us, in tliiskpistletliront^hout, is a Jewish " llavour of tlie soil.'' and an al»sence of all allusl-jii to pai^an worship so complete that we have ililtieulty in roinprehenilinir how any- one can illscover in it the least Iniiieatioii of its helnj; nieaht for readers of pa^jan antecedents. We do not say there were no pa;.'an <'hri>tians in the eonununity, there may have been lor auk'ht ue kni>w. but in the texts we' see no tnice of them.' t Ostensibly the llrst rea<lers are Hebrews, anil Hebrews alone; that is ;;enerally aeknowletljred. The onun //ro//uii(/i lies on those who alHnii that they wore not really such, and it re<iuires a very elaborate display o'f exeffetlcnl In^jenidty to explain away the njtparent .lewlsli costume anil pliyslo;;non)y. If the readers were Indeed (fi-ntib-s, tliev were ((untites so completely dis- t^nised In .lewish dress, ami wearinj: a mask with so pronounced Jewish features, that the true nationality has been successfully hidden for nineteen centuries, atid even now, nfter learned Titles liavo done their best to show us the Gentile behind the .lew, we shake our heads In honest insurmountable doubt, atul feel constrained to njrreo with Westcolt wiien he pronounces the ncL'timent of von :SiHlen 'an int'enlous paradox.' J