THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITED BY THE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., DRAN OF OLOUCESTEB;
AND BY THE
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
WITH
INTRODUCTIONS BY THE
VERY REV. F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S., DEAN OF CANTERBURY. RIG FIT REV. H. COTTERILL, D.D., F.R.S.E. VERY REV. PRINCIPAL J. TULLOCH, D.D. REV. CANON G. RAWLINSON, M.A. REV. A. PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
NEW EDITION.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLO'WES AND SONSJ LJ!\11TRD, LONDO!'J AND EIECCLES.
(Th rigAt, oj translation an,i of rtf;rodue!ton a.-e res,1TJf!d,) THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITED BY TUE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., DEAN OB' <lLOUOll:IIT&B;
AND BY TUB
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
HEBREWS. <!!xposition BY REV. J. BARMBY, B.D., VIOAB OB' PITTINGTON,
1!1omiletics BY REV. C. JERDAN, M.A., LL.B.
l);1omilies b;!! 1:Tarious !autbots. RRV. W. JONES. REV. D. YOUNG, Il.A. REV. C. NEW. BEV. J. S. llRlG11T, D.D
.NEW EDITION.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK lli07 THE EPISTLE OF
PAUL TO THE HEBREWS. INTRODUCTION.
I. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. THOUGH the Epistle to the Hebrews was not in all quarters received unreservedly into the canon from the first, and though its authorship is still uncertain, yet none can reasonably doubt its early origin in the later period of the apostelic age. The evidence is both internal and external. 'fhe frequent allusions in it to Judaism, with its ritual, as a still existing system, are such as to render highly improbable any date after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. It is true that the mere use of verbs in the present with reference to the temple services would not be in itself conclusive; for this usage continued after the destruction of the temple, being found in Josephus, 'Ant.,' iii. 9, 10; in Barnab., 7, etc.; in 'Epist. ad Diogn.,' 3; in the Talmud; and in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (see Bishop Lightfoot's note on eh. xli. of that epistle). But we observe, further, the pervading tone of warning to the readers against being drawn back into Judaism, as though they were still sur- rounded by their old associations, and the total absence of reference to any breaking up of the ancient polity, such as might have been certainly expected if the event had taken place. Thus we may safely take the above date, A.D. 70, as a. terminus ad quem, being only two years after the martyrdom of St. Paul, and many before the death of St. John. Strong also is the external evidence of an early date. Clement of Rome, about whom there can be no reasonable doubt that he was a disciple of the apostles and that he superintended the Church of Rome not long at least after St. Peter and St. Paul had suffered, and whose first Epistle to the Corinthians is undeniably genuine, uses language in that epistle which proves his acquaint- ance with the Epistle to the Hebrews. Of his quotations, or references, more will be snill below under the head of" Ca.nonicity." Then the Peshito, or Syriao Version of the New Testament, which is universally assigned HEBREWS, b ii INTRODUCTION TO
to the most remote Chtistian antiquity, includes this Epistle. Further, Clement of Alexandria (who presided over the cateohetice.l school there at the close of the second century) not only himself mentions it, and quotes it 0ften as St. Paul's, but speaks also of his own master and predecessor, Pantienus, having expressed his views about it: "as the blessed presbyter used to say," eto. (Eusebius, vi. 14, quoting from Clement's• Hypotyposes '). Of the testimony of the Alexandrian Fathers more will be said under the head of "Authorship." Enough now for our present purpose to observe that the Epistle is hereby proved to have been well known and received in the Ale::<.::andrian Church in the time of Pantmnus, who takes us up very close to the apostolic age; and though the learned there, as will be seen, came afterwards to question St. Paul's direct authorship, yet its antiquity was never doubted. "While internal evidence, as above noticed, seems to preclude any date later than A.D. 70, so does it, on the other hand, any very much earlier. For the readers are addressed as members of a Church of old standing: they are reminded of "the former days," when they had been at first "illumi- nated," and of persecution endured in the past; sufficient time had elapsed for them to show serious signs of wavering from their early steadfastness; and their "leaders, who had spoken to them the Word of God," had already passed away, being referred to in terms that suggest the idea of martyrdom ( eh. xiii. 7)- If we could be sure of an allusion here, among others, to James the Just ( called " Bishop of J erusalem,1 " and the acknowledged leader of the Hebrew Christians), we should have a definite terminus a quo in A,D. 62, at the Passover of which year, according to Josephus and Eusebius, James was martyred. This allusion cannot, however, be more than a probability. AU we can allege confidently is that the Epistle, from its contents, must have been written a considerable number of years after the community addressed had received the faith, and hence, if during St. Paul's life, not long before its close. Some time between .A..D. 62 and 70 would very well suit the conditions.
II. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE. Be it observed, in the first place, that the Epistle is itself anonymous. The writer never mentions his own name or intimates who he is. Hence the questions of authorship and of canonicity may, in this case, be kept distinct. This could not be in the case of any of St. Paul's undoubted Epistles, in all of which he gives his own name and designation, and often alludes in detail to his circumstances at the time of writing and hie rela- tions to the persons addressed. In such cases denial of the alleged author- ship would involve denial of the writing being what it professes to be, and 1 See Epiphanins (' Hreres.,' l.u:viii.); Chrysostom (' Hom.' xi., in 1 Cor. vii.); Proclus (' De Trad. Div. Liturg.'); Photius (' Ep.' 157); Eusebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' ii. 23); Clem. Alex. (' Hypotyposes,' bk. vi., apud Eusebium, 'Hist. Eccl.,' ii. 1). THE EPISTLE 'l'O THE HEBREWS.
hence of its claim to be included in the canon as genuine and authoritative. But it is not so in the case before us. Nor does deference to the judgment or consentient traclitions of the Church require us to conclude St. Paul to have been the author. The very title, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews," is not ancient: the earlier title was simply Ilpos E/3pafov,.0