HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE.
Title and Destination (§ 1). Authorship. Definite Contents (§ 2). Data (§ 5).
The Readers (§3). Tradition of Pauline Au-
Date (§ 4). thorship (§ 6).
Ascription to Barnabas and Apollos (§ 7).
Although the epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most important doctrinal works comprised in the New Testament, its author can not be determined with certainty either from ecclesiastical tradition or by modern critical research; nor is there any notable tradition from which to identify those to whom it was addressed, beyond the vague " to Hebrews " written at the beginning and the end. Although the title is, of course, not of the author's writing, it goes back to the beginning of the circulation of the epistle, which was unii. Title formly called " the Epistle to the and Hebrews " by the year 200, among Destination, writers and churches that differ widely as to its authorship and relation to the canon, in Clement of Alexandria and his teacher (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., VI. xiv. 2-4) equally with Tertullian (De pudicitia, xx.). It can not be shown that the epistle was ever read without this title or with another. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to identify it with the epistle to the Lao4-_ iceans mentioned in Col. iv. 16, and now extant in a Latin version; and still more groundless attempts to show that it is the pseudo-Pauline epistle " To the Alexandrians," of which there is no certain knowledge^ The ancient title, differing from those of the Pauline epistles in that the recipients are not designated by their place of residence, tehows that the' author of the title wished to mark jthem out as born Jews. If the title is supposed to give the original destination of the epistle from tradition, one can not see why it should have been addressed to the Hebrew-speaking part of Jewish Christianity, or to a particular Jewish-Christian Church like that of Jerusalem, to the exclusion of the Hellenistic part. If it is based on the contents of the letter, it is equally difficult to imagine why a work written in such good Greek should be supposed to have been originally addressed to Hebrewspeaking Christians. This theory did not create the title, but from the title Clement evolved the theory that the epistle was first written in Hebrew and then translated by Luke; later writers repeated this view, some substituting Clement of Rome for Luke. The weakness of this hypothesis is now generally recognized. Even if it be established that the recipients are designated as Hebrews with reference to their nationality and not to their language, the conclusion does not follow that the Hebrews of Jerusalem or Palestine are alone meant, as Clement of Alexandria and his teacher (probably Pantaenus), Euthalius, and Ephraem thought. The supposition that all Jewish Christians throughout the world are meant is excluded by xiii. 18-25. The addressing of the recipients by their nationality instead of by their residence (supposing the latter to have been known) can be explained only by the fact that the
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hebrew Language Hebrews, Epistle to the
giver of the title knew or believed the epistle to have been addressed to the Jewish-born part of a definite local or provincial church. This, then, is the sense of the title, if it rests on a tradition going back to the date of the epistle's composition. It is also possible that the title merely reproduces the impression made from the beginning to the present time on most readers of the epistle. The next impression received from the epistle itself as to the character of the recipients is that they formed a homogeneous body. Complete similarity between their conditions appears in the references to the origin of their belief and the men to whom they owe it (ii. 3, 4, vi. 1, xiii. 7), to the duration of their adherence to the faith (v. 12); to their showing of its results by works of mercy (vi. 10), and their sufferings for it (x. 32-34); to their dispositions and the dangers threatening them. That they as well as the author are Jews by descent is evident from numerous passages (i. 1, iii. 9, ii. 16, xiii. 13; cf. vi. 12-18 with I Cor. x. 1; Gal. iii. 7-29, iv. 21-31; Rom. iv. 11-18). The writer considers himself and his readers the direct continuation of the pre- Christian people of Israel, without asking how they became members of God's household. Although he insists on the universal significance of the death of Christ (ii. 9, 15, v. 9, ix. 26-28), he regards it so entirely from the standpoint of the Jewish community that it almost seems as if he knew only of its atoning operation on the sins not atoned for under the old covenant (ix. 15, xiii. 12; cf. Matt, i. 21), and considered the new covenant as one which, like the old, was only for the people to which the old was given and the new promised (viii. a-13, x. 16, 17).
For the understanding of the epistle it is necessary
to bear in mind that it is really a letter, and one
with a practical religious purpose, to
2. Con- which all theoretical expositions are tents. only means. Immediately after the fine exposition in chapter i. the practical purpose comes out in the earnest warning based upon it (ii. 1-4). After the second theoretical exposition (ii. 5-18) comes the exhortation in chapter iii. only broken by short argumentative bits. The exhortation in iv. 14-16 is justified by the exposition of the Jewish high-priesthood and the royal priesthood of Christ. And the passage which is most like a doctrinal dissertation (vi. 13-x. 18) is anticipated and followed by much strong practical admonition (v. 11-vi. 12, x. 19-39), and again chapter xi. is plainly subordinate to the warnings which precede and follow it. If in some places (iii. 12, iv. 1, 11, xii. 15, 16) the danger of individ-''] ual lapse is mentioned, the whole body is none the j less warned not to fall by neglecting the message of y salvation (ii. 1-3, xii. 25), not to tread under foot i1 the Son of God and crucify him afresh (vi. 4-8, i x. 26-29). In spite of their long continuance in the i Christian faith, they are still in the position of new converts who need to be taught the first principles (v. 11-vi. 3). A general relaxation shows itself (xii. 12); their patience fails (x. 36, xii. 1-11). Like the Israelites in the wilderness, they make comparisons between what they have given up and what they have gained in exchange. But the V.— 13
claims which they make are such as only those who were brought up in the faith of the old covenant and its promises could make. Not only in order to show the greater responsibility imposed by the knowledge of Christ's revelation (ii. 1-4), but to remind them of its incomparable excellence, the writer shows the superiority of their mediator to all mediators of the old covenant, even to the angels (L). What they find unsatisfying is that this mediator has died the common death of men and since that has been invisible; so he shows them how, precisely in order to be their redeemer, Jesus had to partake fully of the common lot (ii. 5-18), and that only through his death and consequent exaltation could he be the high priest who was to do perfectly what the old high priests had done only in type and figure and to fulfil the promise of a royal priesthood (iv. 14-x. 18). Jewish Christians have thus incomparably more than they had before their conversion; but only on condition of holding fast tq their faith. It follows that the danger to the recipients of the epistle was not the being led by false teachers into a wrong conception of the Christian faith; the " divers and strange doctrines " mentioned in-xiii. 9 are only of subordinate importance. Nor, again, is it that of falling away to a Judaizing Christianity by a belief of their own in the Mosaic law as permanently binding. The view to which the Hebrews are inclined, that faith in the crucified Jesus does not compensate for the trials of the Christian life, is not really a religious doctrine at all. Against a genuine Judaism it would be useless tc adduce the fact, on which it insisted itself, that the promises made to God's people were not yet all fulfilled, but were certain of fulfilment. But there was a kind of Judaism which was such in name only — the Judaism of the high priest who brought about the crucifixion, and of Josephus, who betrayed the hope of the nation to the Roman emperor for the " mess of pottage " of court favor (Wars, III., viii. 9; VI., v. 4). Against a Judaism like this, without faith or hope, Paul stood with the Pharisees (Acts xxiii. 6-9; Rom. x. 2); and it was to such a Judaism that the recipients of this letter, to judge by the expressions of its author, were in danger of falling away.
The opinion represented by Roth (Epistolam
vulgo " ad Hebraeos " inscriptam Leipsic,
1836) and Von Soden (JPT, 1884,
3. The pp. 435 sqq., 627 sqq.) that the
Readers, epistle was addressed to Christians of predominantly pagan origin scarcely deserved the attention it received; and not much more tenable is that which prevailed among a number of the older commentators (Bleek, Riehm), that the recipients were still taking part in the Jewish temple worship and sacrifices, and held this to be necessary to the atonement for sin, so that the purpose of the epistle was to reason them out of this and its practical consequences. Nor is there any support in the epistle for the assumption that the recipients were residents of Jerusalem or of Palestine; and the same may be said of the other theory that they lived in Alexandria and adhered to the worship of the temple at Leontopolis. The view brought up again by
Hebrews, Epistle to the