06.30. The Epistle to the Hebrews

Chapter 29 The Epistle to the Hebrews

We are accustomed to consider the epistle to the Hebrews as a work of Paul, but it may be questioned whether the claim is tenable. You will notice that the name of no author is given in the book itself, while that in the title, as found in some of our Bibles, is simply a human suggestion and not a divine authorization. Hebrews, indeed, like Romans, is more of a treatise than an epistle or a personal letter, since it begins with no greetings and contains no messages or salutations to individuals. Its aim is simply to furnish an argument in favor of one definite proposition. Moreover, it is addressed to no particular church, although there are not wanting evidences in the tone of certain passages to indicate that such must have been the case originally, and that the church addressed was not composed of Gentile but Jewish converts to Christianity.

Whoever these Jewish Christians were, they had been subjected to severe persecutions, causing a weakening of their faith and creating a desire to return to the rest and ease, to say nothing of the pomp and glory of their old religion of Judaism. It is clear that Jerusalem and the temple were still standing and the elaborate Mosaic ceremonial in operation, which contributed, doubtless, to the power of their temptation. The proof of this is founded on the use of the present tense in speaking of the temple services (Hebrews 9:6-7; Hebrews 10:1, etc.), and, indeed, on the whole scope of the argument. If Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed at the time, it would have done away with the immediate object of the epistle, because it would have done away with the chief temptation to apostatize to Judaism. This temptation, therefore, was not merely to supplement the faith of the Gospel by the works of the law, as in the case of the Gentile Galatians, but to apostatize altogether and give up Christianity for their old faith. This faith had been introduced by the prophets and spoken by angels; it was associated with the greatness of Moses and the splendor of the Aaronic priesthood; it was hard, therefore, to turn their backs upon it for the substitute offered by a poor, rejected, and crucified carpenter of Nazareth. The inspired writer meets the situation in a very simple and tactful way by demonstrating once for all, the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. There were many ways in which this might have been done, but only one is selected, namely, the superiority of Christianity as seen in its Founder, Christ. He was superior to the prophets, to the angels, to Moses, to Aaron.

Between these different parts of his argument, the writer interjects appeals and warnings against apostasy, with glowing exhortations to steadfastness in the faith. The above allusion to the epistle to the Galatians suggests an interesting contrast between the two, which others have pointed out, and which, indeed, is quite apparent to any careful reader. In the first-named epistle, Paul is demonstrating that the law of Moses is not binding upon Gentiles, and that is possessed simply a transitory or intermediate position between the original promise to Abraham and its fulfillment in Christ. He therefore treats the question polemically, using expressions now and again calculated to wound the vanity and arouse the opposition of Jewish readers. But the author of Hebrews pursues a different tack. He is dealing with Judaism, “not as a law but as a system of worship,” and while showing the superiority of the new religion to the old, is able at the same time to do so without detracting from the old. He shows Christianity to be a development of Judaism, of which it is an antitype. If Judaism had its glory, therefore, and he admits its glory, how much greater must be that of Christianity. The authorship of this epistle is scarcely more of a mystery than its destination, some supposing it to have been sent to the church at Jerusalem, some to Alexandria and some to Rome. The advocates of the place last-named would lay stress upon the salutation in Hebrews 13:24, “They of Italy salute you,” but it must be evident that such an expression might have been used in addressing any city in the world, since there must have been Christians everywhere whose home had once been in Italy. But the most interesting question concerning this epistle is that of its human author, who, as already intimated, can hardly be Paul. There are several arguments for this, well marshaled in any of the cyclopedia articles on the subject and in the introductions to the book found in the different commentaries, but that of Dean Farrar in the Cambridge Bible, from which we quote an expression here and there, is particularly full and interesting. For example, one argument against the Pauline authorship is the great difference in style between the epistle to the Hebrews and Paul’s writings generally When Paul’s emotions are stirred he writes with a fervid eloquence that never pauses to round a period, while the writer in this case seems to delight in amplifications and euphonious expressions, possessing more literary self-control. To quote Farrar, “The rhetoric of this writer resembles the flow of a river, while that of Paul, the rush of a mountain torrent amid opposing rocks.” A second argument is found in the source of the quotations from the Old Testament. Paul in his writings usually quotes from the Hebrew manuscripts, while this writer follows the Septuagint version, even when it differs somewhat from the Hebrew. In the next place, while, of course, the writer of this epistle agrees with Paul on all the doctrines of the Gospel, yet he handles them with a different terminology. Paul generally speaks of the Savior as “Our Lord Jesus Christ,” or “Christ Jesus, our Lord,” while this writer usually refers to him as “Jesus,” or “The Lord,” or “Christ.” In all the thirteen epistles of Paul the words “priest” and “high priest” do not occur, while here they are mentioned thirty-two times.

Paul, in speaking of the redemptive work of Christ dwells continually upon the mysteries of his death as an expiatory sacrifice, while this writer simply assuming all that Paul has written on that subject, refers simply to the fact that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice, without adding any explanation or comment upon it. Paul uses the word “justification” to describe the result of Christ’s work toward the believer, but this writer uses the word, or its equivalent, “righteousness” in its simple and original sense of moral rectitude. Another feature is spoken of as its Alexandrian (Egypt) character, and the resemblances it contains to the writings of Philo, the chief Jewish philosopher of the Alexandrian school of thought--a line of suggestion hardly within the scope of this chapter to pursue. More important for us is the knowledge that while the Eastern or Asiatic church gave a certain currency to the belief in the Pauline authorship on the ground of superficial points of resemblance, the early Western church seems to have known that it did not belong to Paul. Not a single writer in the Western church for the first three centuries attributes it to Paul, and even as late as the seventh century we find traces of hesitation in so ascribing it although at this time “a loose habit had sprung up of quoting it as his.” Who then, was its author? “From the epistle itself,” thus says Farrar, “we gather with almost a certainty the following facts: That the writer was a Jew; that he was a Grecian Jew; familiar with the writings of Philo; ‘an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures;’ a friend of Timothy; not an apostle but one who had been taught by the apostles (Hebrews 2:3); acquainted with the teachings of Paul and harmonious therewith; writing before the destruction of Jerusalem.” From all of these facts the author just mentioned assumes the writer of the epistle to have been Apollos, who he thinks meets all the requirements. He is not alone in this judgment, but is in the company of an ever increasing line of scholars. We do well to remember, however, that this is only an inference after all, and we cannot be accused of prejudice or blind ignorance if, notwithstanding, we should continue to speak of the epistle as the work of Paul, as the present writer finds himself doing very frequently from the force of habit at least.

It is a comfort to know that notwithstanding the doubt as to the authorship of this book, its canonicity is attested beyond question, resting on the fact that it has been accepted from the earliest time both by the Eastern and Western churches.