Chú giải Kinh Thánh

In this chapter we have a twofold comparison stated: I. Between the evangelical and legal dispensation; and the excellency of the gospel above that of the law is asserted and proved, Heb 1:1-3. II. Between the glory of Christ and that of the highest creatures, the angels; where the pre-eminence is justly given to the Lord Jesus Christ, and clearly demonstrated to belong to him, Heb 1:4-14.

INTRODUCTION

CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.--CLEMENT OF ROME, at the end of the first century (A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term "Scripture," which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the writer, CLEMENT'S adoption of extracts from it is virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age. JUSTIN MARTYR quotes it as divinely authoritative, to establish the titles "apostle," as well as "angel," as applied to the Son of God. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA refers it expressly to Paul, on the authority of Pantænus, chief of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus is termed in it the "apostle" sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being apostle to the Gentiles. CLEMENT also says that Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing Greek Epistle as Paul's words. ORIGEN similarly quotes it as Paul's Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as "more Grecian," but the thoughts as the apostle's; adding that the "ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer" (that is, probably "transcriber" of the apostle's thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third century, TERTULLIAN ascribes it to Barnabas. IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in EUSEBIUS, as quoting from this Epistle, though without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius, the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included, there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the second century, or beginning of the third, published by MURATORI, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul's till a considerable time after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also, NOVATIAN OF ROME, CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, and VICTORINUS, also of the Latin Church. But in the fourth century, HILARY OF POITIERS (A.D. 368), LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI (A.D. 371), AMBROSE OF MILAN (A.D. 397) and other Latins, quote it as Paul's; and the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.

As to the similarity of its style to that of Luke's writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul. CHRYSOSTOM, comparing Luke and Mark, says, "Each imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than river fulness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style." Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in this Epistle than in Luke's writings. There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom ALFORD upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and Paul, from his Hebræo-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and Tarsus, would be familiar with PHILO'S modes of thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a characteristic of Apollos' at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in words unadorned by man's wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no such danger. And his Hebræo-Grecian education would enable him to write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations from the Old Testament, excepting two

(Heb 10:30; 13:5),

are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and rhythmically constructed periods. CALVIN observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew,

Heb 9:15-17

would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double meaning of the Greek "diathece," a "covenant," or a "testament," whereas the Hebrew "berith" means only "covenant."

Internal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare

2Co 3:6-18; Ga 3:23-25; 4:1-9, 21-31,

wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely sanctioned application--a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in

Heb 1:3,

&c., as in other Epistles of Paul

(Php 2:6; Col 1:15-20),

as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering of Himself for man's sake similarly, compare

Heb 2:9, with 2Co 8:9; Php 2:7, 8.

Also His final exaltation, compare

Heb 2:8; 10:13; 12:2, with 1Co 15:25, 27.

The word "Mediator" is peculiar to Paul alone, compare

Heb 8:6, with Ga 3:19, 20.

Christ's death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, compare

Ro 3:22-26; 1Co 5:7, with Heb 7:1-10:39.

The phrase, "God of Peace," is peculiar to Paul, compare

Heb 13:20; Ro 15:33; 1Th 5:23.

Also, compare

Heb 2:4,

Margin,

1Co 12:4.

Justification, or "righteousness by faith." appears in

Heb 11:7; 10:38,

as in

Ro 1:17; 4:22; 5:1; Ga 3:11; Php 3:9.

The word of God is the "sword of the Spirit," compare

Heb 4:12, with Eph 6:17.

Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as full-grown men, require strong meat, compare

Heb 5:12, 13; 6:1, with 1Co 3:1, 2; 14:20

Ga 4:9; Col 3:14.

Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by Christ, compare

Heb 10:19, with Ro 5:2; Eph 2:18; 3:12.

Afflictions are a fight,

Heb 10:32;

compare

Php 1:30; Col 2:1.

The Christian life is a race,

Heb 12:1;

compare

1Co 9:24; Php 3:12-14.

The Jewish ritual is a service,

Ro 9:4;

compare

Heb 9:1, 6.

Compare "subject to bondage,"

Heb 2:15, with Ga 5:1.

Other characteristics of Paul's style appear in this Epistle; namely, a propensity "to go off at a word" and enter on a long parenthesis suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by "and again," compare

Heb 1:5; 2:12, 13, with Ro 15:9-12.

Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare

Heb 2:8, with 1Co 15:27; Eph 1:22.

Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the Septuagint, and with the addition "saith the Lord," not found in the Hebrew, in

Heb 10:30; Ro 12:19.

The supposed Alexandrian (which are rather Philon-like) characteristics of the Epistle are probably due to the fact that the Hebrews were generally then imbued with the Alexandrian modes of thought of

Philo, &c., and Paul, without coloring or altering Gospel truth "to the Jews, became (in style) as a Jew, that he might win the Jews"

(1Co 9:20).

This will account for its being recognized as Paul's Epistle in the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches unanimously, to the Hebrews of whom probably it was addressed. Not one Greek father ascribes the Epistle to any but Paul, whereas in the Western and Latin churches, which it did not reach for some time, it was for long doubted, owing to its anonymous form, and generally less distinctively Pauline style. Their reason for not accepting it as Paul's, or indeed as canonical, for the first three centuries, was negative, insufficient evidence for it, not positive evidence against it. The positive evidence is generally for its Pauline origin. In the Latin churches, owing to their distance from the churches to whom belonged the Hebrews addressed, there was no generally received tradition on the subject. The Epistle was in fact but little known at all, whence we find it is not mentioned at all in the Canon of Muratori. When at last, in the fourth century, the Latins found that it was received as Pauline and canonical on good grounds in the Greek churches, they universally acknowledged it as such.

The personal notices all favor its Pauline authorship, namely, his intention to visit those addressed, shortly, along with Timothy, styled "our brother,"

Heb 13:23;

his being then in prison,

Heb 13:19;

his formerly having been imprisoned in Palestine, according to English Version reading,

Heb 10:34;

the salutations transmitted to them from believers of Italy,

Heb 13:24.

A reason for not prefixing the name may be the rhetorical character of the Epistle which led the author to waive the usual form of epistolary address.

DESIGN.--His aim is to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, in that it was introduced by one far higher than the angels or Moses, through whom the Jews received the law, and in that its priesthood and sacrifices are far less perfecting as to salvation than those of Christ; that He is the substance of which the former are but the shadow, and that the type necessarily gives place to the antitype; and that now we no longer are kept at a comparative distance as under the law, but have freedom of access through the opened veil, that is, Christ's flesh; hence he warns them of the danger of apostasy, to which Jewish converts were tempted, when they saw Christians persecuted, while Judaism was tolerated by the Roman authorities. He infers the obligations to a life of faith, of which, even in the less perfect Old Testament dispensation, the Jewish history contained bright examples. He concludes in the usual Pauline mode, with practical exhortations and pious prayers for them.

HIS MODE OF ADDRESS is in it hortatory rather than commanding, just as we might have expected from Paul addressing the Jews. He does not write to the rulers of the Jewish Christians, for in fact there was no exclusively Jewish Church; and his Epistle, though primarily addressed to the Palestinian Jews, was intended to include the Hebrews of all adjoining churches. He inculcates obedience and respect in relation to their rulers

(Heb 13:7, 17, 24);

a tacit obviating of the objection that he was by writing this Epistle interfering with the prerogative of Peter the apostle of the circumcision, and James the bishop of Jerusalem. Hence arises his gentle and delicate mode of dealing with them

(Heb 13:22).

So far from being surprised at discrepancy of style between an Epistle to Hebrews and Epistles to Gentile Christians, it is just what we should expect. The Holy Spirit guided him to choose means best suited to the nature of the ends aimed at. WORDSWORTH notices a peculiar Pauline Greek construction,

Ro 12:9,

literally, "Let your love be without dissimulation, ye abhorring . . . evil, cleaving to . . . good," which is found nowhere else save

Heb 13:5,

literally, "Let your conversation be without covetousness, ye being content with," &c. (a noun singular feminine nominative absolute, suddenly passing into a participle masculine nominative plural absolute). So in quoting Old Testament Scripture, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as a Jew writing to Jews would, "God spoke to our fathers," not, "it is written." So

Heb 13:18,

"We trust we have a good conscience" is an altogether Pauline sentiment

(Ac 23:1; 24:16; 2Co 1:12; 4:2; 2Ti 1:3).

Though he has not prefixed his name, he has given at the close his universal token to identify him, namely, his apostolic salutation, "Grace be with you all"; this "salutation with his own hand" he declared

(2Th 3:17, 18)

to be "his token in every Epistle": so

1Co 16:21, 23; Col 4:18.

The same prayer of greeting closes every one of his Epistles, and is not found in any one of the Epistles of the other apostles written in Paul's lifetime; but it is found in the last book of the New Testament Revelation, and subsequently in the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This proves that, by whomsoever the body of the Epistle was committed to writing (whether a mere amanuensis writing by dictation, or a companion of Paul by the Spirit's gift of interpreting tongues,

1Co 12:10,

transfusing Paul's Spirit-taught sentiments into his own Spirit-guided diction), Paul at the close sets his seal to the whole as really his, and sanctioned by him as such. The churches of the East, and Jerusalem, their center, to which quarter it was first sent, received it as Paul's from the earliest times according to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 349). JEROME, though bringing with him from Rome the prejudices of the Latins against the Epistle to the Hebrews, aggravated, doubtless, by its seeming sanction of the Novatian heresy

(Heb 6:4-6),

was constrained by the force of facts to receive it as Paul's, on the almost unanimous testimony of all Greek Christians from the earliest times; and was probably the main instrument in correcting the past error of Rome in rejecting it. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church is peculiarly valuable, for it was founded by Mark, who was with Paul at Rome in his first confinement, when this Epistle seems to have been written

(Col 4:10),

and who possibly was the bearer of this Epistle, at the same time visiting Colosse on the way to Jerusalem (where Mark's mother lived), and thence to Alexandria. Moreover,

2Pe 3:15, 16,

written shortly before Peter's death, and like his first Epistle written by him, "the apostle of the circumcision," to the "Hebrew" Christians dispersed in the East, says, "As our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you"

(2Pe 3:15),

that is, to the Hebrews; also the words added, "As also in all his Epistles"

(2Pe 3:16),

distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest; then he further speaks of it as on a level with "other Scriptures," thus asserting at once its Pauline authorship and divine inspiration. An interesting illustration of the power of Christian faith and love; Peter, who had been openly rebuked by Paul

(Ga 2:7-14),

fully adopted what Paul wrote; there was no difference in the Gospel of the apostle of the circumcision and that of the apostle of the uncircumcision. It strikingly shows God's sovereignty that He chose as the instrument to confirm the Hebrews, Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles

(Ro 11:13);

and on the other hand, Peter to open the Gospel door to the Gentiles

(Ac 10:1,

&c.), though being the apostle of the Jews; thus perfect unity reigns amidst the diversity of agencies.

Rome, in the person of CLEMENT OF ROME, originally received this Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that Rome is not the Catholic Church.

It plainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been mentioned in the Epistle had that event gone before, compare

Heb 13:10;

and probably to churches in which the Jewish members were the more numerous, as those in Judea, and perhaps Alexandria. In the latter city were the greatest number of resident Jews next to Jerusalem. In Leontopolis, in Egypt, was another temple, with the arrangements of which, WIESELER thinks the notices in this Epistle more nearly corresponded than with those in Jerusalem. It was from Alexandria that the Epistle appears first to have come to the knowledge of Christendom. Moreover, "the Epistle to the Alexandrians," mentioned in the Canon of Muratori, may possibly be this Epistle to the Hebrews. He addresses the Jews as peculiarly "the people of God"

(Heb 2:17; 4:9; 13:12),

"the seed of Abraham," that is, as the primary stock on which Gentile believers are grafted, to which

Ro 11:16-24

corresponds; but he urges them to come out of the carnal earthly Jerusalem and to realize their spiritual union to "the heavenly Jerusalem"

(Heb 12:18-23; 13:13).

The use of Greek rather than Hebrew is doubtless due to the Epistle being intended, not merely for the Hebrew, but for the Hellenistic Jew converts, not only in Palestine, but elsewhere; a view confirmed by the use of the Septuagint. BENGEL thinks, probably (compare

2Pe 3:15, 16,

explained above), the Jews primarily, though not exclusively, addressed, were those who had left Jerusalem on account of the war and were settled in Asia Minor.

The notion of its having been originally in Hebrew arose probably from its Hebrew tone, method, and topics. It is reckoned among the Epistles, not at first generally acknowledged, along with James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation. A beautiful link exists between these Epistles and the universally acknowledged Epistles. Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfilment. James is the link between the highest doctrines of Christianity and the universal law of moral duty--a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount--harmonizing the decalogue law of Moses, and the revelation to Job and Elias, with the Christian law of liberty. Second Peter links the teaching of Peter with that of Paul. Jude links the earliest unwritten to the latest written Revelation. The two shorter Epistles to John, like Philemon, apply Christianity to the minute details of the Christian life, showing that Christianity can sanctify all earthly relations.

Introduction to Hebrews

Section 1. Preliminary Remarks

It need not be said that this Epistle has given rise to much discussion among writers on the New Testament. Indeed there is probably no part of the Bible in regard to which so many conflicting views have been entertained. The name of the author; the time and place where the Epistle was written; the character of the book; its canonical authority; the language in which it was composed; and the persons to whom it was addressed - all have given rise to great difference of opinion. Among the causes of this are the following: - The name of the author is not mentioned. The church to which it was sent, if sent to any particular church, is not designated. There are no certain marks of time in the Epistle, as there often are in the writings of Paul, by which we can determine the time when it was written.

It is not the design of these notes to go into an extended examination of these questions. Those who are disposed to pursue these inquiries, and to examine the questions which have been started in regard to the Epistle, can find ample means in the larger works that have treated of it; and especially in Lardner; in Michaelis' Introduction; in the Prolegomena of Kuinoel; in Hug's Introduction; and particularly in Professor Stuart's invaluable Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. No other work on this portion of the New Testament is so complete as his, and in the Introduction he has left nothing to be desired in regard to the literature of the Epistle.

Early on controversies arose in the church in regard to a great variety of questions pertaining to this Epistle, which are not yet fully settled. Most of those questions, however, pertain to the literature of the Epistle, and however they may be decided, are not such as to affect the respect which a Christian ought to have for it as a part of the word of God. They pertain to the inquiries, to whom it was written; in what language, and at what time it was composed; questions which in whatever way they may be settled, do not affect its canonical authority, and should not shake the confidence of Christians in it as a part of divine revelation. The only inquiry on these points which it is proper to institute in these notes is, whether the claims of the Epistle to a place in the canon of Scripture are of such a kind as to allow Christians to read it as a part of the oracles of God? May we sit down to it feeling that we are perusing that which has been given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit as a part of revealed truth? Other questions are interesting in their places, and the solution of them is worth all which it has cost; but they need not embarrass us here, nor claim our attention as preliminary to the exposition of the Epistle. All that will be attempted, therefore, in this Introduction, will be such a "condensation" of the evidence collected by others, as shall show that this Epistle has of right a place in the volume of revealed truth, and is of authority to regulate the faith and practice of mankind.

Section 2. To Whom Was the Epistle Written?

It purports to have been written to the "Hebrews." This is not found, indeed, in the body of the Epistle, though it occurs in the subscription at the end. It differs from all the other epistles of Paul in this respect, and from most of the others in the New Testament. In all of the other epistles of Paul, the church or person to whom the letter was sent is specified in the commencement. This, however, commences in the form of an essay or homily; nor is there anywhere in the Epistle any direct intimation as to what church it was sent. The subscription at the end is of no authority, since it cannot be supposed that the author himself would affix it to the Epistle, and since it is known that many of those subscriptions are false. See the remarks at the close of the notes on Romans, and the notes 1 Corinthians. everal questions present themselves here which we may briefly investigate:

(I) "What is the evidence that it was written to the Hebrews?" In reply to this we may observe:

(1) That the inscription at the commencement, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews," though not affixed by the author, may be allowed to express the current sense of the church in ancient times in reference to a question on which they had the best means of judging. These inscriptions at the commencement of the epistles have hitherto in general escaped the suspicion of spuriousness, to which the subscriptions at the close are justly exposed. "Michaelis." They should not in any case be called in question, unless there is good reason from the Epistle itself, or from some other source. This inscription is found in all our present Greek manuscripts, and in nearly all the ancient versions. It is found in the Peshito, the Old Syriac version, which was made in the first or in the early part of the second century. It is the title given to the Epistle by the fathers of the second century, and onward - Stuart.

(2) the testimony of the fathers. Their testimony is unbroken and uniform. With one accord they declare this, and this should be regarded as testimony of great value. Unless there is some good reason to depart from such evidence, it should be regarded as decisive. In this case, there is no good reason for calling it in question, but every reason to suppose it to be correct; nor so far as I have found is there any one who has doubted it.

(3) the internal evidence is of the highest character that it was written to Hebrew converts. It treats subjects of Hebrew institutions. It explains their nature. It makes no allusion to Gentile customs or laws. It all along supposes that those to whom it was sent were familiar with the Jewish history; with the nature of the temple service; with the functions of the priestly office; and with the whole structure of their religion. No other person than those who had been Jews are addressed throughout the Epistle. There is no attempt to explain the nature or design of any customs except those with which they were familiar. At the same time, it is equally clear that they were Jewish converts - converts from Judaism to Christianity - who are addressed. The writer addresses them as Christians, not as those who were to be converted to Christianity; he explains to them the Jewish customs as one would do to those who had been converted from Judaism; he endeavors to guard them from apostasy, as if there were danger that they would relapse again into the system from which they were converted. These considerations seem to be decisive; and in the view of all who have written on the Epistle, as well as of the Christian world at large, they settle the question. It has never been held that the Epistle was directed to Gentiles; and in all the opinions and questions which have been started on the subject, it has been admitted that, wherever they resided, the persons to whom the Epistle was addressed were originally Hebrews who had never been converted to the Christian religion.

(II) "To what particular church of the Hebrews was it written?" Very different opinions have been held on this question. The celebrated Storr held that it was written to the Hebrew part of the churches in Galatia; and that the Epistle to the Galatians was addressed to the Gentile part of those churches. Semler and Noessett maintained that it was written to the churches in Macedonia, and particularly to the church of Thessalonica. Bolten maintains that it was addressed to the Jewish Christians who fled from Palestine in a time of persecution about the year 60 a.d., and who were scattered through Asia Minor. Michael Weber supposed that it was addressed to the church at Corinth. Ludwig conjectured that it was addressed to a church in Spain. Wetstein supposes that it was written to the church at Rome. Most of these opinions are mere conjectures, and all of them depend upon circumstances which furnish only slight evidence of probability. Those who are disposed to examine these, and to see them confuted, may consult Stuart's Commentary on the Hebrews, Introduction Sections 5-9.

The common, and the almost universally received opinion is that the Epistle was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine. The reasons for this opinion, briefly, are the following:

(1) The testimony of the ancient church was uniform on this point - that the Epistle was not only written to the Hebrew Christians, but to those who were in Palestine. Lardner affirms this to be the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Euthalius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact; and adds that this was the general opinion of the ancients. Works, vol. iv. pp 80, 81. ed. London, 1829.

(2) The inscription at the commencement of the Epistle leads to this supposition. That inscription, though not appended by the hand of the author, was early affixed to it. It is found not only in the Greek manuscripts, but in all the early versions, as the Syriac and the Itala; and was doubtless affixed at a very early period, and by whomsoever affixed, expressed the current sense at the time. It is hardly possible that a mistake would be made on this point; and unless there is good evidence to the contrary, this ought to be allowed to determine the question. That inscription is, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." But who are the Hebrews - the Ἑβρᾶιοι Hebraioi? Professor Stuart has endeavored to show that this was a term that was employed exclusively to denote the "Jews in Palestine," in contradistinction from foreign Jews, who were called "Hellenists." Compare my notes on Acts 6:1. Bertholdt declares that there is not a single example which can be found in early times of Jewish Christians out of Palestine being called "Hebrews." See a Dissertation on the Greek Language in Palestine. and of the meaning of the word "Hellenists," by Hug, in the Bib. Repository, Vol. I, 547, 548. Compare also Robinson's Lexicon on the word Ἑβρᾶιος Hebraios. If this is so, and if the inscription is of any authority, then it goes far to settle the question. The word "Hebrews" occurs only three times in the New Testament Acts 6:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:5 in the first of which it is certain that it is used in this sense, and in both the others of which it is probable. There can be no doubt, it seems to me, that an ancient writer acquainted with the usual sense of the word "Hebrew," would understand an inscription of this kind - "written to the Hebrews" - as designed for the inhabitants of Palestine, and not for the Jews of other countries.

(3) there are some passages in the Epistle itself which Lardner supposes indicate that this Epistle was written to the Hebrews in Palestine, or to those there who had been converted from Judaism to Christianity. As those passages are not conclusive, and as their force has been called in question, and with much propriety, by Professor Stuart (pp. 32-34). I shall merely refer to them. They can be examined at leisure by those who are disposed, and though they do not prove that the Epistle was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine, yet they can be best interpreted on that supposition, and a special significancy would be attached to them on this supposition. They are the following: Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 4:2; Hebrews 2:1-4; Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 4:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 10:32-34; Hebrews 13:13-14. The argument of Lardner is that these would be more applicable to their condition than to others; a position which I think cannot be doubted. Some of them are of so general character, indeed, as to be applicable to Christians elsewhere; and in regard to some of them it cannot be certainly demonstrated that the state of things referred to existed in Judea, but taken together they would be more applicable by far to them than to the circumstances of any others of which we have knowledge; and this may be allowed to have some weight at least in determining to whom the Epistle was sent.

(4) the internal evidence of the Epistle corresponds with the supposition that it was written to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine. The passages referred to in the previous remarks (3) might be adduced here as proof. But there is other proof. It might have been otherwise. There might be such strong internal proof that an epistle was not addressed to a supposed people, as completely to neutralize all the evidence derived from an inscription like that prefixed to this Epistle, and all the evidence derived from tradition. But it is not so here. All the circumstances referred to in the Epistle; the general strain of remark; the argument: the allusions, are just such as would be likely to be found in an epistle addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine, and such as would not be likely to occur in an epistle addressed to any other place or people. They are such as the following:

(a) The familiar acquaintance with the Jewish institutions supposed by the writer to exist among those to whom it was sent - a familiarity hardly to be expected even of Jews who lived in other countries.

(b) The danger so frequently adverted to of their relapsing into their former state; of apostatizing from Christianity, and of embracing again the Jewish rites and ceremonies - a danger that would exist nowhere else in so great a degree as in Judea. Compare Hebrews 2:1-3; Hebrews 3:7-11, Hebrews 3:15; Hebrews 4:1; Hebrews 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:26-35.

(c) The nature of the discussion in the Epistle - not turning upon the obligation of circumcision, and the distinction of meats and drinks, which occupied so much of the attention of the apostles and early Christians in other places - but a discussion relating to the whole structure of the Mosaic economy, the pre-eminence of Moses or Christ, the meaning of the rites of the temple, etc. These great questions would be more likely to arise in Judea than elsewhere, and it was important to discuss them fully, as it is done in this Epistle. In other places they would be of less interest, and would excite less difficulty.

(d) The allusion to local places and events; to facts in their history; and to the circumstances of public worship, which would be better understood there than elsewhere. There are no allusions - or if there are they are very brief and infrequent - to pagan customs games, races, and philosophical opinions, as there are often in the other epistles of the New Testament. Those to whom the Epistle was sent, are presumed to have an intimate and minute knowledge of the Hebrew history, and such a knowledge as could be hardly supposed elsewhere. Compare Hebrews 11, particularly Hebrews 11:32-39. Thus, it is implied that they so well understood the subjects referred to relating to the Jewish rites, that it was not necessary that the writer should specify them particularly. See Hebrews 9:5. Of what other persons could this be so appropriately said as of the dwellers in Palestine?

(e) The circumstances of trial and persecution so often referred to in the Epistle, agree well with the known condition of the church in Palestine. That it was subjected to great trials we know; and though this was extensively true of other churches, yet it is probable that there were more vexatious and grievous exactions; that there was more spite and malice; that there were more of the trials arising from the separation of families and the losses of property attending a profession of Christianity in Palestine than elsewhere in the early Christian church. These considerations - though not so conclusive as to furnish absolute demonstration - go far to settle the question. They seem to me so strong as to preclude any reasonable doubt, and are such as the mind can repose on with a great degree of confidence in regard to the original destination of the Epistle.

(3) "was it addressed to a particular church in Palestine, or to the Hebrew Christians there in general?" Whether it was addressed to the churches in general in Palestine, or to some particular church there, it is now impossible to determine. Prof. Stuart inclines to the opinion that it was addressed to the church in Caesarea. The ancients in general supposed it was addressed to the church in Jerusalem. There are some local references in the Epistle which look as though it was directed to some particular church. But the means of determining this question are put beyond our reach, and it is of little importance to settle the question. From the allusions to the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, and the whole train of special institutions there, it would seem probable that it was directed to the church in Jerusalem. As that was the capital of the nation, and the center of religious influence; and as there was a large and flourishing church there, this opinion would seem to have great probability; but it is impossible now to determine it. If we suppose that the author sent the Epistle, in the first instance, to some local church, near the central seat of the great influence which he intended to reach by it - addressing to that church the particular communications in the last verses - we shall make a supposition which, so far as can now be ascertained, will accord with the truth in the case.

Section 3. The Author of the Epistle

To those who are familiar with the investigations which have taken place in regard to this Epistle, it need not be said that the question of its authorship has given rise to much discussion. The design of these notes does not permit me to go at length into this inquiry. Those who are disposed to see the investigation pursued at length, and to see the objections to the Pauline origin examined in a most satisfactory manner, can find it done in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Prof. Stuart, pp. 77-260. All that my purpose requires is to state, in a very brief manner, the evidence on which it is ascribed to the apostle Paul. That evidence is, briefly, the following:

(1) That derived from the church at Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria says, that Paul wrote to the Hebrews, and that this was the opinion of Pantaenus, who was at the head of the celebrated Christian school at Alexandria, and who flourished about 180 a.d. Pantaenus lived near Palestine. He must have been acquainted with the prevailing opinions on the subject, and his testimony must be regarded as proof that the Epistle was regarded as Paul's by the churches in that region. Origen, also of Alexandria, ascribes the Epistle to Paul; though he says that the "sentiments" are those of Paul, but that the words and phrases belong to some one relating the apostle's sentiments, and as it were commenting on the words of his master. The testimony of the church at Alexandria was uniform after the time of Origen, that it was the production of Paul. Indeed there seems never to have been any doubt in regard to it there, and from the commencement it was admitted as his production. The testimony of that church and school is particularly valuable, because:

(a) it was near to Palestine, where the Epistle was probably sent;

(b) Clement particularly had traveled much, and would be likely to understand the prevailing sentiments of the East;

(c) Alexandria was the seat of the most celebrated theological school of the early Christian ages, and those who were at the head of this school would be likely to have correct information on a point like this; and,

(d) Origen is admitted to have been the most learned of the Greek fathers, and his testimony that the "sentiments" were those of Paul may be regarded as of unique value.

(2) it was inserted in the translation into the Syriac, made very early in the second century, and in the Old Italic version, and was hence believed to be of apostolic origin, and is by the inscription ascribed to Paul. This may be allowed to express the general sense of the churches at that time, as this would not have been done unless there had been a general impression that the Epistle was written by him. The fact that it was regarded early as an inspired book is also conclusively shown by the fact that the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second Epistle and Third Epistle of John, are not found in that version. They came later into circulation than the other epistles, and were not possessed, or regarded as genuine, by the author of that version. The Epistle to the Hebrews is found in these versions, and was, therefore, regarded as one of the inspired books. In those versions it bears the inscription, "To the Hebrews."

(3) this Epistle was received as the production of Paul by the Eastern churches. Justin Martyr, who was born at Samaria, quotes it, about the year 140 a.d. It was found, as has been already remarked, in the Peshito - the Old Syriac Version, made in the early part of the second century Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, also (about 325 a.d.) repeatedly quotes it as the production of an apostle. Ephrem Syrus, or the Syrian, abundantly ascribes this Epistle to Paul. He was the disciple of Jacob of Nisibis, and no man was better qualified to inform himself on this point than Ephrem. No man stands deservedly higher in the memory of the Eastern churches. After him, all the Syrian churches acknowledged the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the most important testimony of the Eastern church is that of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine. He is the well-known historian of the church, and he took pains from all quarters to collect testimony in regard to the Books of Scripture. He says, "There are fourteen epistles of Paul, manifest and well known: but yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, alleging in behalf of their opinion, that it was not received by the church of Rome as a writing of Paul." The testimony of Eusebius is particularly important.

He had heard of the objection to its canonical authority. He had weighed that objection. Yet in view of the testimony in the case, he regarded it as the undoubted production of Paul. As such it was received in the churches in the East; and the fact which he mentions, that its genuineness had been disputed by the church of Rome, and that he specifies no other church, proves that it had not been called in question in the East. This seems to me to be sufficient testimony to settle this inquiry. The writers here referred to lived in the very country to which the Epistle was evidently written, and their testimony is uniform. Justin Martyr was born in Samaria; Ephrem passed his life in Syria; Eusebius lived in Cesarea, and Origen passed the last twenty years of his life in Palestine. The churches there were unanimous in the opinion that this Epistle was written by Paul, and their united testimony should settle the question.

Indeed when their testimony is considered, it seems remarkable that the subject should have been regarded as doubtful by critics, or that it should have given rise to so much protracted investigation. I might add to the testimonies above referred to, the fact that the Epistle was declared to be Paul's by the following persons: Archelaus, Bishop of Mesopotamia, about 300 a.d.; Adamantius, about 330 a.d.; Cyril, of Jerusalem, about 348 a.d.; the Council of Laodicea, about 363 a.d.; Epiphanius, about 368 a.d.; Basil, 370 a.d.; Gregory Nazianzen, 370 a.d.; Chrysostom, 398 a.d., etc. etc. Why should not the testimony of such men and churches be admitted? What more clear or decided evidence could we wish in regard to any fact of ancient history? Would not such testimony be ample in regard to an anonymous oration of Cicero, or poem of Virgil or Horace? Are we not constantly acting on far feebler evidence in regard to the authorship of many productions of celebrated English writers?

(4) in regard to the Western churches, it is to be admitted that, like the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second Epistle and Third Epistle of John, the canonical authority was for some time doubted, or was even called in question. But this may be accounted for. The Epistle had not the name of the author. All the other epistles of Paul had. As the Epistle was addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine, it may not have been soon known to the Western churches. As there were spurious epistles and gospels at an early age, much caution would be used in admitting any anonymous production to a place in the sacred canon. Yet it was not long before all these doubts were removed, and the Epistle to the Hebrews was allowed to take its place among the other acknowledged writings of Paul. It was received as the Epistle of Paul by Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, about 354 a.d.; by Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, 354 a.d.; by Victorinus, 360 a.d.; by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 360 a.d.; by Rufinus, 397 a.d., etc. etc.

Jerome, the well-known Latin Father, uses in regard to it the following language: "This is to be maintained, that this Epistle, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not only received by the churches at the East as the apostle Paul's, but has been in past times by all ecclesiastical writers in the Greek language; although most Latins think that Barnabas or Clement was the author." Still, it was not rejected by "all" the Latins. Some received it in the time of Jerome as the production of Paul. See Stuart, pp. 114, 115, for the full testimony of Jerome. Augustine admitted that the Epistle was written by Paul. He mentions that Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and specifies particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews. He often cites it as a part of Scripture, and quotes it as the production of an apostle - Stuart, p. 115. From the time of Augustine it was undisputed. By the Council of Hippo, 393 a.d., the Third Council of Carthage, 397 a.d., and the Fifth Council of Carthage, 419 a.d., it was declared to be the Epistle of Paul, and was commended to the churches as such.

(5) as another proof that it is the writing of Paul, we may appeal to the internal evidence:

(a) The author of the Epistle was the companion and friend of Timothy. "Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty - or is sent away - ἀπολελυμένον apolelumenon - with whom if he come speedily, I will make you a visit." Hebrews 13:23. Sent away, perhaps, on a journey, to visit some of the churches, and expected soon to return. In Philippians 2:19, Paul speaks of sending Timothy to them "so soon as he should see how it would go with him," at the same time expressing a hope that he should himself see them shortly. What is more natural than to suppose that he had now sent Timothy to Philippi; that during his absence he wrote this Epistle; that he was waiting for his return; and that he proposed, if Timothy should return soon, to visit Palestine with him? And who would more naturally say this than the apostle Paul - the companion and friend of Timothy; by whom he had been accompanied in his travels; and by whom he was regarded with special interest as a minister of the gospel?

(b) In Hebrews 13:18-19, he asks their prayers that he might be restored to them; and in Hebrews 13:23, he expresses a confident expectation of being able soon to come and see them. From this it is evident that he was then imprisoned, but had hope of speedy release - a state of things in exact accordance with what existed at Rome. Philippians 2:17-24.

(c) He was in bonds when he wrote this Epistle. Hebrews 10:34, "ye had compassion of me in my bonds;" an expression that will exactly apply to the case of Paul. He was in "bonds" in Palestine; he was two whole years in Caesarea a prisoner Acts 24:27; and what was more natural than that the Christians in Palestine should have had compassion on him, and ministered to his needs? To what other person would these circumstances so certainly be applicable?

(d) The salutation Hebrews 13:24, "they of Italy salute you," agrees with the supposition that it was written by Paul when a prisoner at Rome. Paul writing from Rome, and acquainted with Christians from other parts of Italy, would be likely to send such a salutation. In regard to the "objections" which may be made to this use of the passage, the reader may consult Stuart's Introduction to the Hebrews, p. 127, following.

(e) The "doctrines" of the Epistle are the same as those which are taught by Paul in his undisputed writings. It is true that this consideration is not conclusive, but the want of it would be conclusive evidence against the position that Paul wrote it. But the resemblance is not general. It is not such as any man would exhibit who held to the same general system of truth. It relates to "peculiarities" of doctrine, and is such as would be manifested by a man who bad been reared and trained as Paul had:

(1) No one can doubt that the author was formerly a Jew - and a Jew who had been familiar to an uncommon degree with the institutions of the Jewish religion. Every rite and ceremony; every form of opinion; every fact in their history, is perfectly familiar to him. And though the other apostles were Jews, yet we can hardly suppose that they had the familiarity with the minute rites and ceremonies so accurately referred to in this Epistle, and so fully illustrated. With Paul all this was perfectly natural. He had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and had spent the early part of his life at Jerusalem in the careful study of the Old Testament, in the examination of the prevalent opinions, and in the attentive observance of the rites of religion. The other apostles had been born and trained, apparently, on the banks of Gennesareth, and certainly with few of the opportunities which Paul had had for becoming acquainted with the institutions of the temple service. This consideration is fatal, in my view, to the claim which has been set up for Clement as the author of the Epistle. It is wholly incredible that a foreigner should be so familiar with the Jewish opinions, laws, institutions, and history, as the author of this Epistle manifestly was.

(2) there is the same preference for Christianity over Judaism in this Epistle which is shown by Paul in his other epistles, and exhibited in the same form. Among these points are the following - "The gospel imparts superior light." Compare Galatians 4:3, Galatians 4:9; 1 Corinthians 14:20; Ephesians 4:11-13; 2 Corinthians 3:18; with Hebrews 1:1-2; Hebrews 2:2-4; Hebrews 8:9-11; Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 11:39-40. "The gospel holds out superior motives and encouragements to piety." Compare Galatians 3:23; Galatians 4:2-3; Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 4:1; Galatians 5:13; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 6:15; with Hebrews 9:9, Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 12:18-24, Hebrews 12:28; Hebrews 8:6-13. "The gospel is superior in promoting the real and permanent happiness of mankind." Compare Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 2 Corinthians 3:9; Romans 3:20; Romans 4:24-25; Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:1-2; Galatians 2:16; and the same views in Hebrews 12:18-21; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:4, Hebrews 10:11; Hebrews 6:18-20; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 9:24. "The Jewish dispensation was a type and shadow of the Christian." See Colossians 2:16-17; 1 Corinthians 10:1-6; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45-47; 2 Corinthians 3:13-18; Galatians 4:22-31; Galatians 4:1-5; and for the same or similar views, see Hebrews 9:9-14; Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 8:1-9; Hebrews 9:22-24. "The Christian religion was designed to be perpetual, while the Jewish was intended to be abolished."

See 2 Corinthians 3:10-11, 2 Corinthians 3:13, 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:14-16; Romans 7:4-6; Galatians 3:21-25; Galatians 4:1-7; Galatians 5:1; and for similar views compare Hebrews 8:6-8, Hebrews 8:13; Hebrews 7:17-19; Hebrews 10:1-14. "The person of the Mediator is presented in the same light by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews and by Paul." See Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Ephesians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 15:25-27; and for the same and similar views, see Hebrews 1:2-3; Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 12:2; Hebrews 2:8; Hebrews 10:13. "The death of Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for sin." See 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Romans 8:32; Romans 3:24; Galatians 1:4; Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23; Romans 5:12-21; Romans 3:20, Romans 3:28; Romans 8:3; 1 Timothy 2:5-6. For similar views see Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 5:8-9; Hebrews 7; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9; Hebrews 10:"The general method and arrangement of this Epistle and the acknowledged epistles of Paul are the same." It particularly resembles the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, where we have first a doctrinal and then a practical part.

The same is true also to some extent of the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. The Epistle to the Hebrews is on the same plan. As far as Hebrews 10:19, it is principally doctrinal; the remainder is mainly practical. "The manner of appealing to, and applying the Jewish Scriptures, is the same in this Epistle as in those of Paul." The general structure of the Epistle, and the slightest comparison between them, will show this with sufficient clearness. The general remark to be made in view of this comparison is, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is just such an one as Paul might be expected to write; that it agrees with what we know to have been his early training, his views, his manner of life, his opinions, and his habit in writing; that it accords better with his views than with those of any other known writer of antiquity; and that it falls in with the circumstances in which he was known to be placed, and the general object which he had in view. So satisfactory are these views to my mind, that they seem to have all the force of demonstration which can be had in regard to any anonymous publication, and it is a matter of wonder that so much doubt has been experienced in reference to the question who was the author.

It is difficult to account for the fact that the name of the author was omitted. It is found in every other Epistle of Paul, and in general it is appended to the epistles in the New Testament. It is omitted, however, in the three Epistles of John, for reasons which are now unknown. And there may have been similar reasons also unknown for omitting it in this case. The simple fact is, that it is anonymous; and whoever was the author, the same difficulty will exist in accounting for it. If this fact will prove that Paul was not the author, it would prove the same thing in regard to any other person, and would thus be ultimately conclusive evidence that it had no author. What were the reasons for omitting the name can be only matter of conjecture. The most probable opinion, as it seems to me, is this. The name of Paul was odious to the Jews. He was regarded by the nation as an apostate from their religion, and everywhere they showed special malignity against him.

See the Acts of the Apostles. The fact that he was so regarded by them might indirectly influence even those who had been converted from Judaism to Christianity. They lived in Palestine. They were near the temple, and were engaged in its ceremonies and sacrifices - for there is no evidence that they broke off from those observances on their conversion to Christianity. Paul was abroad. It might have been reported that he was preaching against the temple and its sacrifices, and even the Jewish Christians in Palestine might have supposed that he was carrying matters too far. In these circumstances it might have been imprudent for him to have announced his name at the outset, for it might have aroused prejudices which a wise man would wish to allay. But if he could present an argument, somewhat in the form of an essay, showing that he believed that the Jewish institutions were appointed by God, and that he was not an apostate and an infidel; if he could conduct a demonstration that would accord in the main with the prevailing views of the Christians in Palestine, and that was adapted to, strengthen them in the faith of the gospel, and explain to them the true nature of the Jewish rites, then the object could be gained without difficulty, and then they would be prepared to learn that Pant was the author, without prejudice or alarm. Accordingly he thus conducts the argument; and at the close gives them such intimations that they would understand who wrote it without much difficulty. If this was the motive, it was an instance of tact such as was certainly characteristic of Paul, and such as was not unworthy any man. I have no doubt that this was the true motive. It would be soon known who wrote it; and accordingly we have seen it was never disputed in the Eastern churches.

Section 4. The Time When Written

In regard to the time when this Epistle was written, and the place where, critics have been better agreed than on most of the questions which have been started in regard to it. Mill was of opinion that it was written by Paul in the year 63 a.d., in some part of Italy, soon after he bad been released from imprisonment at Rome. Wetstein was of the same opinion. Tillemont also places this Epistle in the year 63 a.d., and supposes that it was written while Paul was at Rome, or at least in Italy, and soon after he was released from imprisonment. Basnage supposes it was written about the year 61, and during the imprisonment of the apostle. Lardner supposes also that it was written in the beginning of the year 63 a.d., and soon after the apostle was released from his confinement. This also is the opinion of Calmet. The circumstances in the Epistle which will enable us to form an opinion on the question about the time and the place are the following:

(1) It was written while the temple was still standing, and before Jerusalem was destroyed. This is evident from the whole structure of the Epistle. There is no allusion to the destruction of the temple or the city, which there certainly would have been if they had been destroyed. Such an event would have contributed much to the object in view, and would have furnished an unbreakable argument that the institutions of the Jews were intended to be superseded by another and a more perfect system. Moreover, there are allusions in the Epistle which suppose that the temple service was then performed. See Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 8:4-5. But the city and temple were destroyed in the year 70 a.d., and, of course, the Epistle was written before that year.

(2) it was evidently written before the civil wars and commotions in Judea, which terminated in the destruction of the city and nation. This is clear, because there are no allusions to any such disorders or troubles in Palestine, and there is no intimation that they were suffering the evils incident to a state of war. Compare Hebrews 12:4. But those wars commenced 66 a.d., and evidently the Epistle was written before that time.

(3) they were not suffering the evils of violent persecution. They had indeed formerly suffered (compare Hebrews 10:32, Hebrews 10:34); James and Stephen had been put to death Acts 7; Acts 12; but there was no violent and bloody persecution then raging in which they were called to defend their religion at the expense of blood and life. Hebrews 10:32-33. But the persecution under Nero began in the year 64 a.d., and though it began at Rome, and was confined to a considerable degree to Italy, yet it is not improbable that it extended to other places, and it is to be presumed that if such a persecution were raging at the time when the Epistle was written there would be some allusion to this fact. It may be set down, therefore, that it was written before the year 64 ad.

(4) It is equally true that the Epistle was written during the latter part of the apostolic age. The author speaks of the former days in which after they were illuminated they had endured a great fight of afflictions, and when they were made a gazing-stock, and were plundered by their oppressors Hebrews 10:32-34; and he speaks of them as having been so long-converted that they ought to have been qualified to teach others Hebrews 5:12; and, hence, it is fairly to be inferred that they were not recent converts, but that the church there had been established for a considerable period. It may be added, that it was after the writer had been imprisoned - as I suppose in Caesarea (see Section 3) - when they had ministered to him; Hebrews 10:34. But this was as late as the year 60 ad.

(5) At the time when Paul wrote the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, he had hopes of deliverance. Timothy was evidently with him. But now he was absent; Hebrews 13:23. In the Epistle to the Philippians Phi 2:19-23 he says, "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I may be also of good comfort, when I know your state." He expected, therefore, that Timothy would come back to him at Rome. It is probable that Timothy was sent soon after this. The apostle had a fair prospect of being set at liberty, and sent him to them. "During his absence" at this time, it would seem probable, this Epistle was written. Thus, the writer says Hebrews 13:23, "Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty" - or rather, "sent away," or "sent abroad" (see the note in that place); "with whom if be come shortly, I will see you." That is, if he returns soon, as I expect him, I will pay you a visit. It is probable that the Epistle was written while Timothy was thus absent at Philippi, and when he returned, Paul and he went to Palestine, and thence to Ephesus. If so it was written somewhere about the year 63 a.d. as this was the time when Paul was set at liberty.

(6) the Epistle was written evidently in Italy. Thus, in Hebrews 13:24, the writer says, "They of Italy salute you." This would be the natural form of salutation on the supposition that it was written there. He mentions none by name, as he does in his other epistles, for it is probable that none of those who were at Rome would be known by name in Palestine. But there was a general salutation, showing the interest which they had in the Christians in Judea, and expressive of regard for their welfare. This expression is, to my mind, conclusive evidence that the Epistle was written in Italy; and in Italy there was no place where this would be so likely to occur as at Rome.

Section 5. The Language in which It Was Written

This is a vexed and still unsettled question, and it does not seem to be possible to determine it with any considerable degree of certainty. Critics of the ablest name have been divided on it, and what is remarkable, have appealed to the same arguments to prove exactly opposite opinions - one class arguing that the style of the Epistle is such as to prove that it was written in Hebrew, and the other appealing to the same proofs to demonstrate that it was written in Greek. Among those who have supposed that it was written in Hebrew are the following, namely: - Some of the fathers - as Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, John Damascenus, Theophylact; and among the moderns, Michaelis has been the most strenuous defender of this opinion. This opinion was also held by the late Dr. James P. Wilson, who says, "It was probably written in the common language of the Jews;" that is, in that mixture of Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldee, which was usually spoken in the time of the Saviour, and which was known as the Syro-Chaldaic.

On the other hand, the great body of critics have supposed it was written in the Greek language. This was the opinion of Fabricius, Lightfoot, Whitby, Beausobre, Capellus, Basnage, Mill, and others, and is also the opinion of Lardnet, Hug, Stuart, and perhaps of most modern critics. These opinions may be seen examined at length in Michaelis' Introduction, Hag, Stuart, and Lardner.

The arguments in support of the opinion that it was written in Hebrew are, briefly, the following:

(1) The testimony of the fathers. Thus, Clement of Alexandria says, "Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and Luke carefully translated it into Greek." Jerome says, "Paul as a Hebrew wrote to the Hebrews in Hebrew - Scripserat ut Hebraeus Hebraeis Hebraice;" and then he adds, "this Epistle was translated into Greek, so that the coloring of the style was made diverse in this way from that of Paul's."

(2) the fact that it was written for the use of the Hebrews, who spoke the Hebrew, or the "Talmudic" language, is alleged as a reason for supposing that it must have been written in that language.

(3) it is alleged by Michaelis, that the style of the Greek, as we now have it, is far more pure and Classical than Paul elsewhere employs, and that hence it is to be inferred that it was translated by some one who was master of the Greek language. On this, however, the most eminent critics disagree.

(4) it is alleged by Michaelis, that the quotations in the Epistle, as we have it, are made from the Septuagint, and that they are foreign to the purpose which the writer had in view as they are now quoted, whereas they are exactly in point as they stand in the Hebrew. Hence he infers that the original Hebrew was quoted by the author, and that the translator used the common version at hand instead of making an exact translation for himself. Of the fact alleged here, however, there may be good ground to raise a question; and if it were so, it would not prove that the writer might not have used the common and accredited translation, though less to his purpose than the original. Of the fact, moreover, to which Michaelis here refers, Prof. Stuart says, "He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls a "wrong translation" which wears the appearance of any considerable probability." The only instance urged by Michaelis which seems to me to be plausible is Hebrews 1:7. These are the principal arguments which have been urged in favor of the opinion that this Epistle was written in the Hebrew language. They are evidently not conclusive. The only argument of any considerable weight is the testimony of some of the fathers, and it may be doubted whether they gave this as a matter of historic fact or only as a matter of opinion. See Hug's Introduction, 144. It is morally certain that in one respect their statement cannot be true. They state that it was translated by Luke; but it is capable of the clearest proof that it was not translated by Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, since there is the most remarkable dissimilarity in the style.

On the other hand there are alleged in favor of the opinion that it was written in Greek the following considerations, namely:

(1) The fact that we have no Hebrew original. If it was written in Hebrew, the original was early lost. None of the fathers say that they had seen it; none quote it. All the copies that we have are in Greek. If it was written in Hebrew, and the original was destroyed, it must have been at a very early period, and it is remarkable that no one should have mentioned the fact or alluded to it. Besides, it is scarcely conceivable that the original should have so soon perished, and that the translation should have altogether taken its place. If it was addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine, the same reason which made it proper that it should have been written in Hebrew would have led them to retain it in that language, and we might have supposed that Origen, or Eusebius, or Jerome, who lived there, or Ephrem the Syrian, would have adverted to the fact that there was there a Hebrew original. The Jews were remarkable for retaining their sacred books in the language in which they were written, and if this were written in Hebrew it is difficult to account for the fact that it was so soon suffered to perish.

(2) the presumption - a presumption amounting to almost a moral certainty - is, that an apostle writing to the Christians in Palestine would write in Greek. This presumption is based on the following circumstances:

(a) The fact that all the other books of the New Testament were written in Greek, unless the Gospel by Matthew is an exception.

(b) This occurred in cases where it would seem to have been as improbable as it was that one writing to the Hebrews should use that language. For instance, Paul wrote to the church in Rome in the Greek language, though the "Latin" language was what was in universal use there.

(c) The Greek was a common language in the East. It seems to have been familiarly spoken, and to have been commonly understood.

(d) Like the other books of the New Testament, this Epistle does not appear to have been intended to be confined to the Hebrews only. The writings of the apostles were regarded as the property of the church at large. Those writings would be copied and spread abroad. The Greek language was a far better language for such a purpose than the Hebrew language. It was polished and elegant; was adapted to the purpose of discoursing on moral subjects; was fitted to express delicate shades of thought, and was the language which was best understood by the world at large.

(e) It was the language which Paul would naturally use unless there was a strong reason for his employing the Hebrew. Though he was able to speak in Hebrew Act 21:40, yet he had spent his early days in Tarsus, where the Greek was the vernacular tongue, and it was probably that which he had first learned. Besides this, when this Epistle was written he had been absent from Palestine about 25 years, and in all that time he had been there but a few days. He had been where the Greek language was universally spoken. He had been among Jews who spoke that language. It was the language used in their synagogues, and Paul had addressed them in it. After thus preaching, conversing, and writing in that language for 25 years, is it any wonder that he should prefer writing in it; that he should naturally do it; and is it not to be presumed that he would do it in this case? These presumptions are so strong that they ought to be allowed to settle a question of this kind unless there is positive proof to the contrary.

(3) there is internal proof that it was written in the Greek language. The evidence of this kind consists in the fact that the writer bases an argument on the meaning and force of Greek words, which could not have occurred had he written in Hebrew. Instances of this kind are such as these:

(a) In Hebrews 2:he applies a passage from Psalm 8:1-9 to prove that the Son of God must have had a human nature, which was to be exalted above the angels, and placed at the head of the creation. The passage is, "Thou hast made him a little while inferior to the angels. Hebrews 2:7, margin. In the Hebrew, in Psalm 8:5, the word rendered "angels," is אלהים 'Elohiym - God; and the sense of "angels" attached to that word, though it may sometimes occur, is so unusual, that an argument would not have been built on the Hebrew language.

(b) In Hebrews 7:1, the writer has explained the name "Melchizedek," and translated it "king of Salem" - telling what it is in "Greek" - a thing which would not have been done had he written in Hebrew, where the word was well understood. It is possible, indeed, that a translator might have done this, but the explanation seems to be interwoven with the discourse itself, and to constitute a part of the argument.

(c) In Hebrews 9:16-17, there is an argument on the meaning of the word "covenant" - διαθήκη diathēkē - which could not have occurred had the Epistle been in Hebrew. It is founded on the double meaning of that word - denoting both a "covenant" and a "testament," or "will." The Hebrew word - בּרית beriyt - has no such double signification. It means only "covenant," and is never used in the sense of the word "will," or testament. The proper translation of that word would be συνθήκη sunthēkē - but the translators of the Septuagint uniformly used the former - διαθήκη diathēkē and on this word the argument of the apostle is based. This could not have been done by a translator; it must have been by the original author, for it is incorporated into the argument.

(d) In Hebrews 10:3-9, the author shows that Christ came to make an atonement for sin, and that in order to this it was necessary that he should have a human body. This he shows was not only necessary, but was predicted. In doing this, he appeals to Psalm 40:6 - "A body hast thou prepared for me." But the Hebrew here is, "Mine ears hast thou opened." This passage would have been much less pertinent than the other form - "a body hast thou prepared me; " - and indeed it is not easy to see how it would bear at all on the object in view. See Hebrews 10:10. But in the Septuagint, the phrase stands as he quotes it - "a body hast thou prepared for me;" a fact which demonstrates, whatever difficulties there may be about the "principle" on which he makes the quotation, that the Epistle was written in Greek. It may be added, that it has nothing of the appearance of a translation. It is not stiff, forced, or constrained in style, as translations usually are. It is impassioned, free, flowing, full of animation, life, and coloring, and has all the appearance of being an original composition. So clear have these considerations appeared, that the great body of critics now concur in the opinion that the Epistle was originally written in Greek

Section 6. The Design and General Argument of the Epistle

The general purpose of this Epistle is, to preserve those to whom it was sent from the danger of apostasy. Their danger on this subject did not arise so much from persecution, as from the circumstances that were fitted to attract them again to the Jewish religion. The temple, it is supposed, and indeed it is evident, was still standing. The morning and evening sacrifice was still offered. The splendid rites of that imposing religion were still observed. The authority of the law was undisputed. Moses was a lawgiver, sent from God, and no one doubted that the Jewish form of religion had been instituted by their fathers in conformity with the direction of God. Their religion had been founded amidst remarkable manifestations of the Deity - in flames, and smoke, and thunder; it had been communicated by the ministration of angels; it had on its side and in its favor all the venerableness and sanction of a remote antiquity; and it commended itself by the pomp of its ritual, and by the splendor of its ceremonies. On the other hand, the new form of religion had little or nothing of this to commend it. It was of recent origin. It was founded by the Man of Nazareth, who had been trained up in their own land, and who had been a carpenter, and who had had no extraordinary advantages of education. Its rites were few and simple. It had no splendid temple service; none of the pomp and pageantry, the music and the magnificence of the ancient religion. It had no splendid array of priests in magnificent vestments, and it had not been imparted by the ministry of angels. Fishermen were its ministers; and by the body of the nation it was regarded as a schism, or heresy, that enlisted in its favor only the most humble and lowly of the people.

In these circumstances, how natural was it for the enemies of the gospel in Judea to contrast the two forms of religion, and how keenly would Christians there feel it! All that was said of the antiquity and the divine origin of the Jewish religion they knew and admitted; all that was said of its splendor and magnificence they saw; and all that was said of the humble origin of their own religion they were constrained to admit also. their danger was not that arising from persecution. It was that of being affected by considerations like these, and of relapsing again into the religion of their fathers, and of apostatizing from the gospel; and it was a danger which beset no other part of the Christian world.

To meet and counteract this danger was the design of this Epistle. Accordingly, the writer contrasts the two religions in all the great points on which the minds of Christians in Judea would be likely to be affected, and shows the superiority of the Christian religion over the Jewish in every respect, and especially in the points that had so much attracted their attention, and affected their hearts. He begins by showing that the author of the Christian religion was superior in rank to any and all who had ever delivered the word of God to man. He was superior to the prophets, and even to the angels. He was over all things, and all things were subject to him. There was, therefore, a special reason why they should listen to him, and obey his commands; Hebrews 1:1-14 and Hebrews 2:He was superior to Moses, the great Jewish lawgiver, whom they venerated so much, and on whom they so much prided themselves; Hebrews 3:Having shown that the Great Founder of the Christian religion was superior to the prophets, to Moses, and to the angels, the writer proceeds to show that the Christian religion was characterized by having a High Priest superior to that of the Jews, and of whom the Jewish high priest was but a type and emblem.

He shows that all the rites of the ancient religion, splendid as they were, were also but types, and were to vanish away - for they had had their fulfillment in the realities of the Christian faith He allows that the Christians High Priest derived his origin and his rank from a more venerable antiquity than the Jewish high priest did - because he went back to Melchizedek, who lived long before Aaron, and that he had far superior dignity from the fact that he had entered into the Holy of Holies in heaven. The Jewish high priest entered once a year into the most holy place in the temple; the Great High Priest of the Christian faith had entered into the Most Holy place - of which that was but the type and emblem - into heaven. In short, whatever there was of dignity and honor in the Jewish faith had more than its counterpart in the Christian religion; and while the Christian religion was permanent, that was fading.

The rites of the Jewish system, magnificent as they were, were designed to be temporary. They were mere types and shadows of things to come. They had their fulfillment in Christianity That had an Author more exalted in rank by far than the author of the Jewish system; it had a High Priest more elevated and enduring; it had rites which brought men nearer to God; it was the substance of what in the temple service was type and shadow. By considerations such as these the author of this Epistle endeavors to preserve them from apostasy. Why should they go back? Why should they return to a less perfect system? Why go back from the substance to the shadow? Why turn away from the true sacrifice to the type and emblem? Why linger around the earthly tabernacle, and contemplate the high priest there, while they had a more perfect and glorious High Priest, who had entered into the heavens? And why should they turn away from the only perfect sacrifice - the great offering made for transgression - and go back to the bloody rites which were to be renewed every day?

And why forsake the perfect system - the system that was to endure for ever - for that which was soon to vanish away? The author of this Epistle is very careful to assure them that if they thus apostatized, there could be no hope for them. If they now rejected the sacrifice of the Son of God, then was no other sacrifice for sin. That was the last great sacrifice for the sins of men. It was designed to close all bloody offerings. It was not to be repeated. If that was rejected, there was no other. The Jewish rites were soon to pass away; and even if they were not, they could not cleanse the conscience from sin. Persecuted then though they might be; reviled, ridiculed, opposed, yet they should not abandon their Christian hope, for it was their all; they should not neglect him who spake to them from heaven, for in dignity, rank, and authority, he far surpassed all who in former times had made known the will of God to men.

This Epistle, therefore, occupies a most important place in the book of revelation, and without it that book would be incomplete. It is the most full explanation which we have of the meaning of the Jewish institutions. In the Epistle to the Romans we have a system of religious doctrine, and particularly a defense of the great doctrine of justification by faith. Important doctrines are discussed in the other epistles; but there was something wanted that would show the meaning of the Jewish rites and ceremonies, and their connection with the Christian scheme; something which would show us how the one was preparatory to the other; and I may add, something that would restrain the imagination in endeavoring to show how the one was designed to introduce the other. The one was a system of "types" and "shadows." But on nothing is the human mind more prone to wander than on the subject of emblems and analogies.

This has been shown abundantly in the experience of the Christian church, from the time of Origen to the present. Systems of divinity, commentaries, and sermons, have shown everywhere how prone men of ardent imaginations have been to find types in everything pertaining to the ancient economy; to discover hidden meanings in every ceremony; and to regard every pin and hook and instrument of the tabernacle as designed to inculcate some truth, and to shadow forth some fact or doctrine of the Christian revelation. It was desirable to have one book that should tell how that is; to fetter down the imagination and bind it by severe rules, and to restrain the vagaries of honest but credulous devotion. Such a book we have in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The ancient system is there explained by one who had been brought up in the midst of it, and who understood it thoroughly; by one who had a clear insight into the relation which it bore to the Christian economy; by one who was under the influence of divine inspiration, and who could not err.

The Bible would have been incomplete without this book: and when I think of the relation between the Jewish and the Christian systems; when I look on the splendid rites of the ancient economy, and ask their meaning; when I wish a full guide to heaven, and ask for that which gives completeness to the whole, I turn instinctively to the Epistle to the Hebrews. When I wish also that which shall give me the most elevated view of the Great Author of Christianity and of his work, and the most clear conceptions of the sacrifice which he made for sin: and when I look for considerations that shall be most effectual in restraining the soul from apostasy, and for considerations to enable it to bear trials with patience and with hope, my mind recurs to this book, and I feel that the book of revelation, and the hopes of man, would be incomplete without it.

Analysis Of The Chapter

The main object of the Epistle is to commend the Christian religion to those who were addressed in it in such a way as to prevent defection from it. This is done, principally, by showing its superiority to the Mosaic system. The great danger of Christians in Palestine was of relapsing into the Jewish system. The imposing nature or its rites; the public sentiment in its favor; the fact of its antiquity, and its undisputed divine origin, would all tend to that. To counteract this, the writer of this Epistle shows that the gospel bad higher claims on their attention, and that if that was rejected ruin was inevitable. In doing this, he begins, in this chapter, by showing the superiority of the Author of Christianity to prophets and to the angels; that is, that he had a rank that entitled him to the profoundest regard. The drift of this chapter, therefore, is to show the dignity and exalted nature of the Author of the Christian system - the Son of God. The chapter comprises the following points:

I. The announcement of the fact that God, who had formerly spoken by the prophets, had in this last dispensation spoken by his Son; Hebrews 1:1-2.

II. The statement respecting his rank and dignity. He was:

(1) the Heir of all things;

(2) the Creator of the worlds;

(3) the Brightness of the divine glory and the proper expression of his nature;

(4) he upheld all things; Hebrews 1:2-3.

III. The work and exaltation of the Author of the Christian system:

(1) He, by his own unassisted agency, purified us from our sins.

(2) he is seated at the right hand of God.

(3) he has a more exalted and valuable inheritance than the angels, in proportion as his name is more exalted than theirs; Hebrews 1:3-4.

IV. Proofs that what is here ascribed to him belongs to him, particularly that he is declared to be superior to the angels; Hebrews 1:5-14.

(1) the angels have never been addressed with the title of Son: Hebrews 1:5.

(2) he is declared to be the object of worship by the angels, while they are employed merely as the messengers of God; Hebrews 1:6-7.

(3) he is addressed as God, and his throne is said to be forever and ever; Hebrews 1:8-9.

(4) he is addressed as immutable. He is declared to have laid the foundations of heaven and earth; and though they would perish, yet he would remain the same; Hebrews 1:10-12.

(5) none of the angels had been addressed in this manner, but they were employed in the subordinate work of ministering to the heirs of salvation; Hebrews 1:13-14.

From this train of reasoning, the inference is drawn in Hebrews 2:1-4, that we ought to give diligent heed to what had been spoken. The Great Author of the Christian scheme had special claims to be heard, and there was special danger in disregarding his message. The object of this chapter is to impress those to whom the Epistle was addressed with the high claims of the Founder of Christianity, and to show that it was superior in this respect to any other system.

Preface to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews

The Epistle to the Hebrews, on which the reader is about to enter, is by far the most important and useful of all the apostolic writings; all the doctrines of the Gospel are in it embodied, illustrated, and enforced in a manner the most lucid, by references and examples the most striking and illustrious, and by arguments the most cogent and convincing. It is an epitome of the dispensations of God to man, from the foundation of the world to the advent of Christ. It is not only the sum of the Gospel, but the sum and completion of the Law, on which it is also a most beautiful and luminous comment. Without this, the law of Moses had never been fully understood, nor God's design in giving it. With this, all is clear and plain, and the ways of God with man rendered consistent and harmonious. The apostle appears to have taken a portion of one of his own epistles for his text - Christ is the End of the Law for Righteousness to them that Believe, and has most amply and impressively demonstrated his proposition. All the rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices of the Mosaic institution are shown to have had Christ for their object and end, and to have had neither intention nor meaning but in reference to him; yea, as a system to be without substance, as a law to be without reason, and its enactments to be both impossible and absurd, if taken out of this reference and connection. Never were premises more clearly stated; never was an argument handled in a more masterly manner; and never was a conclusion more legitimately and satisfactorily brought forth. The matter is everywhere the most interesting; the manner is throughout the most engaging; and the language is most beautifully adapted to the whole, everywhere appropriate, always nervous and energetic, dignified as is the subject, pure and elegant as that of the most accomplished Grecian orators, and harmonious and diversified as the music of the spheres.

So many are the beauties, so great the excellency, so instructive the matter, so pleasing the manner, and so exceedingly interesting the whole, that the work may be read a hundred times over without perceiving any thing of sameness, and with new and increased information at each reading. This latter is an excellency which belongs to the whole revelation of God; but to no part of it in such a peculiar and supereminent manner as to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

To explain and illustrate this epistle multitudes have toiled hard; and exhibited much industry, much learning, and much piety. I also will show my opinion; and ten thousand may succeed me, and still bring out something that is new. That it was written to Jews, naturally such, the whole structure of the epistle proves. Had it been written to the Gentiles, not one in ten thousand of them could have comprehended the argument, because unacquainted with the Jewish system; the knowledge of which the writer of this epistle everywhere supposes. He who is well acquainted with the Mosaic law sits down to the study of this epistle with double advantages; and he who knows the traditions of the elders, and the Mishnaic illustrations of the written, and pretended oral law of the Jews, is still more likely to enter into and comprehend the apostle's meaning. No man has adopted a more likely way of explaining its phraseology than Schoettgen, who has traced its peculiar diction to Jewish sources; and, according to him, the proposition of the whole epistle is this: -

Jesus of Nazareth Is the True God

And in order to convince the Jews of the truth of this proposition, the apostle uses but three arguments:

1. Christ is superior to the angels.

2. He is superior to Moses.

3. He is superior to Aaron.

These arguments would appear more distinctly were it not for the improper division of the chapters; as he who divided them in the middle ages (a division to which we are still unreasonably attached) had but a superficial knowledge of the word of God. In consequence of this it is that one peculiar excellency of the apostle is not noticed, viz. his application of every argument, and the strong exhortation founded on it. Schoettgen has very properly remarked, that commentators in general have greatly misunderstood the apostle's meaning through their unacquaintance with the Jewish writings and their peculiar phraseology, to which the apostle is continually referring, and of which he makes incessant use. He also supposes, allowing for the immediate and direct inspiration of the apostle, that he had in view this remarkable saying of the rabbins, on Isaiah 52:13 : "Behold, my servant will deal prudently." Rab. Tanchum, quoting Yalcut Simeoni, part ii., fol. 53, says: זה מלך המשיה, "This is the King Messiah, who shall be greatly extolled, and elevated: he shall be elevated beyond Abraham; shall be more eminent than Moses; and more exalted than ממלאכי השרה the ministering angels." Or, as it is expressed in Yalcut Kadosh, fol. 144: משיה גדול מן האבות ומן משה ומן מלאכי השרה Mashiach gadol min ha-aboth; umin Mosheh; umin Malakey hashshareth. "The Messiah is greater than the patriarchs; than Moses; and than the ministering angels." These sayings he shows to have been fulfilled in our Messiah; and as he dwells on the superiority of our Lord to all these illustrious persons because they were at the very top of all comparisons among the Jews; he, according to their opinion, who was greater than all these, must be greater than all created beings.

This is the point which the apostle undertakes to prove, in order that he may show the Godhead of Christ; therefore, if we find him proving that Jesus was greater than the patriarchs, greater than Aaron, greater than Moses, and greater than the angels, he must be understood to mean, according to the Jewish phraseology, that Jesus is an uncreated Being, infinitely greater than all others, whether earthly or heavenly. For, as they allowed the greatest eminence (next to God) to angelic beings, the apostle concludes "that he who is greater than the angels is truly God: but Christ is greater than the angels; therefore Christ is truly God." Nothing can be clearer than that this is the apostle's grand argument; and the proofs and illustrations of it meet the reader in almost every verse.

That the apostle had a plan on which he drew up this epistle is very clear, from the close connection of every part. The grand divisions seem to be three: -

I. The proposition, which is very short, and is contained in chap. Hebrews 1:1-3. The majesty and pre-eminence of Christ.

II. The proof or arguments which support the proposition, viz.: -

Christ Is Greater than the Angels

1. Because he has a more excellent name than they, chap. Hebrews 1:4, Hebrews 1:5.

2. Because the angels of God adore him, Hebrews 1:6.

3. Because the angels were created by him, Hebrews 1:7.

4. Because, in his human nature, he was endowed with greater gifts than they, Hebrews 1:8, Hebrews 1:9.

5. Because he is eternal, Hebrews 1:10, Hebrews 1:11, Hebrews 1:12.

6. Because he is more highly exalted, Hebrews 1:13.

7. Because the angels are only the servants of God; he, the Son, Hebrews 1:14.

In the application of this argument he exhorts the Hebrews not to neglect Christ, chap. Hebrews 2:1, by arguments drawn,: -

1. From the minor to the major, Hebrews 2:2, Hebrews 2:3.

2. Because the preaching of Christ was confirmed by miracles, Hebrews 2:4.

3. Because, in the economy of the New Testament, angels are not the administrators; but the Messiah himself, to whom all things are subject, Hebrews 2:5.

Here the apostle inserts a twofold objection, professedly drawn from Divine revelation: -

1. Christ is man, and is less than the angels. What is man - thou madest him a little lower than the angels, Hebrews 2:6, Hebrews 2:7. Therefore he cannot be superior to them.

To this it is answered:

1. Christ as a mortal man, by his death and resurrection, overcame all enemies, and subdued all things to himself; therefore he must be greater than the angels, Hebrews 2:9.

2. Though Christ died, and was in this respect inferior to the angels, yet it was necessary that he should take on him this mortal state, that he might be of the same nature with those whom he was to redeem; and this he did without any prejudice to his Divinity, Hebrews 2:10-18.

Christ Is Greater than Moses

1. Because Moses was only a servant; Christ, the Lord, Hebrews 3:2-6.

The application of this argument he makes from Psalm 95:7-11, which he draws out at length, Hebrews 3:7-18; Hebrews 4:1-13.

Christ Is Greater than Aaron, and All the Other High Priests

1. Because he has not gone through the veil of the tabernacle to make an atonement for sin, but has entered for this purpose into heaven itself, Hebrews 4:14.

2. Because he is the Son of God, Hebrews 4:14.

3. Because it is from him we are to implore grace and mercy, Hebrews 4:15, Hebrews 4:16, and Hebrews 4:1, Hebrews 4:2, Hebrews 4:3.

4. Because he was consecrated High Priest by God himself, Hebrews 5:4-10.

5. Because he is not a priest according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedec, which was much more ancient, and much more noble, chap. 7. For the excellence and prerogatives of this order, see the notes on Hebrews 7:26.

6. Because he is not a typical priest, prefiguring good things to come, but the real Priest, of whom the others were but types and shadows, 8:1-9:11. For the various reasons by which this argument is supported, see also the notes on Hebrews 8:1-13 (note) and Hebrews 9 (note).

In this part of the epistle the apostle inserts a digression, in which he reproves the ignorance and negligence of the Hebrews in their mode of treating the sacred Scriptures. See Hebrews 5:11, and chap. 6.

The application of this part contains the following exhortations: -

1. That they should carefully retain their faith in Christ as the true Messiah, Hebrews 10:19-23.

2. That they should be careful to live a godly life, Hebrews 10:24, Hebrews 10:25.

3. That they should take care not to incur the punishment of disobedience, Hebrews 10:32-37, and Hebrews 12:3-12.

4. That they should place their whole confidence in God, live by faith, and not turn back to perdition Hebrews 10:38; Hebrews 12:2.

5. That they should consider and imitate the faith and obedience of their eminent ancestors, chap. 11.

6. That they should take courage, and not be remiss in the practice of the true religion, Hebrews 12:12-24.

7. That they should take heed not to despise the Messiah, now speaking to them from heaven, Hebrews 12:25-29.

III. Practical and miscellaneous exhortations relative to sundry duties, chap. 13.

All these subjects, (whether immediately designed by the apostle himself, in this particular order, or not), are pointedly considered in this most excellent epistle; in the whole of which the superiority of Christ, his Gospel, his priesthood, and his sacrifice, over Moses, the law, the Aaronic priesthood, and the various sacrifices prescribed by the law, is most clearly and convincingly shown.

Different writers have taken different views of the order in which these subjects arc proposed, but most commentators have produced the same results.

For other matters relative to the author of the epistle, the persons to whom it was sent, the language in which it was composed, and the time and place in which it was written, the reader is referred to the introduction, where these matters are treated in sufficient detail.

Different discoveries made of the Divine will to the ancient Israelites by the prophets, Hebrews 1:1. The discovery now perfected by the revelation of Jesus Christ, of whose excellences and glories a large description is given, Hebrews 1:2-13. Angels are ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, Hebrews 1:14.

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS

That this epistle was written very early appears from hence, that it was imitated by Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, who took whole sentences out of it; and therefore it could not be a new work, as Eusebius (a) observes: it has been denied to be authentic by some heretics, as the Marcionites and Arians, but has been generally received as such by the orthodox: some indeed doubted of it, because it was not received by the Roman church, as an epistle of the Apostle Paul (b); though others, who have thought it was not his, as Origen, yet looked upon it as genuine (c). It has been ascribed to different persons, as to Barnabas, to Apollos, to Luke the Evangelist, and to Clement of Rome, but without any just reason. Clement of Alexandria, a very ancient writer, asserts it to be the Apostle Paul's (d); and his name stands in the title of it, in all R. Stephens's exemplars, and in all Beza's copies, excepting one, and so it does in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions; and that it is his, is highly probable from the agreement there is between this, and other epistles of his; compare Hebrews 1:2 with Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 5:12 with 1 Corinthians 3:1 and Hebrews 12:1 with 1 Corinthians 9:24 and Hebrews 13:7 with 1 Thessalonians 5:11, and Hebrews 13:9 with Ephesians 4:14 and Hebrews 13:18 with 2 Corinthians 1:12 and Hebrews 13:20 with Romans 15:13 and many other places; and also from the order and method of it, first treating of doctrines, and then proceeding to practical exhortations, which is the common form of Paul's epistles: to which may be added various circumstances; as that it was written from Italy, where Paul was a prisoner; and the mention the author of it makes of his bonds, and of Timothy, as well known unto him, who was Paul's companion; besides, the token of his epistles appears in this, namely, his usual salutation to the churches; see Hebrews 13:23. But above all, the testimony of the Apostle Peter is greatly in favour of its being his, 2 Peter 3:15 from whence it clearly appears, that the Apostle Paul did write an epistle to the Hebrews; for to them Peter wrote; see 1 Peter 1:1 and what epistle could it be but this? and what Peter refers to is to be found in it; see Hebrews 10:25 and which is written with great wisdom; in none of Paul's epistles is there a greater discovery of his knowledge of divine mysteries than in this; and in it also are things hard to be understood, Hebrews 5:11. The common objections to its being his are, its not bearing his name, the diversity of its style, and the author of it seeming to be not an apostle, but a disciple of the apostle's: as to his not setting his name to it, the reasons might be, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and not so much of the Jews; and because of the prejudice of the Jews against him, both believers, and unbelievers; wherefore had his name been to it, it might have prevented the usefulness of it to the one, and have stirred up the rage of the other: as to the difference of style, different subjects require a different style; and yet in many things there is a likeness, as before observed: and as to the author's not being an apostle, which is concluded from Hebrews 2:3 the word "us" there is to be understood of the believing Hebrews, the disciples of the apostle, and not inclusive of the author, by a figurative way of speaking often used by Paul; and besides, the apostle received a confirmation of the Gospel from Ananias, who might have been an hearer of Christ, though he was at first taught it by Christ himself; add to this, that whoever was the writer of it, it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and when several of the apostles were living, and therefore he could never design by those words to put himself in a succeeding generation. The persons to whom this epistle was written were Hebrews, or Jews; so called, as some think, from the name of Abraham, the father of them; or, as others, from his passing over the river Euphrates, when he came out of Chaldea into Palestine. So Abram the Hebrew, in Genesis 14:13 is by the Septuagint rendered, perathv, "one that passes over", taking it to come from the word rbe, which signifies to "pass over"; with this compare Joshua 24:3 and this is the opinion of some of the Jewish Rabbins (e); though it seems rather that they were called so from Heber, who lived at the time of the confusion of languages; see Genesis 10:21. And this is the sense of many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, of Josephus (f), of Jonathan ben Uzziel (g), of R. Nehemiah (h), of Aben Ezra (i), and Kimchi (k), and others; 2 Corinthians 11:22. And these were the Hebrews that dwelt in the land of Judea, and particularly at Jerusalem; nor were they the unbelieving inhabitants of those parts, but believers in Christ, who were embodied in a Gospel church state, It was a tradition of the ancients (l), that this epistle was written originally in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek, either by Luke the Evangelist, or by Clement of Rome. But for this there is no foundation; no Hebrew copy can be produced; Munster's edition of it in Hebrew is a translation from the Greek, in which it was, no doubt, originally written, that being the common language, and well known to the Jews; and which appears from the citations in it out of the Old Testament, which are made, not from the Hebrew text, but from the Greek version; and besides, had it been written in Hebrew, the writer would not have interpreted the Hebrew words, Melchizedek and Salem, as he does, in Hebrews 7:1. The time of its writing was before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in this book is signified by the coming of the Lord, and the day approaching; and after Timothy was released from prison, and some time within the two years of his own imprisonment at Rome; when he hoped for a release, as his epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon show. Dr. Lightfoot places it in the year 62, and in the eighth of Nero. And the occasion and design of it is, to set forth the superior excellency of Christ to angels and men, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron, and his sons, and the preferableness of his priesthood and sacrifice to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices; to teach the Hebrews the true knowledge of the mysteries of their law; to point out to them the design, use, and abrogation of its ceremonies; and to prepare them for what afflictions and persecutions they would be called to endure for Christ; and to exhort them to perseverance, and to strengthen them against apostasy, as well as to instruct them in the various duties of religion.

(a) Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 38. (b) lb. c. 3. & l. 6. c. 20. (c) Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 25. (d) Ib. c. 14. (e) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 42. fol. 37. 3. Jarchi in Gen. x. 21. & xiv. 13. (f) Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 4. (g) Targum in Gen. x. 21. (h) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 42. fol. 37. 3.((i) In Gen. x. 21. & in Jonam, 1. 9. (k) Sepher Shorashim, rad. rbe (l) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 14. Hieronymi Catalog. Script. Eccl. sect. 15. fol. 91. Tom. 1.

INTRODUCTION TO Hebrews 1

The intention of this epistle being to demonstrate the superior excellency of the Gospel revelation to the legal one, the apostle begins with the divine author of it, in which they both agree, and observes that in other things they differ. The revelation under the law was made in times past, the Gospel revelation in these last days; the former was made to the Jewish fathers that were of old, the latter to the then present apostles; the one was made at sundry times, and in divers manners, the other was made at once, and in one way; the one was made by the prophets of the Lord, the other by his own son, Hebrews 1:1 and therefore the latter must be the more excellent; in proof of which the author enlarges on the character of the Son of God, with respect to his person, office, and glory; showing that he is heir of all things, the Maker of the worlds, of the same nature and glory with his Father; is omnipotent, and upholds all things by the word of his power; is the High Priest of his people, who has made satisfaction for their sins, and purged them from them, and is now at the right hand of God, Hebrews 1:2 He goes on to prove that he is more excellent than the angels, by a variety of arguments, and these supported by testimonies from the Scriptures; as that he has a more excellent name than any of them, being called the Son of God, Hebrews 1:4 which is proved from Psalm 2:7 that he is the object of the worship of angels, Hebrews 1:6 which is required of them, Psalm 97:7 that he is their Maker and Creator, Hebrews 1:7 which appears from Psalm 104:4 that he has an everlasting kingdom, is a righteous King, and is richly anointed above his fellows, Hebrews 1:8 which is the sense of some passages in Psalm 45:6 and that he is the founder and former of the heavens, and of the earth, and will endure when they shall not, Hebrews 1:10 which is confirmed by testimonies out of Psalm 102:25 that he sits at the right hand of God, where none of the angels were ever admitted, Hebrews 1:13 as is clear from Psalm 110:1 and besides, the angels, as they are ministers made by him, they are sent out from him to wait on his people, the heirs of salvation, and minister to them, and therefore he must be greater than they, Hebrews 1:14.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

The Epistle to the Hebrews.

BY

THE REV. W. F. MOULTON, D.D.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

As the Epistle to the Hebrews is presented to the reader in our English Bibles, various questions which beset many other books of the New Testament appear to have no place. It is entitled “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews”; and from the subscription we learn that it was written in Italy and sent to its readers by the hand of Timothy. It is hardly necessary to say that, whether these statements have or have not a foundation in fact, they are wholly destitute of authority here; for no ancient manuscript adds to the Epistle anything beyond the simple words “To the Hebrews,” and even this inscription can scarcely have been affixed by the writer himself. Within the few pages at our disposal we can do little more than present a summary of the ancient evidence on the points in question and the chief results of modern investigation.

I. Ancient Testimonies. Canonicity.—That the Epistle was known and read before the close of the first century is beyond doubt. The earliest Christian writing beyond the limits of the New Testament is the Epistle addressed to the Church of Corinth (about A.D. 95), by Clement, writing in the name of the Roman Church. This Letter contains no express quotation from any Book of the New Testament, and one only (the First Epistle of St. Paul to the same Church) is mentioned by name. In several places, however, words from some of St. Paul’s Epistles are interwoven with the text without formal introduction. In exactly the same manner, but to a greater extent, does Clement make use of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the following quotation (from chap. 36) will show: “Through Him the Lord willed that we should taste the immortal knowledge; who, being the brightness (or, effulgence) of His majesty, is so much greater than angels as He hath inherited a more excellent name. For it is thus written: He who maketh His angels winds (or, spirits), and His ministers a flame of fire. But in regard to His Son thus said the Lord: Thou art My Son, I have this day begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee nations as Thine inheritance, and as Thy possession the ends of the earth. And again He saith unto Him: Sit at My right hand, until I have made Thine enemies a footstool of Thy feet.”

This passage does not stand alone; but of itself it is sufficient to prove that the Epistle was well known to the Roman Church at this early date. The traces of the Epistle in the second century are clear, but not numerous until we reach its closing years. Quotations present themselves in the Homily which is commonly called Clement’s Second Epistle, written at Corinth or Rome about A.D. 140; in writings of Justin Martyr (A.D. 145), Pinytus of Crete (A.D. 170), Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 180). It is also important to note that the Epistle was one of the twenty-two books included in the Syriac version of the New Testament, the date of which is probably not later than A.D. 150. That Marcion should have rejected the Epistle, and that it is passed over in the Muratorian Fragment (probably written at Rome about A.D. 170) are points of little consequence; for Marcion is known to have rejected whatever conflicted with his system of doctrine, and the Latin document has not come down to us complete.

One testimony belonging to the close of the second or the beginning of the third century is of great interest and importance. It is found in one of the works of Clement, who succeeded Pantænus as head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, about A.D. 190. The work itself survives in fragments only; but the following passage is preserved by Eusebius (Eccles. History, 6:14): “And in his Outlines to speak generally, he (Clement) has given brief expositions of all canonical Scripture, not even passing by the disputed books—I mean the Epistle of Jude and the rest of the Catholic Epistles, the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter. And moreover, he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was Paul’s, but had been written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke, having with great care translated it, published it for the Greeks; hence this Epistle and the Acts are found to have the same colouring of style and diction. He remarks that the Epistle does not begin with ‘Paul an Apostle,’ and with reason; for (he says), writing to Hebrews, men who had become prejudiced against him and were suspicious of him, he acted very wisely in not repelling them at the outset by giving his name. Then a little below he adds: And as the blessed presbyter before now used to say, since the Lord, as Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to Hebrews, Paul through modesty, as having been sent to Gentiles, does not inscribe himself Apostle of Hebrews, because of the honour belonging to the Lord, and also because he went beyond his bounds in addressing Hebrews also, when he was herald and Apostle of Gentiles.”

We can hardly doubt that by “the blessed presbyter” is meant Pantænus, whom Clement held in the highest esteem. “Thus” (as Dr. Westcott observes) “the tradition is carried up almost to the Apostolic age.” It will be seen that with a strong affirmation of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle is joined a distinct recognition of its unlikeness to the other writings of the Apostle. Of much greater importance is the testimony of Origen. Many passages from his writings might be quoted in which he speaks of the Epistle as St. Paul’s, and many more in which he appeals to it as to other portions of the New Testament, without any reference to authorship. In one of his latest works, however, Homilies on the Hebrews (written between A.D. 245 and 253), we have the complete expression of his views. The Homilies are not preserved to us, but the passage is given by Eusebius in his Eccles. History (vi. 25), and is as follows: “That the style of the Epistle which bears the superscription To the Hebrews does not exhibit the Apostle’s plainness in speech (though he confessed himself to be plain in his speech, that is, in his diction), but that the Epistle is more Grecian in its composition, every one who knows how to judge of differences of diction would acknowledge. And again, that the thoughts of the Epistle are wonderful, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the Apostle, this, too, every one who gives attention to the reading of the Apostle’s words would allow to be true.” To this, after other remarks, he adds: “But if I were to give my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts belong to the Apostle, but the diction and the composition to some one who wrote from memory the Apostle’s teaching, and who, as it were, commented on that which had been said by his teacher. If then any church holds this Epistle to be Paul’s, let it be approved even for this. For not without reason have the men of olden time handed it down as Paul’s. But as to the question who wrote the Epistle, the truth is known by God (only); but the account which has reached us is a statement by some that Clement who became Bishop of Rome was the writer, by others that it was Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.”

The influence of Origen would naturally be great in removing doubts as to the acceptance of the Epistle. Whilst the more thoughtful would learn from him to distinguish between directly apostolic authorship and canonicity, the effect of his opinion and example on the many would be to strengthen the belief that the Epistle should be accounted St. Paul’s. From this time onwards the Church of Alexandria, as represented by a succession of writers, seems to have held the Pauline authorship as a matter free from doubt.

It is otherwise with the Latin writers of North Africa. Tertullian (about A.D. 200), indeed, once quotes some verses of chapter 6, but assigns them to the Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews; an Epistle which, he says, deserves more respect than the Shepherd of Hermas, as being written by a man who learnt from Apostles and taught with Apostles. No other certain quotation from the Epistle presents itself in Latin writers for many years. At the close of the third century it would seem, as far as we may judge from extant Christian literature, that the Epistle was known and received by the Churches of Alexandria, Syria, Rome, and Asia Minor, and that in Alexandria and Syria it was regarded as a work of St. Paul. Writing before A.D. 326, Eusebius expressly mentions the Church of Rome as rejecting the Pauline authorship of the Epistle. It is not necessary to give any express quotations from writers of the fourth century. By this time the doubts respecting the Epistle are confined to the Western Churches: in Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Alexandria, Constantinople, the Pauline authorship appears to have been universally admitted. The influence of Jerome and Augustine ultimately prevailed in the West: neither of these eminent Fathers appears really to have regarded the Epistle as St. Paul’s, but they agree in the expression of a strong conviction of its canonical authority.

The object of this summary of ancient evidence has been to show how the Epistle won its way to universal acknowledgment as a part of sacred Scripture, and at the same time to present the chief testimonies of the early Church on the other important questions which concern the Book. It cannot be thought surprising that for a time many should evince hesitation in regard to such a document as this—anonymous, peculiar in character, and addressed to a special and limited circle of readers. The doubts have in later times had little power. Their effect may, for the most part, be traced in a varying estimate of the importance of the Book as compared with the undoubted writings of St. Paul.

II. Authorship.—In regard to the authorship of the Epistle, the most important ancient testimonies have been cited already; and in them we find more or less clearly stated almost all the possible solutions of the problem. The character of the Epistle is beyond all question Paul-like (if we may so speak, to avoid the ambiguity of “Pauline”). If then it is not to be ascribed directly to St. Paul, we must suppose either (1) that it is a translation from a Hebrew original written by him; or (2) that, whilst the substance of the Epistle is his, the diction and style belong to one of his companions, who, for some unexplained cause, put the Apostle’s thoughts into form; or (3) that the Epistle was written by a friend or disciple of St. Paul. Each of the four hypotheses may, as we have said, claim the evidence of early writers; but it is a matter of extreme difficulty rightly to estimate the value of this evidence. That the Epistle was directly written by St. Paul is an opinion of which we have no distinct evidence earlier than the third century. Even then the language used on the subject is not perfectly clear; for Origen’s example proves that the quotation of the Epistle under St. Paul’s name may mean nothing more than a recognition that its substance and teaching are his. If Origen had influence in producing the later consensus of opinion as to the authorship, that opinion may fairly be judged of (to a considerable extent) by reference to Origen’s own explanation of the sense in which he ascribed the Epistle to St. Paul. At all events, his plain statement of the case as it presented itself in his day seems distinctly to prove that there existed no such clear and authoritative tradition in favour of the Pauline authorship as might claim our submission, upon the ordinary principles of literary criticism. To internal evidence Origen makes appeal: to the same test of internal evidence we believe the case must now be brought. Similar observations apply to the other hypotheses. Each of these appears earlier in existing documents than that of which we have been speaking. The opinion expressed by Clement, that the Greek Epistle is a translation, was probably derived by him from Pantænus: the traditions mentioned by Origen cannot be of later date; and Tertullian’s reference to Barnabas carries back the last hypothesis to the close of the second century. But again it is impossible to say whether the ancient testimonies present independent evidence, or are no more than conjectures to explain the patent facts. At all events, the variance in the traditions may leave cur judgment free, especially as we can plainly perceive in what way the traditions might very possibly arise.

If we now proceed to test each of the hypotheses that have been mentioned by the testimony which the Epistle gives respecting itself, the first question to be decided is, Have we the Epistle in its original form? If the opinion quoted by Clement is correct—that the Greek document before us is a translation—our right to argue from its characteristics will be materially affected. This opinion has not lacked advocates, and has been recently maintained in an able but very disappointing work by Dr. Biesenthal. We have no space here for the discussion of such a question, and can only express in a word or two the results to which the evidence before us leads. We do not hesitate to say that the hypothesis appears absolutely untenable: for one difficulty which it removes, it introduces many more. Dr. Biesenthal’s own treatment of various passages is sufficient to show that those who regard the Epistle as translated from a Hebrew original must necessarily regard it as a translation that is often inaccurate, and needs the correction of the commentator. Few will be prepared to surrender the Epistle to such treatment, unless under constraint of argument immeasurably stronger than any yet adduced.

Our inquiry therefore is limited to the Greek Epistle as it stands. The questions at issue are very simple. What is there, either in the substance or in the diction of the Epistle, that may lead us to ascribe it to St. Paul? What peculiarities of thought or language separate it from his writings? In its general arrangement and plan the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot but remind us of St. Paul. It is true there is no opening salutation, or direct address, such as is found in all St. Paul’s Epistles. These Epistles, however, differ greatly amongst themselves in this respect. Thus, in writing to the Galatians, the Apostle is impatient of anything that may detain him from the great topics on which he is to speak; and it is possible to imagine reasons which might lead him to avoid all mention of the Church addressed, and even to keep back his own name. But, waiving this, we recognise at once the familiar plan: first the discussion of dogmatic truth; then the earnest exhortation based on the doctrine thus presented; and, lastly, the salutations, interwoven with personal notices, with doxology and prayer. The main outlines of theological teaching are in close accord with St. Paul’s Epistles: Hebrews 2, 5, for example, as strikingly recall Philippians 2 as does Hebrews 13, the closing chapter in the Epistle to the Romans. Other points of special resemblance will easily suggest themselves, such as the relation of the writer to those whom he addresses (Hebrews 13:18-19, &c.), the mode in which he refers to Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), his Pauline illustrations (see Notes on Hebrews 5:12-13; Hebrews 12:1-4), his choice of Old Testament passages. Under the last head may be specially mentioned the quotation of Psalms 8 (1Corinthians 15:25-28) and Deut. 33:30 (Romans 12:19); see the Notes on Hebrews 2:6; Hebrews 10:30. It is not necessary to go into further detail in proof of a position allowed by all, that (as has been already said) the Epistle, whether by St. Paul or not, is Paul-like in the general character of its teaching and in many of its special features.

It is of much greater moment to examine those passages of the Epistle and those peculiarities of teaching or language which have been adduced as inconsistent with the Pauline authorship. Resemblance may be accounted for more readily than points of difference; for a disciple of St. Paul would hardly fail to exhibit many of the traits characteristic of such a master. Here, it will be seen, the distinction between style and subject matter must be carefully observed. If this Epistle could be proved to differ in diction only from the acknowledged writings of St. Paul, some theory of mediate authorship (similar to that mentioned by Origen) would be very possible; if the discordances lie deeper, no such theory can be maintained.

When an argument must rest on characteristics of Greek diction and style, it is very probable that different conclusions may be reached by different readers. This question, again, cannot be examined here in any detail. The writer can only state the impression made upon his own mind by the original text, and especially by the careful study pursued for the purpose of this Commentary. From point to point the general likeness of the Epistle to St. Paul’s writings came out more and more plainly: on the other hand arose a continually increasing wonder that the Greek sentences and periods should ever have been attributed to that Apostle’s hand. We have before us Epistles belonging to every period during the last thirteen or fourteen years of St. Paul’s life, written under widely different circumstances,—some during the enforced leisure of imprisonment, others amid active labour. We can trace differences of style resulting both from the time of writing and from the circumstances which called forth the Epistles; but these differences lie within a comparatively narrow compass. At whatever date St. Paul might be supposed to have written this Epistle, we can compare it with some other of his writings belonging nearly to the same period; and the differences of language and style presented by the two documents are, we are persuaded, far greater than those presented by the most dissimilar of the thirteen Epistles. Stress has been laid on the unique character of this Epistle, as the only one addressed to Hebrews by the Apostle of the Gentiles: but it has been well asked why St. Paul should adopt a more finished Greek style in addressing Jews than when writing to the Greeks of Corinth. For ourselves we must express our decided conviction that, whatever may be the relation of the Epistle to St. Paul, the composition of the Greek was certainly not his.

The remaining points of difference which (it is alleged) separate this Epistle from St. Paul’s writings may be ranged under the following heads:—(1) statements of fact which we cannot suppose to have proceeded from the Apostle; (2) divergence in doctrinal view; (3) peculiarities in the use of the Old Testament; (4) the use made of Alexandrian writers.

(1) The most important passage is Hebrews 2:3 : “which (salvation) at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard.” In these words the writer appears distinctly to sever himself from those who had directly received the word from the Lord. It is urged that he is here associating himself with his readers, as when in Hebrews 4:1 he writes “Let us therefore fear;” see also Hebrews 10:24-26; Hebrews 12:1, et al. We will not venture to say that an Apostle could not have thus written; but, bearing in mind the necessity which lay upon St. Paul to defend his apostolic position, and the claim which he consistently makes to have received his teaching by direct revelation (Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:11-12, et al.), we must hold it extremely improbable that he should use words that might even appear to represent him as only a disciple of the Apostles. On the other passages which have been brought into this controversy a very different judgment must be passed. It is alleged that in the description of the Temple furniture (Hebrews 9) the writer falls into mistakes, asserting that the altar of incense (or, the golden censer) was placed in the Holy of Holies, that the ark contained the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, and that even in his own day the Most Holy Place into which the high priest entered year by year still contained the cherubim and the ark of the covenant. If the writer has indeed fallen into these mistakes we may safely say that he is not St. Paul. But, as the Notes on Hebrews 9:2-6 will show, we hold that there is no real reason for impugning the accuracy of his words. No part of his description relates to the Temple services or furniture: he is occupied throughout with the injunctions of the Mosaic law and the arrangements of the Tabernacle. Even the association of the altar of incense with the Most Holy Place may be very easily explained. If the view we have taken is correct, this argument against the Pauline authorship must fall to the ground. It is not necessary, therefore, to do more than mention the ingenious attempt of Wieseler to show that in the descriptions of Hebrews 9 the writer had in mind, not the Tabernacle or the Temple of Jerusalem, but the temple built by Onias at Leontopolis in Lower Egypt (about B.C. 170).

(2) The alleged differences of doctrinal statement are of three kinds. Of St. Paul’s favourite topics some are absent from this Epistle, some are treated in a different manner: and, again, certain themes here brought into prominence are not noticed in the Epistles of St. Paul. Thus we find only one passage in this Epistle in which the Resurrection of our Lord, ever a prominent topic with St. Paul, is mentioned (see Hebrews 13:20); the law, faith, righteousness, are looked at from a different point of view; the prominence here given to the High-priesthood of Jesus is foreign to St. Paul’s Epistles. It would require a volume duly to examine the various particulars adduced under this head; for the real question is not whether the teaching is opposed to St. Paul’s, but whether the various themes are treated in the manner characteristic of the Apostle. We do not believe that the most careful examination will detect any real discord between the dogmatic teaching of this Epistle and that of St. Paul; but the peculiarities in selection of topics and in mode of treatment are sufficient (even when all allowance has been made for the special position and aim of the Epistle) to suggest that, if St. Paul “laid the foundation,” it is another who “buildeth thereon,” “according to the grace of God which is given unto” him (1Corinthians 3:10). The resemblances in teaching may show the presence of the Apostle, but the new colouring and arrangement prove that he is present only in the person of a disciple on whom his master’s mantle has fallen, and who is taught by the same Spirit.

(3) A similar conclusion is suggested by a review of the arguments that are founded on the difference in the use of the Old Testament. It need hardly be said that in the Epistle before us this subject is of the greatest consequence, for “the whole argument of the Epistle depends on the reality of the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament.” But the essential principle involved is found as truly in St. Paul (see 1 Corinthians 10; 2 Corinthians 3; Galatians 4; Ephesians 5, et al.). The New Testament is not divided against itself in its recognition of the Old. As has been truly said,[8] “The authority of Christ Himself encourages us to search for a deep and spiritual meaning under the ordinary words of Scripture, which, however, cannot be gained by any arbitrary allegorising, but only by following out patiently the course of God’s dealings with man.” But again when we come to details we find marks of divergence from St. Paul. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the word of Scripture is almost always quoted as the direct utterance of God (“He saith,” “He hath said”), whereas St. Paul commonly uses the formula “It is written” or “The Scripture saith.” The latter mode of introduction, which occurs about thirty times in the Pauline Epistles, is not once used in this; and, on the other hand, such examples as Ephesians 4:8 are very rare in St. Paul. The quotations in this Epistle, again, are commonly taken directly from the LXX., even when it differs from the Hebrew; and for the most part agree with that text which is preserved to us in the Alexandrian manuscript: St. Paul shows more acquaintance with the Hebrew. In each of these arguments (the former especially) there is force. The latter, however, has been pressed unduly; for an examination of the quotations, as they stand in the best text of the Epistle, will show not a few departures from the Greek version, and there are not wanting tokens of the writer’s acquaintance either with the Hebrew original or with a more accurate translation of some passages than the LXX. affords.

[8] Westcott, Introduction to the Gospels, p. 412.

(4) One distinguishing peculiarity of this Epistle is found in the many remarkable coincidences both of thought and of expression with the writings of Philo of Alexandria. One or two examples are quoted in the notes; but nothing short of a collection of all the points of similarity, as presented in the Greek text, will show this characteristic of the Epistle in its proper light. Both St. Paul and St. John exhibit acquaintance with the Alexandrian philosophy, but it has left comparatively slight traces in their writings. The resemblance in language in many passages of this Epistle is all the more remarkable because of the fundamental differences in doctrine between the Christian teacher and the Alexandrian philosopher. Another point of interest can only be briefly mentioned,—the many words and phrases common to this Epistle and the Book of Wisdom. The reader is referred to the remarkably interesting papers by Professor Plumptre in vol. i. of The Expositor, on “The Writings of Apollos.”

On a review of the whole case, there is only one conclusion that appears possible—that the Epistle was written by one who had stood in a close relation with St. Paul, but not by St. Paul himself. It will be readily understood that the arguments given above are not adduced as being of equal weight: some are only confirmatory, and might not have very much force if they stood alone; but all point with more or less distinctness to the conclusion which has been stated. Farther than this we cannot go with certainty; and it is perhaps wisest to rest satisfied with this negative result. If we turn to the positive side, we have little to guide our judgment. Three names only seem to be mentioned by early writers—those of Barnabas, Clement of Rome, and St. Luke. The Epistle is quoted by Tertullian, as we have seen, as a work of Barnabas; and two later Latin writers, Philastrius and Jerome, mention the same tradition. In one passage Jerome says that very many (perhaps meaning many of the Greek ecclesiastical writers) assign the Epistle to Barnabas or Clement; in another he mentions Tertullian alone as an authority for this, and seems to attach no special importance to the opinion. It would seem that the tradition was very limited: it is especially noteworthy that the name of Barnabas is not found in the passages quoted from Origen. We know too little of Barnabas to judge for ourselves of the intrinsic probability of the hypothesis: the so-called internal arguments which have been adduced by some are of no worth. The Epistle which bears the name of Barnabas belongs, in all probability, to the beginning of the second century, and has no connection with the companion of St. Paul. That Epistle, therefore (which presents a remarkable contrast to the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews; see Westcott On the Canon, pp. 43-45) yields no evidence in the present inquiry.

In regard to Clement we can speak with more confidence, as we possess one Epistle which is certainly from his hand. That document contains passages belonging to our Epistle, but they are no doubt quotations from it, and the general style and character of Clement’s Letter forbid us to ascribe the two works to the same writer. Much more favour has in recent times been shown to the other tradition which Origen records—that the Epistle was written by St. Luke The resemblances of language between this Epistle and St. Luke’s writings are numerous and striking; but with all this there is great dissimilarity of style. The difference between a Letter such as this and historical or biographical memoirs must indeed be taken into account; but even when allowance has been made for this, it is difficult to receive the writer of the Acts as the author of our Epistle. Another consideration also is of weight. We can hardly doubt that we have before us here the work of a Jew; but St. Paul’s words in Colossians 4:11; Colossians 4:14, imply that St. Luke was of Gentile birth.

The subject is not one for confident assertion; but we strongly doubt whether the Epistle can be ascribed to any of those suggested by ancient writers. One other hypothesis must be mentioned, which has commanded the adhesion of many of the ablest writers of recent times. Luther was the first to express (in his Commentary on Genesis) an opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was the work of Apollos. Some will maintain that conjecture is inadmissible, but certainly all the conditions of the problem appear to be satisfied by this conjecture. The record of St. Luke in Acts 18:24-28; Acts 19:1, supplemented by St. Paul’s references in 1 Corinthians, might seem to have been expressly designed to show the special fitness of Apollos for writing such an Epistle as this. Our limits will not allow us to enter into further detail, but the reader will find all the particulars admirably stated in the Notes on the verses in the Acts. If it be not unbecoming to go beyond the words of Origen on such a subject as this, and to favour an hypothesis for which no express evidence can be adduced from ancient times, we can have no hesitation in joining those who hold that it is the Jew of Alexandria, “mighty in the Scriptures,” “fervent in spirit,” the honoured associate of St. Paul, who here carries on the work which he began in Achaia, when “he mightily convinced the Jews, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”

III. Readers.—The inquiry as to the original readers of the Epistle is even more difficult. It may be assumed with confidence that the present title of the Epistle is not that which it originally bore. There has sometimes been a disposition to deny the propriety of the name Epistle; and it has been thought that the peculiarity of the opening verses, containing, as they do, neither address nor author’s name, may be most easily explained on the supposition that the work is a homily or general treatise. But a very slight examination will prove that such a theory has no foundation. The closing verses show that a particular community is directly addressed, a community well known to the writer, whose affection the writer knew himself to possess, though some individuals may have distrusted him and misjudged his acts and motives. He complains of their declension in Christian knowledge, and points out its cause (Hebrews 5); thankfully recognises their generous love to the brethren (Hebrews 6, 10); and urges them to be true to their own past history (Hebrews 10). He cannot but have known that the trials and necessities of many other communities were very similar; but, like St. Paul, he addresses the wider only through the narrower circle. The immediate impulse was given by the news he had received respecting brethren for whom he himself had laboured, and over whose welfare he was bound diligently to watch. The Epistle needed no express inscription to make the first readers understand from whom it came and to whom it was sent; and it is not impossible that (as Ewald suggests) the watchfulness of enemies may have rendered some concealment a matter of prudence. The absence of the writer’s name has been considered confirmatory of the belief that Apollos wrote the Epistle. In one church, as we know, rival factions had arisen, some saying, “I am of Paul,” others “I am of Apollos;” and the incident recorded in 1Corinthians 16:12 seems to point to the regret of Apollos that his name should have been so used. Such a feeling may have continued to operate, and have led to this partial withdrawal of himself from view. (See Alford’s Gk. Test., vol. iv. pp. 60, 61.)

It is very plain that the Epistle is addressed to Jewish Christians, and its present name was probably given when the Epistle had passed into more general use, in order to make its destination clear. In the New Testament the name Hebrew is strictly opposed to Hellenist or Grecian Jew (Acts 6:1), and denotes one who adhered to the Hebrew language and usages; there would therefore be some inconsistency between the name and the language of the Epistle, if the title proceeded from the writer himself. Again we are in the main thrown back on internal evidence; but in this case the materials before us are very scanty, when doubtful or irrelevant passages have been set aside. One verse of the Epistle, and one only, contains any note of place: “They of Italy salute you” (Hebrews 13:24). Unfortunately these words admit of two opposite interpretations. Either the author is himself in Italy, and sends to the Hebrew Christians whom he addresses the salutations of an Italian church; or, writing to Italy, he transmits the message which those “of Italy” who are now with him send to their fellow-Christians at home. Between these two interpretations it seems impossible to decide with any confidence; though, in itself, the latter might be the more probable. Perhaps the only other indication that we possess is the manifest destination of the Epistle for a community of Jewish Christians, exposed to peculiar danger from the solicitations and the persecutions of the unbelieving Jews. Such a community would most naturally be found in Palestine, and accordingly the prevalent opinion has been that the Epistle was first sent to Jerusalem, or to some neighbouring town. The words of Hebrews 2:3 are perhaps less suitable to Jerusalem—a city in which there would still be living many who had heard the word from the Lord Himself. In Hebrews 6:10 the writer speaks of a ministration to the saints which at once recalls the efforts of St. Paul and others to send help to the Christians of Jerusalem, who were oppressed by poverty. This passage may imply that the readers of the Epistle had engaged in that particular labour of love, but it cannot be proved that the meaning is not perfectly general. The language of Hebrews 10:32-34 decides nothing, if the first member of verse Hebrews 10:33 be understood figuratively (see Note); Hebrews 10:34, which has been urged in regard to the question of authorship, loses all such significance when the true reading is restored. From Hebrews 12:4 has usually been drawn the inference that no members of the Church had suffered martyrdom: even here, however, it is improbable that any such allusion is intended (see Note). On the whole, it is difficult to resist the impression that the writer addresses some Church in Palestine, though Jerusalem itself may be excluded by Hebrews 2:3. The readers seem to have lived under the shadow of Jewish power and influence, where opposition to Christianity was most bitter, the temptation to unfaithfulness greatest, the abjuration required of the apostate most complete. The exhortation of Hebrews 13:13, the warning of Hebrews 10:25, the remarkable appropriation of Old Testament promises and threatenings which we find in Hebrews 10:27-28; Hebrews 10:30, would fall with wonderful force on the ears of men in whose very presence the spirit of Judaism was exerting all its power. That there are still difficulties must be felt by all We should not have expected that a Letter addressed to such a Church would be written in Greek, or that the writer’s appeal would be to the Greek translation of the Old Testament; but the phenomena which other books of the New Testament display forbid us to regard these difficulties as decisive. It is not possible here to enumerate the other opinions which have been maintained. The reader will find an able argument in favour of Rome in Alford’s Prolegomena to Gk. Test., vol. iv.: others have argued the claims of Alexandria.[9]

[9] Prof. Plumptre’s hypothesis that those addressed are Christian ascetics of (or connected with) Alexandria is worked out by him in a very interesting manner (see Expos. i. 428-432), but does not appear to suit the facts of the Epistle as well as the view defended above.

IV. Date.—There is very little to guide us as to the time when the Epistle was written. The present tenses of Hebrews 9:2-9 are often understood as implying that the Temple service still continued; but there is strong reason for explaining the verses otherwise (see Notes). On the other hand, the general complexion of the Epistle is such as to convince us that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Of the imprisonment of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23) we know nothing from any other source. It has often been supposed that he shared St. Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (see the Introduction to 2 Timothy). The date of the martyrdom of St. Paul is, however, uncertain; and it does not seem possible to say more than that our Epistle was probably written some three or four years before Jerusalem fell—in other words, about A.D. 60.

V. Object and Contents.—The discussion of the very important external questions which connect themselves with this Epistle has left us but little space for a notice of its internal character. In the Notes, however, on account of the peculiar difficulties which this Epistle presents, we have sacrificed all other considerations to the desire of exhibiting, as exactly as possible, the connection and course of thought. It is, therefore, less necessary to attempt a complete analysis here. The Christians addressed were in imminent danger of apostasy. The danger was occasioned partly by seductions from without, partly by weakness within. Even when the fabric of Jewish power was falling, the influence of its past history, its glorious treasure of promise, its unique associations, retained a wonderful power. As we look back on the years preceding the fall of Jerusalem the case of the people may seem to us hopeless; but the confidence of the nation was unbroken, and even at that period we note outbursts of national pride and enthusiastic hope. Bitter hate and contempt for Christianity on the one hand, and the attraction of their ancestral worship and ritual on the other, had apparently won a victory over the constancy of some Christians belonging to this Hebrew community. Where open opposition had not prevailed, the tone of Christian faith had been lowered. The special temptation of these Christians seems to have been towards a loss of interest in the higher Christian truths, and a union of elementary Christian teaching with that to which they had been accustomed as Jews. The arguments of the first and other chapters show that they held the foundation truths; the expostulation of the fifth and sixth chapters proves that the full significance of the doctrine they held was not understood, and that the doctrine was near to losing its power. In no Epistle, perhaps, do we find a more carefully sustained argument; of none can be said as truly that the whole Epistle is a “word of exhortation.”

The design of the writer is to show the superiority of Christianity to Judaism. He in whom God has in these last days revealed Himself to man is His Son, to whom the Scriptures themselves bear witness as exalted above the highest of created beings, the angels, who are but ministers of God (Hebrews 1). The law was given through angels: salvation has now come through the Son, who, though Lord of the world to come, the Heir and Fulfiller of God’s highest promises to man, submitted to suffering and death—not of necessity, but that He might by His atonement deliver man from sin and death, and might become a true High Priest for man (Hebrews 2). As the faithful Apostle and High Priest He is exalted above God’s most favoured servants upon earth, even above Moses (Hebrews 3:1-6).

This is the first division of the argument, designed to establish the supremacy of the revelation given through the Son of God, and to remove “the offence of the cross.” Next follows a powerful section of exhortation and warning. Do not imitate the unfaithfulness through which Israel failed to enter into the true rest of God (Hebrews 3:7 to Hebrews 4:16).

The second portion of the Epistle (extending to Hebrews 10:18) is occupied with the Priesthood of Christ. Once only is the current of the argument interrupted. After the first introduction of a prophecy which will form the theme of later chapters, the writer pauses to bring into relief the carelessness which his readers have shown, and the peril they have incurred; the result is to give most powerful effect to the argument for which he is preparing them (Hebrews 5:11 to Hebrews 6:20). Jesus made perfect through suffering (Hebrews 5:1-10) has been declared by God High Priest after the order of Melchizedek; by this declaration the Aaronic priesthood is abolished, giving place to a priesthood which abides continually, through which all that the former priesthood sought in vain to attain is made sure to man for ever (Hebrews 7). This High Priest, seated at God’s right hand, is Minister in the heavenly sanctuary, Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8); and in Him all the types of the first covenant are fulfilled, for by His one offering of Himself He has put away sin, and established the new covenant in which sin is pardoned and man sanctified (Hebrews 9; Hebrews 10:1-18).

The remainder of the Epistle is in the main directly hortatory. These being our privileges, let us not by unfaithfulness fall short of them, for terrible is the doom of the unfaithful, and glorious the reward of Faith (Hebrews 10:19-39), which from the beginning has led God’s servants on to victory, and of which Jesus is the Author and the Perfecter (Hebrews 11:1 to Hebrews 12:4). Hebrews 12, 13 continue the exhortations of the earlier chapters, but in a higher strain.

We cannot conceive of any argument by which the end contemplated could be more effectually accomplished, and men more powerfully turned from “the offence of the cross” to glorying in Christ Jesus. The value which the Epistle has for us and the extent of its influence on our theology it would be hard to overestimate. Its peculiar importance lies in the exposition which it gives of the earlier revelation, showing the meaning of the types and arrangements of the former dispensation, and their perfect fulfilment in our Lord, and in its witness to the power and abiding significance of the divine word.

“The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.” This title is wholly without authority. The original title if there was one at all, probably ran simply “to the Hebrews” as in א, A, B, K, and as in the days of Origen. In various MSS. the Epistle is found in different portions. In D, K, L, it stands as here. In א, A, B, C, it is placed after 2 Thess. (See for fuller information Bleek Hebraerbrief, p. 45.)

Ch. 1. Finality and transcendence of God’s final revelation in Christ (1–4). Illustrations of Christ’s pre-eminence above Angels (5–14)

The Epistle to the Hebrews

Introduction

"Who wrote the Epistle God only knows." Such was the verdict of Origen, and modern criticism has gotten no farther. That it is not the work of Paul is the almost unanimous judgment of modern scholars. Its authenticity as a Pauline writing has been challenged from the earliest times. In the Eastern church, both Clement and Origen regarded the Greek Epistle as Paul's only in a secondary sense; Clement holding that it was written by Paul in Hebrew and translated by Luke. Origen knew only that some held Clement of Rome and some Luke to be the author. Its position and designation in the Peshitto Version shows that it was regarded as not strictly one of Paul's epistles, but as an appendix to the collection. Eusebius's testimony is inconsistent. He holds a Hebrew original, and a translation by Clement, and cites the letter as Pauline (H.E. 38). Again, he expressly classifies it with antilegomena (vi. 13); but in iii. 25 he evades the question, naming the Pauline Epistles as homologumena, but without stating their number.

In the West the epistle was known to Clement of Rome, who frequently quotes it, but without naming the author. The Pauline authorship was expressly denied by Hippolytus: the Muratorian Canon does not mention it, and reckons only seven churches to which Paul wrote: Tertullian in Africa apparently knew nothing of a Pauline Epistle to the Hebrews, but spoke of an Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews. It was not recognized by Cyprian. From the fourth century its canonical authority was admitted in the West, partly on the assumption of its Pauline authorship; but the influence of the earlier suspicion remained, and Jerome declared that the custom of the Latins did not receive it as St. Paul's. Augustine agreed substantially with Jerome. It was authorized as canonical by two councils of Carthage (397, 419 a.d.); but the language of the former council was peculiar: "Thirteen Epistles of Paul, and one of the same to the Hebrews." The decree of the latter council was "fourteen Epistles of Paul."

From this time the canonical authority and authorship of the epistle were generally accepted until the age of the Reformation, when the old doubts were revived by Cajetan and Erasmus. The council of Trent (1545-1563) decreed fourteen Pauline Epistles; yet different views have been current among Roman Catholic theologians, as Bellarmine, Estius, and others. Luther denied the Pauline authorship, and placed the epistle along with James, Jude, and Revelation, after "the right-certain, main books of the New Testament." Melanchthon treated it as anonymous. The Magdeburg Centuriators (1559-1574) denied that it was Paul's, as did Calvin. Under Beza's influence it was separated from the Pauline letters in the Gallican Confession (1571). The Belgic and Helvetic Confessions declared it Pauline. The hypothesis of the Pauline authorship was conclusively overthrown by Bleek in 1868.

The conclusion of modern scholarship rests upon:

(1) The Style and Diction. - While Paul's style is marked by frequent irregularities, anacolutha, unclosed parentheses, and mixed metaphors, this epistle is written in a flowing, symmetrical, and artistically elaborated style. The difference is as marked as that between a chapter of Gibbon and one of Sartor Resartus. The rhetorical art of Hebrews appears in the careful arrangement of the words, the rhythmical structure of sentences, and the sonorous compounds. The paragraphs are sometimes arranged in a regular series of premises and conclusions, with parentheses which do not lose their connection with the main topic, while the whole is developed in regular sequence, without anacolutha.

(2) The Methods of Thought and the Points of View. - These differ from those of the Pauline Epistles. The two do not materially disagree. They reach, substantially, the same conclusions, but by different processes and from different positions. The points of emphasis differ. Topics which, in the Pauline letters, are in the foreground, in Hebrews fall into the shade or are wholly passed over.

(a) The conception of faith. In Paul, faith is belief in Jesus Christ as a means of justification, involving a sharp opposition to the works of the law as meriting salvation. In Hebrews, faith is trust in the divine promises as distinguished from seeing their realization, a phase of faith which appears rarely in Paul. Both agree that faith is the only true medium of righteousness; but Hebrews sets forth two great factors of faith, namely, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them which diligently seek him.

(b) The mode of presenting the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace through faith. Both Paul and the author of Hebrews recognize a relation and connection between the two covenants. The one prefigures and prepares the way for the other. The Christian church is "the Israel of God," "the people of God," "the seed of Abraham." Both teach that forgiveness of sin and true fellowship with God cannot be attained through the law, and that Christianity represents the life-giving Spirit, and Judaism the letter which killeth. Both assert the abrogation of the old covenant by Christ. Paul, however, views Judaism almost entirely as a law to be fulfilled by men; while our writer regards it as a system of institutions designed to represent a fellowship between God and his worshippers. Paul, accordingly, shows that the law cannot put man into right relation with God, because man cannot fulfill it; while Hebrews shows that the institutions of the old covenant cannot, by reason of their imperfection, establish a real fellowship with God. To Paul, the reason why the old covenant did not satisfy lay, not in the law, which "is, holy and just and good," but in the relation of man to the law, as unable to fulfill its demands. It cannot effect justification, and it works to make man conscious of his sin, and to drive him to the true source of righteousness. To our writer the reason is to be sought in the fact that the atoning and purifying institutions of the law cannot remove the sins which prevent fellowship with God.

From Paul's point of view he might have been expected to show that, in the Old Testament economy, it devolved on the sacrificial institution, centered in the high-priesthood, to meet the want which was not met by legal obedience. To his assertion that men could not fulfill the demands of the law, it might have been answered that the sacrifices, not in being works of the law, but in being ordained by God himself as atonements for sin, changed men's defective righteousness into a righteousness which justified them before God. But Paul does not meet this. He nowhere shows the insufficiency of the Old Testament sacrifices. He does not treat the doctrine of the high-priesthood of Christ. He regards the system of sacrifices less as a divinely-ordained means of atonement than as a work performed by men, and therefore in the line of other works of the law.

This gap is filled by the writer to the Hebrews, in showing that the ceremonial economy did not and could not effect true fellowship with God. He, no doubt, perceived as clearly as Paul that the observance of the ritual was of the nature of legal works; but he speaks of the ritual system as only a presumed means of grace intended to define and enforce the idea of fellowship with God, and to give temporary comfort to the worshipper, but practically impotent to institute and maintain such fellowship in any true and deep sense. Therefore he emphasizes the topic of the priesthood. He dwells on the imperfect and transient nature of the priestly office: he shows that the Levitical priesthood was only a foreshadowing of a better and permanent priesthood. Christ as the great high priest, who appears nowhere in the Pauline Epistles, is the central figure in the Epistle to the Hebrews. He treats of the ritual system and its appliances as mere types of an enduring reality: he characterizes the whole body of Levitical ordinances and ceremonies as fleshly; and through all runs the one, sad note, accentuated again and again, "they can never take away sins:" "they can never make the comers thereunto perfect:" "they are mere ordinances of the flesh, imposed until the time of reformation."

(c) The view of the condition in which the subject of the law's dominion is placed. To Paul it is a condition of bondage, because the law is a body of demands which man must fulfill (Romans 7). To our writer it is a condition of unsatisfied longing for forgiveness and fellowship, because of the insufficiency of the ritual atonement. Accordingly, Hebrews points to the satisfaction of this longing in Christ, the great high priest, perfecting by one offering those who are being sanctified, purging the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Paul points to the fact that Christ has put an end to the tyranny of the law, and has substituted freedom for bondage. The conception of freedom does not appear in Hebrews. Neither ἐλεύθερος, ἐλευθερία, nor ἐλευθεροῦν occur in the epistle.

(d) The doctrine of the resurrection of Christ. This emerges everywhere in Paul's epistles. There is but one allusion to it in Hebrews (Hebrews 13:20), although it is implied in the doctrine of Christ's high-priesthood, he being a priest "according to the power of an indissoluble life" (Hebrews 7:16).

(e) The Gentiles. There is no mention of the Gentiles in relation to the new covenant, a topic which constantly recurs in Paul.

(f) Sin. Sin is not treated with reference to its origin as by Paul. The vocabulary of terms for sin is smaller than in the Pauline writings.

(g) Repentance. The denial of the possibility of repentance after a lapse (Hebrews 6:4-6, comp. Hebrews 10:26-29) is not Pauline.

(3) The Use of Divine Titles. - Κύριος Lord, very common in Paul, is comparatively rare in Hebrews. Similarly, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός Jesus Christ, which occurs thirty times in Romans alone. Χριστός Ἰησοῦς, which is characteristically Pauline, does not appear at all, neither does σωτὴρ savior, which is found in Ephesians and Philippians.

(4) The General Scheme of Treatment. - This is broader than that of Paul, viewing man not only in his relation to the law, but to God's original ideal, and to the harmony with God's entire economy in nature and revelation. Man, nature, history, alike illustrate the incarnation. The Son of God, through whom the worlds were made, is the heir of all things, and, as creator and heir, interprets all life. He not only creates, but bears on all things by the word of his power toward the consummation - complete harmony with the divine archetype. As high priest he makes God and man at one in every sphere of being. He stands for the solidarity of humanity. He is not perfected without the community of sons (Hebrews 11:40). He is himself a son, a partaker of human nature.

With Paul, the law is chiefly a law of ordinances to be replaced by the gospel. It is abolished in Christ. It cannot be perfectly observed. It generates the knowledge of sin. It cannot generate righteousness. Christianity is a manifestation of the righteousness of God apart from the law. Faith is counted for righteousness to him that worketh not but believeth. The law works wrath, and is unto death. It is subsidiary, with a special view to the concrete development of sin. Equally our epistle shows the insufficiency of the law to reconcile men to God, but in a different way. Paul emphasizes the substitution of the gospel for the law: Hebrews the germ of a saving economy contained in the law, and the necessity of its development by the gospel. Paul does not overlook the fact that the law was our pedagogue to bring us to Christ, but he does not show how, as our writer does. The latter emphasizes the unity of the divine plan, shows how the Levitical institutions pointed forward to Christ, and how the heavenly archetype was foreshadowed in the ritual system. With all Paul's strong assertion of the holiness of the law, he never dwells on it with the sad tenderness for the vanishing system which marks the Epistle to the Hebrews. With Paul the break with the law was sharp and complete. The law, as a champion of which he had been a persecutor of Christ, is thrown into sharp relief against Christ and the gospel. With James and Peter the case was different. It would not be strange if some writing should issue from their circle as "the last voice of the apostles of the circumcision," contemplating with affectionate sympathy that through which they had been led to see the meaning of the gospel, and finding in it "a welcome, though imperfect source of consolation, instead of a crushing burden, as in Paul's case" (Westcott).

(5) The Personal Authority of the Writer Is Wholly in the Background. - This is in marked contrast with the epistles of Paul. He appears to place himself in the second generation of believers to whom the salvation preached by Christ had been certified by ear-witnesses; while Paul refuses to be regarded as a pupil of the apostles, and claims to have received the gospel directly from the Lord, and to have been certified of it by the Spirit.

If Paul was not the author, who was? One claim is about as good as another, and no claim has any substantial support. That of Apollos is founded solely upon Acts 18:24 f.; 1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 2:4 ff. The most that can be deduced from these is that Apollos might have written it. There is no evidence that he wrote anything, and that he was learned and mighty in the Scriptures might easily have been true of others. Some modern critics incline to Barnabas, on the strength of the words of Tertullian alluded to above, but this is as unsatisfactory as the rest.

As regards the destination of the epistle, we are equally in the dark. By ecclesiastical writers from the earliest time it is cited under the title to the Hebrews, a fact which is entitled to some weight. It is evidently addressed to a definite circle of readers, and that circle could hardly have been a mixed church of Jews and Gentiles, since it would have been impossible in that case for the letter to avoid allusions to the relations between the two, whereas it contains no allusion to Gentile Christians.

An hypothesis which has obtained considerable currency in modern criticism is, that the epistle was not addressed to Jewish Christians at all, but to Gentile Christians, as a warning against relapsing into heathenism, by showing them from the Old Testament the superiority of Christianity to Judaism.

But this hypothesis presents formidable difficulties. This would seem to be a roundabout way of impressing Gentiles with the superior claims of Christianity. It would appear to have been the more natural course to institute a direct comparison between Christianity and paganism. See on Hebrews 13:7-15.

It is true that Gentile Christians were familiar with the Old Testament, and that Paul's epistles to Gentile readers contain frequent allusions to it; and, further, that Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Gentile church at Corinth, makes much use of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and cites freely from the Old Testament. But to illustrate one's thoughts and arguments by occasional references to the Old Testament is a very different thing from drawing out an elaborate argument on the basis of a contrast between a new and an older order, designed to show, not only that the new is superior to the old, but that the new is enfolded in the old and developed from it. To this there is no parallel in the New Testament in writings addressed to Gentiles. It would have been superfluous to prove, as this epistle does, that the old order did not satisfy. The Gentiles never supposed that it did.

Moreover, in almost every case of Paul's allusion to the Jewish institutions, the reference is called out by some feature of the Mosaic economy which lay directly in his track and compelled him to deal with it. Thus, in Romans, he is forced to discuss the doctrine of salvation by faith with reference to the Jewish doctrine of salvation by the works of the law. The Galatians had been tempted by Judaising emissaries to return to the law of circumcision. In Corinth, Paul's authority and teaching had been assailed by Jewish aggressors. In Philippians we have no allusion to the law until the writer comes to deal with "the dogs," "the evil workers," "the concision." In Colossians, Jewish ceremonialism is a distinct factor of the heresy which is attacked; but nowhere in Paul's epistles is there a didactic development of a thesis from the point of view of the Old Testament economy collectively.

The same remarks will apply to the case of Clement of Rome. In his Epistle to the Corinthians there are about twenty allusions to the Epistle to the Hebrews or quotations from it. Two of these relate to the majesty of God; one to Christ as high priest; in two or three there is a mere imitation of the phraseology of Hebrews, and the most of the passages are practical exhortations to the cultivation of moral virtues, enforced by allusions to the Old Testament worthies. Any of these passages might have occurred in an address to either Jews or Gentiles. They prove nothing as to the point in question. If we did not know from other sources that Clement's epistle was addressed to a Gentile church, we could not infer that fact from these quotations and allusions. Moreover, Clement's fondness for the Old Testament and the Epistle to the Hebrews is easily explained, if, as there is very good reason for believing, Clement himself was of Jewish origin, a Hellenist.

The whole argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews is technically Jewish, and not of a character to appeal to Gentile readers. The argument, for example, for the superiority of Christ to the angels, would have much force addressed to Jews, since the doctrine of the communication of the Mosaic revelation through the ministration of angels was a familiar tradition. Between the writer and Jewish readers there would be no question as to the angelic mediation of the Sinaitic legislation; but the point would have no interest and no pertinency for the average Gentile. The Jew would readily apprehend that no theophany is a direct manifestation of God to the physical sense. The Gentile mode of thought would be the other way. The Jew would understand that angels were the administrators of the old covenant, and would instinctively catch the turn of the whole argument to the effect that with the exaltation of Christ the angelic sway of the old dispensation ceased.

The same thing might be said of the doctrine of the high-priesthood of Christ. If this was a point to make with Gentiles, it is strange that Paul nowhere alludes to it; and what did the Gentile care about Melchisedec or the relation of Christ's priesthood to his?

It is indeed true that, in the practical warnings of the epistle, nothing is directly said about apostasy to Judaism; but the admonitions are enforced by distinctively Jewish references, as, for example, the warning against failure to enter into God's rest, which is pointed by the example of the Israelites in failing to enter Canaan. Would a writer have said to a Gentile convert that, in case of his committing willful sin, there was no expiation for him? But he might properly say to a Jewish Christian who was tempted to return to Judaism: "If you abandon Christ, and return to Judaism, you have no more sacrifice for sins. Your whole system of Levitical sacrifices is abolished. It is Christ or nothing."

It is very strongly urged that the warning against departing from the living God (Hebrews 3:12) might very properly be given to Gentiles as against a relapse into heathenism, while it would be utterly inappropriate to a Jewish Christian, because the living God is common to both Jews and Christians; and a relapse into Judaism could not, therefore, be a departure from the living God. But the objection overlooks the intent of the whole epistle, which is to show that the living God of the Jewish economy has revealed himself in the Christian economy, thereby superseding the former. It is the God of the Christian dispensation who is commended to the readers; the living God under a new and grander manifestation of life. God who spake by the prophets, now speaks by his Son the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance To go back to the old economy of types and shadows, the economy of partial access to God, would be literally to depart from the living God. It would be, practically, to deny him as a living God by denying all development and expansion in his revelation of his own life, and confining that revelation to the narrow limits of the Mosaic system, in other words to identify the living God with the dead system. To depart from Christ, the Life, and to seek the God of the Old Testament revelation, would be to fall back from a living to a dead God.

Again, it is claimed that the words at the beginning of Chapter 6 could not be properly addressed to Jewish Christians: that only a heathen would need to lay such a foundation on his first acceptance of Christ. On the contrary, all the points here enumerated would have had to be expounded to a Jew on becoming a Christian. See notes on that passage.

A still more difficult question is the local destination of the epistle. By those who supposed it to be the work of Paul, attempts were made to place this destination within the circle of Paul's recorded missionary labors; and it was accordingly assigned to almost every place visited or supposed to have been visited by him, - Macedonia, Corinth, Antioch, Spain, etc.

A plausible hypothesis assigned its destination to Jewish Christians in Alexandria. This was based on the fact that the Muratorian Canon (170-210), while omitting Hebrews, notes an Epistle to the Alexandrians (Ad Alexandrinos). It was argued that, since the Canon contains a list both of Paul's genuine epistles and of those falsely ascribed to him, and since Hebrews is not mentioned, the Alexandrian epistle can mean only the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was further urged that Alexandria had, next to Jerusalem, the largest resident Jewish population in the world, and that at Leontopolis in Egypt was another temple, with the arrangements of which the notices in Hebrews corresponded more nearly than with those of the Jerusalem temple. Moreover, the Alexandrian character of the phraseology of the epistle was supposed to point to Alexandrian readers.

But, (a) We have no positive history of the church in Egypt in apostolic times. (b) Although there are numerous notices of the epistle by early Alexandrian writers, there is no hint of its having been addressed to their own church. (c) In the Muratorian Canon the Epistle to the Alexandrians is distinctly stated to be a forgery in the name of Paul. (d) It cannot be shown that the temple at Leontopolis exercised the same power over the Alexandrian Jews as the temple at Jerusalem did over the Palestinian Jews. Even in Egypt the Jerusalem temple was recognized as the true center of worship. Moreover, the Christian church at Alexandria was a mixed church. (e) The furniture of the temple at Jerusalem was more like that of the tabernacle described in Hebrews than that of the Egyptian temple.

A widely-accepted view is that the epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians in Palestine and Jerusalem. Unmixed Jewish-Christian churches were to be found nowhere else; and only there would there be likely to exist that attachment to the old worship which is assumed in the epistle, while it treats only incidentally of those rites to which, in the Dispersion, the greatest importance was naturally assigned - ablutions, etc. The claim that the epistle was addressed to Rome involves a mixed church. The Roman church became more Gentile after Paul's residence in Rome. On the assumption that Jewish Christians were addressed, it is difficult to account for the Roman destination, unless the letter was intended for a distinct circle of Jewish Christians in Rome, which is not impossible. That the epistle was used by Clement proves nothing. The phrase ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας they from Italy salute you might seem to point to Rome as the residence of the parties saluted; but that is by no means certain. The meaning of the expression must first be settled. It may mean "those in Italy send greeting from Italy," or, "those who are from Italy (whose home is there, but who are now with me) send greeting to you (whoever may be addressed)." The latter meaning is the more probable; but on that supposition the words afford no reliable indication of the residence of those addressed. They mean merely that certain Italians in the writer's company greet the writer's correspondents, who may have been in Palestine, Asia, or Egypt.

The Palestinian hypothesis is not free from difficulty. It appears, at first sight, unlikely that the author would have written in Greek to Palestinian Jewish Christians, whose language was Aramaic, and would have used the Septuagint exclusively in citations from the Old Testament. Nevertheless, Greek was understood and spoken in Palestine: many Greek-speaking Jews resided in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9), and there were in that city synagogues of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, in which Greek and the Septuagint would certainly be used. The Hellenists were numerous and influential enough to carry their point in the matter of ministration to their widows (Acts 6:1 ff.). Finally, it is not impossible that the writer of the epistle was not sufficiently acquainted with Aramaic to write effectively in that language.

The decisive settlement of the date of the epistle is practically given up by critics. The most that can be done is to try and fix approximately the limits within which the composition was possible. Only one point is definitely fixed. It must have been written before Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians (95). If addressed to Jewish Christians, or indeed to Gentiles, it is highly probable that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), since it is most unlikely that the writer would have omitted an allusion to an event which furnished such a striking confirmation of his teaching. This probability would be strengthened if it could be proved that the Jewish sacrifices were still being offered at the time when the epistle was composed: but this cannot be conclusively shown. The use of the present tense in Hebrews 8:4 ff.; Hebrews 9:6, Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:1 ff.; Hebrews 13:10 ff., is not decisive. Attempts to identify the persecution alluded to in Hebrews 10:2 are the merest guess-work. To refer it to the Neronian persecution (64) is to assume that it was addressed to Rome, and is, therefore, to beg the question. The reference of Hebrews 10:36 and Hebrews 12:3 to the persecution of Domitian (95), is utterly without foundation, to say nothing of the fact that it is not certain that those two passages refer to persecution at all. Against a date near 95 is the use of the epistle by Clement, unless the Roman address can be proved. Otherwise, some time would be required for it to obtain such currency and recognition as would account for Clement's familiarity with it. Against a very late date is also the fact that Timothy appears as an active evangelist, which could hardly have been the case if the letter was written as late as 90. Against a very early date is the admitted fact that a second generation of Christians is addressed; and that the references to persecution apparently point to a comparatively distant time. If we are to lay stress on the omission of all reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, as I think we must do, it seems to me that the epistle was written not far from 67.

There is no reason for disputing the author's acquaintance with the writings of Paul, as there is none for asserting his dependence upon them. There are lexical resemblances and resemblances in thought and phrasing, but nothing to show that the writer of Hebrews drew upon Paul to any considerable extent. The coincidences with Galatians which are pointed out are superficial, and may be fairly traced to common Jewish ideas with which both writers were familiar. As to Romans, Ephesians, and Corinthians, the resemblances are, in a number of cases, due to quotation from the same source; in other cases they occur in warnings from the example of the Israelites; in others again there is a coincidence of a current phrase, such as "if God permit," which any author might use. In some other instances cited the resemblance is too remote to be significant.

As to the influence of Philo, we may freely admit the evidences of the writer's Alexandrian training, and the possibility, probability, of his acquaintance with Philo's writings. The epistle does exhibit certain points of resemblance to Philo, such as similar forms of quotation, similar use of Old Testament passages and narratives, and statements like those of Philo, such as those respecting the sinlessness of the Logos-Priest, the heavenly home of the patriarchs, and the λόγος τομεύς the dividing word (Hebrews 4:12): but Philo's meaning differs radically from that of the epistle. Our writer's Christology has no affinity with that of Philo. On certain leading topics, such as the two ages of the world, the mediation of the law by angels, the Sabbath-rest, the heavenly sanctuary, and the heavenly Jerusalem, he exhibits more affinity with Palestinian than with Alexandrian thought. The most that can be claimed is that the Epistle to the Hebrews returns echoes of Philo, and exhibits formal and limited resemblances to him.

Words Which Occur Only in Hebrews

ἀγενεαλόγητος

ἀγνόημα

ἀθέτησις

ἄθλησις

αἴγειος

αἱματεκχυσία

αἴνεσις

αἰσθητήριον

αἴτιος

ἀκατάλυτος

ἀκλινής

ἀκροθίνιον

ἀλυσιτελής

ἀμετάθετος

ἀμήτωρ

ἀνακαινίζω

ἀναλογίζομαι

ἀναρίθμνητος

ἀνααταυρόω

ἀνταγωνίζομαι

ἀντικαθίστημι

ἀπαράβατος

ἀπάτωρ

ἀπαύγασμα

ἄπειρος

ἀποβλέπω

ἀπόστολος (of Christ)

ἁρμός

ἀφανής

ἀφανισμός

ἀφομοιόομαι

βοηθός

βοτάνη

γενεαλογέομαι

γεωργέομαι

γνόφος

δάμαλις

δεκάτη

δεκατόω

δέος

δέρμα

δημιουργός

δήπου

διάταγμα

διαφορώτερος

διηνεκής

διινκνέομαι

διόρθωσις

δοκιμασία

δυσερμήνευτος

ἐάνπερ

ἔγγυος

ἐκβαίνω

ἐκδοχή

ἐκλανθάνομαι

ἔκτρομος

ἔλεγχος

ἐμπαιγμός

ἐνκαινίζω

ἐνυβρίζω

ἕξις

ἐπεισαγωγή

ἐπιλείπω

ἕπος

εὐαρεστέω

εὐαρέστως

εὐθύτης

εὐλάβεια

εὐλαβέομαι

εὐπερίστατος

εὐποιΐ̀α

θεατρίζομαι

θέλησις

θεράπων

θύελλα

θυμιατήριον

ἱερωσύνη

ἱκετήριος

καθαρότης

κακουχέομαι

καρτεωέω

καταγωνίζομαι

κατάδηλος

καταναλίσκω

κατασκιάζω

κατάσκοπος

καῦσις

κεφαλίς

κοπή

κριτικός

κῶλον

λειτουργικός

λευειτικός

μερισμός

μεσιτεύω

μετάθεσις

μετέπειτα

μετριοπαθέω

μηδέπω

μηλωτή

μήν

μισθαποδοσία

μισθαποδότης

μυελός

νέφος

νόθος

νομοθετέω

νωθρός

ὄγκος

ὀλιγωρέω

ὀλοθρεύω

ὁμοιότης

ὁρκωμοσία

πανήγυρις

παραδειγματίζω

παραπικραίνω

παραπικρασμός

παραπίπτω

παραπλησίως

παραρέω

πεῖρα

πήγνυμι

πολυμερῶς

πολυτρόπως

πρίζω

προβλέπομαι

πρόδρομος

προσαγορεύω

προσοχθίζω

πρόσφατος

πρόσχυσις

πρωτοτόκια

σαββατισμός

στάμνος

συναπολλύμαι

συνδεόμαι

συναπιμαρτυρέω

συνκακουχεόμαι

συνπαθέω

τελειωτής

τιμωρία

τομός

τράγος

τραχηλίζομαι

τρίμηνος

τροχία

τυμπανίζω

ὑπείκω

ὑοστολή

φαντάζομας

φοβερός

χαρακτήρ

χεουβείν

Words Found in Hebrews and Elsewhere, But Not in Paul

[Words which occur in the Pastorals are marked *.]

ἀγγαλλίασις

ἄγκυρα

αἰτία*

ἄκανθαι

ἄκρον

ἀμελέω*

ἀμίαντος

ἀναδέχομαι

ἀναθεωρέω

ἀνακάμπτω

ἀνατέλλω

ἀναφέρω

ἀνορθόω

ἀντιλογία

ἀντίτυπος

ἀνυπότακτος

ἀνωτέρον

ἀνωτέρον

ἀνωφελής*

ἀπαλλάσσω

ἀποβάλλω

ἀπογράφομαι

ἀποδεκατόω

ἀποδοκιμάζω

ἀποκαθίστημι

ἀπόλαυσις*

ἀπολείπω

ἀπολύω

ἀρέομαι*

ἁρπαγή

ἀρχηγός

ἀρχιερεύς

ἀσάλευτος

ἀστεῖος

ἄστρον

ἀφιλάργυρος*

βαπτισμός

βέβηλος*

βλαστάνω

βοήθεια

βραχύς

γάμος

γηράσκω

γυμνάζω*

διαβαίνω

διαλέγομαι

διαστέλλομαι

διατίθεμαι

διηγέομαι

δίστομος

ἔθος

εἰρηνικός

εἰσάγω

εἴσειμι

εἰσφέρω*

ἐκλείπω

ἑκουσίως

ἐκτρέπομαι*

ἐκφέρω*

ἔκφοβος

ἔλαιον

ἐλαττόω

ἐλεήμων

ἐμπίπτω*

ἐμφανίζω

ἐνθύμησις

ἔννοια

ἐνοχλέω

ἐντέλλομαι

ἔντρομος

ἐξάγω

ἔξοδος

ἐπιγράφω

ἐπιδείκνυμι

ἐπιλαμβάνομαι*

ἐπισκέπτομαι

ἐπισκοπέω

ἐπίσταμαι*

ἐπιστέλλω

ἔριον

ἑρμηνεύω

ἐρυθρός

ἐσώτερος

εὔκαιρος

ἐχθές

ζόφος

ζῶον

ἦχος

θεωρέω

θηρίον

ἰάομαι

ἱερατεία

ἱερεύς

ἱλάσκομαι

ἵλεως

ἱμάτιον

καθαρισμός

καίτοι

κάμνω

καταπατέω

κατάπαυσις

καταπαύω

καταπέτασμα

κατασκευάζω

καταφεύγω

κεφάλαιον

κίβωτος

κλίνω

κοινόω

κόκκινος

κοσμικός*

κριτής*

κυκλόω

λανθάνω

λέων*

λιθοβολέω

λούω

λύτρωσις

λυχνία

μάννα

μαστιγόω

μάστιξ

μεγαλωσύνη

μεταλαμβάνω*

μέτοχος

μήποτε*

μιαίνω*

μονογενής

μόσχος

μυριάς

ξενίζω

ξηρός

ὅθεν

ὁλοκαύτωμα

ὀμνύω

ὀπή

ὀρέγομαι*

ὀρθός

ὅρκος

ὅσιος*

ὀστέον

παλαιόω

παντελής

πάντοθεν

παραβολή

παραδέχομαι*

παραιτέομαι*

παραλύομαι

παραφέρω

παρεμβολή

παρεπίδημος

παρίημι

παροικέω

παροξυσμός

πατριάρχης

πατρίς

περιέρχομαι*

περικαλύπτω

περίκειμαι

πλῆθος

ποικίλος*

πολίτης

πόρρωθεν

πρεσβύτερος*

προάγω*

πρόδηλος*

προσέρχομαι*

προσέχω*

προφφέρω

πύλη

ῥαντίζω

ῥαντισμός

σείω

σκηνή

σπήλαιον

σποδός

στάσις

στερεός*

στεφανόω*

συναντάω

συντέλεια

σχεδόν

ταῦρος

τάχειον* (variant)

τελείωσις

τελευτάω

τεχνίτης

τρίβολος

τροφή

ὑετός

ὑμνέω

ὕπαρξις

ὑπόδειγμα

ὑποκάτω

ὑποπόδιον

ὕσσωπος

ὕστερον

ὕψιστος

φύω

χείρων*

χρονίζω

χρύδεος*

χωλός

ψηλαφάω