"THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS"

Who wrote it. — This is a question which cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. The earliest witness on the subject is Pantænus of Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, who assigned the epistle, as Eusebius tells us, to the apostle Paul. In keeping with this opinion we find that the Eastern Church generally regarded it as the work of Paul; but some of the most learned of its bishops and teachers were constrained by internal evidence to depart somewhat from the traditional view. Their idea was that Paul might have written the original, and one of his disciples have translated it into Greek; or that the apostle might have supplied the thoughts, and some disciple have put them into words. In this sense Origen maintains that the thoughts were worthy of the apostle, but " who it was that wrote the epistle, God knows."

The opinion of the Western Church was for a long time adverse to the Pauline authorship. Clement of Rome, who wrote before the close of the first century, frequently quotes the epistle, but never claims for it the authority of Paul. If he believed that the epistle was written by Paul, it is difficult to account for the ignorance of the Roman Church on the subject in succeeding generations — all the more so because of the connection of the epistle with Italy (xiii. 34). It was not till the close of the fourth century, and in spite of its traditions to the contrary, that the Western Church accepted the epistle as a writing of Paul's.¹

Even if the external testimony in favour of the Pauline authorship were much stronger than it is, a study of the style and structure of the book would compel us to adopt a different view. Instead of the rugged, impetuous, and occasionally disjointed style of the apostle, we have here polished diction and carefully-constructed sentences. "The movement of this writer resembles that of an oriental sheikh with his robes of honour wrapped around him; the movement of St. Paul is that of an athlete girded for the race. The eloquence of this writer, even when it is at its most majestic volume, resembles the flow of a river; the rhetoric of St. Paul is like the rush of a mountain torrent amid opposing rocks." On account of this general dissimilarity of style, as well as because of many well-marked differences in detail,² the idea that Paul wrote this epistle has now been generally abandoned. Nor can we even regard it as the translation of a Hebrew work of the apostle's. Not only is it possessed of such a rhetorical grace and finish as is scarcely attainable in a translation, but in several other respects it bears unmistakable tokens of having been. originally written in Greek.³ But although we cannot assign the epistle to St. Paul, this need not impair our sense of its value as an acknowledged portion of the New Testament. Its value is independent of its human authorship. "If it should be found that a noble picture which had been attributed to Raphael was not by that artist, there would not be one masterpiece the less, but one great master the more."

While the evidence is conclusive against the epistle having been written by Paul, there is yet reason to believe that it was the work of one of Paul's school. The writer appears to be acquainted with some of Paul's epistles.⁴ He uses many words which are found nowhere in the New Testament except in Paul's writings, or in his speeches as reported by Luke; and he refers to Timothy as a personal friend (xiii. 23).

By which of Paul's friends or associates the letter was written it is difficult to say. Neither Clement nor Luke (whose names were suggested as early as the third century) can have been the author, so greatly do their styles differ from that of the epistle. Luther's conjecture that Apollos may have been the writer is favoured by the description of the latter in Acts xviii. 24-28, viewed in connection with the internal characteristics of the epistle. But if Apollos was the writer, it is difficult to account for the complete disappearance of his name from the traditions of the Church, more especially in the East.

There is another name, in itself not at all an improbable one, for which we have the authority of Tertullian of Carthage, who wrote in the beginning of the third century. That presbyter refers to Barnabas as the author of the epistle, in terms which imply that this was no new supposition; and his testimony is all the more important because he had been at one time resident in Rome and knew what was the current belief of the Church there. In many respects the name of Barnabas answers the requirements of the case. As a Jewish Christian who enjoyed the confidence of the apostles and was on intimate terms with the Church at Jerusalem, of which he had been an early benefactor; as a Levite, familiar with the usages and customs of the Jewish sanctuary; as a native, and frequent visitor, of Cyprus, sufficiently acquainted with Hellenistic literature to be able to preach to Hellenists, and at one time (according to an ancient tradition) a teacher, like his nephew Mark, at Alexandria, with which Cyprus was closely connected; as a good man full of the Holy Ghost and of faith, whose surname of Barnabas, "son of exhortation" (conferred on him by the apostles), marked him out as a man of great persuasive influence:— in all these respects this Church-leader was well fitted to be the writer of a " word of exhortation" (xiii. 22) — in the Greek language and after the Alexandrian mode of thought — to the wavering and distracted Hebrews (Acts iv. 36, 37; ix. 26, 27; xi. 19-30; xiii. 1; xv. 39).

To whom "written. — "To the Hebrews." We have no reason to doubt that this part of the superscription — which probably formed the whole of the original — gives a correct indication of the readers for whom the epistle was intended. The whole tenor of the epistle implies that it was written for Jewish Christians. But various allusions show that it was not intended merely for Hebrew Christians in general, but for some definite community (v. 11-12; vi. 9-10; x. 32-34; xiii. 1, 7, 19, 23. Which of the Hebrew communities, in particular, is addressed has been much disputed. Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, have all been suggested. 5ut from the way in which the Gentiles are entirely ignored in the epistle — the word "people," which frequently occurs, being always used to designate the Jews — it would seem most probable that the letter was intended for Christians in Jerusalem or in some other part of Palestine. It was only in Palestine that Churches were to be found entirely composed of Jewish Christians; and the troubles that overtook these congregations soon afterwards in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem would go far to account for the ignorance and uncertainty of the early Church as to the authorship and the original destination of this epistle. Moreover, it was in Palestine that the temptations to relapse into Judaism, against which the writer is so anxious to guard his readers, were most formidable. The sacerdotal splendour of the ancient sanctuary threw into the shade the simple forms of Christian worship; and the flames of patriotic zeal burned more fiercely in the Holy Land than among the Jews of the Dispersion. The Hebrew Christians residing there must have felt themselves more and more under the necessity of choosing between their country and their faith, between a revolt against the Romans and a patient waiting for the coming of the Saviour. Exposed to persecution and excommunication at the hands of their fanatical and exasperated countrymen, deeply attached to the religion of their fathers and with a strong love of outward ceremonial, disappointed by the delay of the Second Coming and by the rejection of the Gospel on the part of so many of their kindred, they stood in urgent need of the consolations and the warnings which are addressed to them in this epistle.

Where and when written. — The only clue to guide us as to the place of writing is to be found at chap. xiii. 24:''They of Italy salute you." This may either mean that the writer was sending greetings from the Church in Italy, or from Italian Christians resident in some foreign city from which he wrote. On the whole, the former seems the more natural interpretation. If it be adopted, we may suppose the writer to have been waiting in some Italian city for the arrival of Timothy after his liberation from imprisonment at Rome (xiii. 23).

On this supposition the date of the epistle would be about 68 A.D., which tallies with other indications of time in the epistle. That it was written before the Fall of Jerusalem is evident not only from the allusions to the sacrificial system as still going on (x. 2-3, etc.) and to the old covenant as "becoming old" and "nigh unto vanishing away" (viii. 13), but still more perhaps from the absence of any allusion to the destruction of the Temple. That event, if it had already occurred, would have rendered superfluous any other proof of the transitory and imperfect nature of the Old Testament dispensation.

Its Character and Contents. — In many respects this book has more of the character of a treatise than of a letter. Its great theme is the superiority of Christianity to Judaism. This superiority it proves not so much by minimising the old covenant — which Paul had been obliged to do in vindicating the freedom of his Gentile converts — as by magnifying the new in the sense of its being a fulfilment of the old.

The epistle may be divided into two parts, the first mainly of an argumentative or expository character (i.-x. 18), the second chiefly hortatory and practical (x. 19-xiii.)

(1) In the former the writer seeks to establish the supremacy of Christ and of the Christian Dispensation. After the opening statement (i. 1-3) as to the divine revelation being completed and concentrated in the "Son," he proceeds to show His superiority to the angels, through whom the Law was believed to have been given (i.-ii-), to Moses (iii.), and to Joshua (iv.) But his main efforts are directed to proving His superiority and that of His religion to the sacerdotal system of the Jews. In v.-vii. he shows that Christ, while possessing in common with Aaron all the qualifications of a true priest, belongs to a higher order of priesthood, represented not by Aaron but by Melchizedek. In the story of the meeting of Melchizedek with Abraham (Gen. xiv. 18-20) and the prophetic allusions to the former (Ps. cx. 4) he finds many reasons of an allegorical nature to justify this view. He represents the Head of the Christian Church as the possessor of an unchangeable priesthood, secured by the divine oath — not transitory, bat permanent— exercised not on earth but in heaven— constituted "not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." In viii.-x. 1 8, a similar superiority is proved to belong to the Christian Dispensation, with its law written on the heart, and its sacrifice offered "once for all" in a '• tabernacle not made with hands," whereby Christ hath "through his own blood " "obtained eternal redemption."

(2) In the course of the argument occasional exhortations and warnings are introduced (ii 1-4; iii. 7-13; iv. 11-16; v. 12 - vi. 20). But the practical application is mainly reserved for the concluding chapters, x. 19 - xiii. After exhorting his readers to avail themselves of the "new and living way" which has been thus consecrated for them into "the holy place," and warning them against the terrible consequences of apostasy, he comforts their hearts with the assurance that though they may be disowned by the sacerdotal leaders at Jerusalem, they are in the true line of fellowship with the saints and holy men of old, whose devotion had been shown, not by the observance of an outward ceremonial, but by faith in the unseen (xi.) In the next chapter, after exhorting them to patience under their trials through the sustaining power of God's fatherly love, he introduces a striking contrast between the terrors of Sinai and the attractive glories of Mount Zion. In the last chapter (xiii.) he gives a number of salutary counsels and admonitions, in the course of which he calls upon his readers to go forth unto Jesus (as it were) "without the camp, bearing his reproach," remembering that Jesus Himself "suffered without the gate. " He alludes to the sacrifices of praise and well-doing which are required of the Christian, and bids his readers " obey them that have the rule over (them), and submit to them." The epistle concludes with a beautiful benediction, and a few last words of personal explanation and greeting.  

1) But it is interesting to observe that the Westminster Confession: does not include it among St. Paul's epistles.

2) (1) There is in this epistle a marked absence of the opening salutation and thanksgiving usual with St. Paul.

(2) There is an acknowledgment on the part of the writer that he and his readers were indebted in some measure for their knowledge of the Gospel to " them that heard " the Lord (ii. 3), whereas Paul repudiated for himself any such dependence on the testimony of others (Gal. i. 11-17).

(3) In quoting from the Old Testament the writer of this epistle makes use of such phrases as "God saith," "the Holy Spirit saith, "he testifieth, ' which are not found in St. Paul's writings.

(4) He invariably quotes from the Septuagint in its Alexandrian MS., without regard to the Hebrew, whereas Paul often corrects the Septuagint by the Hebrew, and when he quotes from the Greek version, follows the text found in the Vatican MS.

(5) We never designates the Saviour as "our Lord Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus our Lord" (expressions which occur nearly seventy times in Paul's epistles), but generally speaks of Him as " Jesus," or "Christ," or "the Lord."

3) It has numerous plays on Greek words, and contains expressions that have no equivalent in Hebrew j it makes its Old Testament quotations direct from the Septua^nt, in some cases even building an argument on forms of expression which do not occur in the Hebrew.

4) 3 Cf. ii. 8 and 1 Cor. xv. 27; ii. 10 and Rom. xi. 36; ii. 14, 2 Tim. i. 10 and 1 Cor. xv. 26; v. 12-14 and 1 Cor. iii. 2; vi. 10 and 1 Thess. i. 3; x. 30 and Rom. xii. 19; xii. 14 and Rom. xii. 18.