It is agreed by the general tenor of antiquity that this epistle was written by St. Paul, whose other epistles were sent to the Gentile converts; this only to the Hebrews. But this improper inscription was added by some later hand. It was sent to the Jewish Hellenist Christians, dispersed through various countries. St. Paul's method and style are easily observed therein. He places, as usual, the proposition and division before the treatise, Hebrews 2:17; he subjoins the exhortatory to the doctrinal part, quotes the same scriptures, Hebrews 1:6; 2:8; 10:30, 38; and uses the same expressions as elsewhere. But why does he not prefix his name, which, it is plain from Hebrews 13:19 was dear to them to whom he wrote? Because he prefixes no inscription, in which, if at all, the name would have been mentioned. The ardour of his spirit carries aim directly upon his subject, (just like St. John in his First Epistle,) and throws back his usual salutation and thanksgiving to the conclusion.
This epistle of St. Paul, and both those of St. Peter, (one may add, that of St. James and of St. Jude also,) were written both to the same persons, dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, and other countries, and nearly at the same time. St. Paul suffered at Rome, three years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore this epistle likewise, was written while the temple was standing. St. Peter wrote a little before his martyrdom, and refers to the epistles of St. Paul; this in particular.
The scope of it is, to confirm their faith in Christ; and this he does by demonstrating his glory. All the parts of it are full of the most earnest and pointed admonitions and exhortations; and they go on in one tenor, the particle therefore everywhere connecting the doctrine and the use. THE SUM IS,
The glory of Christ appears,
I. From comparing with him the prophets and angels, Hebrews 1:1-14 Therefore we ought to give heed to him, Hebrews 2:1-4 II. From his passion and consummation. Here we may observe,
1. The proposition and sum, 5-9
2. The treatise itself. We have a perfect author of salvation, who suffered or our sake, that he might be,
(1.) a merciful, and,
(2.) a faithful,
(3.) high priest, 10-13
These three are particularly explained, his passion and consummation being continually interwoven,
1. He has the virtues of an high priest
a. He is faithful, Hebrews 3:1- Therefore be ye not unfaithful iv. 13
b. He is merciful, 15- Therefore come to him with confidence v. 3
2. He is called of God an high priest. Here,
a. The sum is proposed, 4-10 With a summary exhortation 11- Hebrews 6:20
b. The point is copiously,
1. Explained. We have a great high priest,
1. Such as is described in the hundred and tenth Psalm After the order of Melchisedec, Hebrews 7:1-19 Established by an oath, 20-22 For ever, 23-28
2. Therefore peculiarly excellent, Heavenly, Hebrews 8:1-6 Of the new covenant, 7-13 By whom we have an entrance into the sanctuary Hebrews 9:1; 10:18
2. Applied. Therefore,
1. Believe, hope, love 19-25 These three are farther inculcated, a. Faith, with patience, 26-39 Which, after the example of the ancients, Hebrews 11:1; 12:1 And of Christ himself, 2,3 Is to be exercised, 4-11 Cheerfully, peaceably, holily, 12-17
2. In order to grow in these graces, make use of The remembrance of your former, 7-16 The vigilance of your present, pastors, 17-19 To this period, and to the whole epistle, answers The prayer, the doxology, and the mild conclusion, 20-25
There are many comparisons in this epistle, which may be nearly reduced to two heads: 1. The prophets, the angels, Moses, Joshua, Aaron, are great; but Jesus Christ is infinitely greater 2. The ancient believers enjoyed high privileges; but Christian believers enjoy far higher. To illustrate this, examples both of happiness and misery are everywhere interspersed: so that in this epistle there is a kind of recapitulation of the whole Old Testament. In this also Judaism is abrogated, and Christianity carried to its height.
Adam Clarke
Introduction to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.
CLA_HEB.PDF, source PDF p. 3
Editorial note: Source collation note — source PDF page 3: “HEBREWS INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE”. Compared with CLA_HEB.PDF PDF p. 3. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: the available separately digitized printed volumes were searched, but the corresponding passage was not securely located. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain; this search provides no basis for reconstructing or silently normalizing them. CLA_HEB.PDF, PDF page 3.
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
THE chief points in controversy, relative to the Epistle to the Hebrews, though discussed by many, have not in my opinion been treated so successfully by any writer as by Dr. Lardner; he has entered into the whole controversy, and brought his knowledge from far. I shall avail myself of his labours as the best on the subject, and generally use his own words. “I shall,” says he,” inquire, 1. To whom it was written. 2. In what language. 3. By whom. 4. The time and place of writing it. “I. In the first place, let us consider to whom this epistle was written. “Dr. Lightfoot thought that this epistle was sent by Paul to the believing Jews of Judea; ‘a people,’ says he, ‘that had been much engaged to him, for his care of their poor, getting collections for them all along in his travels.’ He adds, ‘It is not to be doubted, indeed, that he intends the discourse and matter of this epistle to the Jews throughout their dispersion. Yet does he endorse it and send it chiefly to the Hebrews, or the Jews of Judea, the principal part of the circumcision, as the properest centre to which to direct it, and from whence it might be best diffused in time to the whole circumference of the dispersion.’ Whitby, in his preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews, is of the same opinion, and argues much after the same manner as Lightfoot.
“So likewise Mill, Pearson, Lewis Capellus, and Beza, in his preface to this epistle, and Beausobre and L’Enfant, the editors of the French New Testament at Berlin, in their general preface to St. Paul’s epistles, and in their preface to this epistle in particular.
“Of this Mr. Hallet had no doubt, who in his synopsis of the epistle, says, that this epistle was particularly designed for the Hebrew Christians, who dwelt in one certain place, and was sent thither, as appears from the apostle’s saying, Hebrews 13:19, 23: ‘I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner: I will see you.’ And what particular place can this be supposed to be but Judea? There, the Christians were continually persecuted by the unbelieving Jews, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles; and as St. Paul takes notice, 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 10:32-36; 12:4, 5. By these persecutions the Hebrew Christians were tempted to apostatize from Christianity, and to think there was strength in the arguments used by the persecutors in favour of Judaism. The apostle, therefore, sets himself to guard against both these dangers.
“This appears to me to be the most probable opinion: for, 1. It is the opinion of the ancient Christian writers who received this epistle. It may be taken for granted, that this was the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome, and Euthalius, who supposed this epistle to have been first written in Hebrew, and afterwards translated into Greek. It may be allowed to have been also the opinion of many others who quote this epistle, to have been written to Hebrews, when they say nothing to the contrary. Nor do I recollect any of the ancients, who say it was written to Jews living out of Judea.
“Chrysostom says that the epistle was sent to the believing Jews of Palestine, and supposes that the apostle afterwards made them a visit. Theodoret, in his preface to the epistle, allows it to have been sent to the same Jews; and Theophylact, in his argument of the epistle, expressly says, as Chrysostom, that it was sent to the Jews of Palestine. So that this was the general opinion of the ancients.
“There are in this epistle many things especially suitable to the believers in Judea; which must lead us to think it was written to them. I shall select such passages.
“1. Hebrews 1:2: ‘Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.’ “2. Hebrews 4:2: ‘For unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them.’
“3. Hebrews 2:1-4: ‘Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have Heard: How then shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.’
“Does not this exhortation, and the reason with which it is supported, peculiarly suit the believers of Judea, where Christ himself first taught, and then his disciples after him; confirming their testimony with very numerous and conspicuous miracles?
“4. The people to whom this epistle is sent were well acquainted with our Saviour’s sufferings, as they of Judea must have been. This appears in Hebrews 1:3; 2:9,18; 5:7, 8; 9:14, 28; 10:11; Hebrews 12:2,3; 13:12.
“5. Hebrews 5:12: ‘For when ye ought to be teachers of others,’ and what follows, is most properly understood of Christians in Jerusalem and Judea, to whom the Gospel was first preached.
“6. What is said, Hebrews 6:4-6, and Hebrews 10:26, 29, is most probably applicable to apostates in Judea.
“7. Hebrews 10:32-34: ‘But to call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;’ to the end of Hebrews 10:34. This leads us to the Church of Jerusalem, which had suffered much, long before the writing of this epistle, even very soon after they had received the knowledge of the truth. Compare Acts 8:1; 9:1, 2; 11:19, and 1 Thessalonians 2:14. Grotius supposes as much.
“8. Those exhortations, Hebrews 13:13, 14, must have been very suitable to the case of the Jews at Jerusalem, at the supposed time of writing this epistle; a few years before the war in that country broke out. “9. The regard shown in this epistle to the rulers of the Church or Churches to which it is sent, is very remarkable. They are mentioned twice or thrice, first in Hebrews 13:7: ‘Remember your rulers, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith imitate, considering the end of their conversation.’ These were dead, as Grotius observes. And Theodoret’s note is to this purpose. He intends the saints that were dead-Stephen the proto-martyr, James the brother of John, and James called the Just. And there were many others who were taken off by the Jewish rage. Consider these, says he, and, observing their example, imitate their faith. Then again, at Hebrews 13:17: ‘Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. For they watch for your souls.’ And once more, Hebrews 13:24: ‘Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints.’ Upon which Theodoret says: This way of speaking intimates, that their rulers did not need such instruction; for which reason he did not write to them, but to their disciples. That is a fine observation. And Whitby upon that verse says: Hence it seems evident that this epistle was not sent to the bishops or rulers of the Church, but to the whole Church, or the laity; and it may deserve to be considered whether this repeated notice of the rulers among them does not afford ground to believe that some of the apostles were still in Judea. Whether there be sufficient reason to believe that or not, I think these notices very proper and suitable to the state of the Jewish believers in Judea; for I am persuaded, that not only James, and all the other apostles, had exactly the same doctrine with Paul, but that all the elders likewise, and all the understanding men among the Jewish believers, embraced the same doctrine. They were, as I understand, the multitude only, πληθος, plebs, or the men of lower rank among them, who were attached to the peculiarities of the Mosaic law and the customs of their ancestors. This may be argued from what James and the elders of Jerusalem say to Paul, Acts 21:20-22: ‘Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are that believe; and they are all zealous of the law. What is it, therefore? The multitude must needs come together.’ It is hence evident that the zeal for the law, which prevailed in the minds of many, was not approved by James or the elders. That being the case, these recommendations of a regard for their rulers, whether apostles or elders, were very proper in an epistle sent to the believers in Judea.
“For these reasons, I think that this epistle was sent to the Jewish believers at Jerusalem and in Judea. But there are objections which must be considered.
“Obj. 1. Hebrews 6:10: ‘God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love-in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.’ Upon which Dr. Wall remarks: Here again we are put upon thinking to what Church or what Christians this is said; for as to those of Jerusalem, we read much in Paul’s former letters of their poverty, and of their being ministered to by the Gentile Christians of Galatia, Macedonia, and Corinth; and in the Acts, by the Antiochians; but nowhere of their ministering to other saints. This objection, perhaps, might be strengthened from Hebrews 13:2: ‘Be not forgetful to entertain strangers.’ And from Hebrews 13:16: ‘To do good, and to communicate, forget not.’ “Ans. But the poverty of the Jews in Judea, and the contributions of the Gentile Churches for their relief, are no reasons why such admonitions as these should not be sent to them. They are properly directed to all Christians, that they may be induced to exert themselves to the utmost. The Gentile Churches, among whom St. Paul made collections for the saints in Judea, were not rich. As he says, 1 Corinthians 1:26: ‘For ye know your calling, brethren-not many mighty, not many noble, are called.’ And of the Churches in Macedonia, he says, 2 Corinthians 8:2: ‘How that, in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy, and their deep poverty, had abounded unto the riches of their liberality.’ In like manner, there might be instances of liberality to the distressed among the believers in Judea. There is a very fine example recorded, Acts 9:36, 39; nor was there ever any city or country in the world to whom that exhortation, ‘Be not forgetful to entertain strangers,’ or, Be not unmindful of hospitality, της φιλοχενιας μη επιλανθανεσθε, could be more properly given, than Jerusalem and Judea. For the people there must have been much accustomed to it at their festivals, when there was a great resort thither from all countries; and the writer of an epistle to the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea would naturally think of such an admonition; being desirous that they should not fall short of others in that respect. And we may here, not unfitly, recollect the history of St. Paul’s going to Jerusalem; and how he and his fellow travellers were entertained at Cæsarea, in the house of Philip the evangelist and at Jerusalem, in the house of Mnason, an old disciple, as related Acts 21:8-16.
“Obj. 2. Upon Hebrews 13:18,19, the same Dr. Wall says: One would think that Paul should have prayed and purposed to go anywhere rather than to Jerusalem, where he had been so used, and where he fell into that five years’ imprisonment, from which he was but just now delivered. “Ans. But there is not any improbability that Paul might now desire to see his countrymen in Judea, if he might go thither with safety, as I think he might. Almost three years had now passed since he left Judea; and his trial, or apology, had been over two years; and he was now set at liberty by the emperor himself. No man, not very presumptuous would admit a thought of disturbing him.
“Obj. 3. St. Peter’s epistles were written to the Hebrew Christians, scattered in Asia and Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia. St. Paul must have written an epistle to those Hebrew Christians to whom St. Peter writes his two epistles. For St. Peter, 2 Peter 3:15, cites to them what Paul had written unto them. No epistle of Paul was written to the Hebrews particularly but this; so that these must be the Hebrews of the above named countries. To which I answer: That St. Peter’s epistles were not sent to Jews, but to Gentiles, or to all Christians in general, in the places above mentioned, as will be clearly shown hereafter. When St. Peter says, As Paul has written unto you, he may intend Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, and some other epistles written to Gentiles. If he refers at all to this Epistle to the Hebrews, it is comprehended under that expression, 2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles.
“Obj. 4. This Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been written in Greek. But if it had been sent to the Jewish believers in Judea, it would have been written in Hebrew. To which I answer: That, allowing the epistle to have been written in Greek, it might be sent to the believers in Judea. If St. Paul wrote to the Jewish believers in Palestine he intended the epistle for general use-for all Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile original. Many of the Jews in Judea understood Greek; few of the Jews out of Judea understood Hebrew. The Greek language was almost universal, and therefore generally used. All St Paul’s epistles are in Greek, even that to the Romans. And are not both St. Peter’s epistles in Greek. And St. John’s, and St. Jude’s? Did not St. James likewise write in Greek, who is supposed to have resided in Jerusalem from the time of our Lord’s ascension to the time of his own death? His epistle is inscribed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. But I presume that they of the twelve tribes who dwelt in Judea are not excluded by him, but intended. Nor could he be unwilling that this epistle should be read and understood by those who were his especial charge. The epistle written by Barnabas, a Levite, or ascribed to him, was written in Greek; not now to mention any other Jewish writers who have used the Greek language.
“II. Thus we are unawares brought to the inquiry, in what language was this epistle written? For there have been doubts about it, among both ancients and moderns. Yet many learned and judicious moderns have been of opinion that Greek, and not Hebrew, was the original language of this epistle; Beausobre, James Capellus, S. Basnage, Mill, in his Prolegomena to the New Testament, and the late Mr. Wetstein, and also Spanheim, in his Dissertation concerning the author of this epistle, which well deserves to be consulted. One argument for this, both of Spanheim and Wetstein, is taken from the Greek paronomasias in the epistle, or the frequent concurrence of Greek words of like sound; which seem to be an argument not easy to be answered.
“Some ancient Christian writers were of opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, and translated into Greek by Luke or Clement of Rome. Jerome, in particular, seems to have supposed that this epistle was written in Hebrew; and Origen is also sometimes reckoned among those who were of this opinion. But I think I have shown it to be probable that he thought it was written in Greek. It seems likewise that they must have been of the same opinion who considered the elegance of the Greek language of this epistle as an objection against its having been written by St. Paul; for if the Greek epistle had been supposed to be a translation, the superior elegance of the style of this epistle above that of the other epistles of Paul, could have afforded no objection against his being the author of it. Indeed the ancients, as Beausobre said, formerly had no other reason to believe that St. Paul wrote in Hebrew, but that he wrote to the Hebrews. So, likewise, says Capellus. The title deceived them. And because it was written to Hebrews, they concluded it was written IN Hebrew; for none of the ancients appear to have seen a copy of this epistle in that language.
“III. I now proceed to the third inquiry, Who is the writer of this epistle? And many things offer in favour of the Apostle PAUL.
“1. It is ascribed to him by many of the ancients. Here I think myself obliged briefly to recollect the testimonies of ancient authors; and I shall rank them under two heads: First, the testimonies of writers who used the Greek tongue; then the testimonies of those who lived in that part of the Roman empire where the Latin was the vulgar language.
“There are some passages in the epistles of Ignatius, about the year 107, which may be thought, by some to contain allusions to the Epistle to the Hebrews. This epistle seems to be referred to by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, in his epistle written to the Philippians, in the year 108, and in the relation of his martyrdom, written about the middle of the second century. This epistle is often quoted as Paul’s by Clement of Alexandria, about the year 194. It is received and quoted as Paul’s by Origen, about 230. It was also received as the apostle’s by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in 247. It is plainly referred to by Theognostus, of Alexandria, about 282. It appears to have been received by Methodius about 292; by Pamphilius, about 294; and by Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia, at the beginning of the fourth century; by the Manichees in the fourth; and by the Paulicians, in the seventh century. It was received and ascribed to Paul by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in the year 313; and by the Arians, in the fourth century. Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, about 315, 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.’ It is often quoted by Eusebius himself as Paul’s, and sacred Scripture. This epistle was received by Athanasius, without any hesitation. In his enumeration of St. Paul’s fourteen epistles, this is placed next after the two to the Thessalonians, and before the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The same order is observed in the Synopsis of Scripture, ascribed to him. This epistle is received as Paul’s by Adamantius, author of a dialogue against the Marcionites, in 380; and by Cyril of Jerusalem, in 347; by the council of Laodicea, in 363; where St. Paul’s epistles are enumerated in the same order as in Athanasius just noticed. This epistle is also received as Paul’s by Epiphanius, about 368 by the apostolical constitutions, about the end of the fourth century; by Basil, about 370; by Gregory Nazianzen, in 370; by Amphilochius also. But he says it was not received by all as Paul’s. It was received by Gregory Nyssen, about 370; by Didymus, of Alexandria, about the same time; by Ephrem, the Syrian, in 370, and by the Churches of Syria; by Diodorus, of Tarsus, in 378; by Hierax, a learned Egyptian, about the year 302; by Serapion, bishop of Thumis, in Egypt, about 347; by Titus, bishop of Bostria, in Arabia, about 362; by Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia, about the year 394; by Chrysostom, about the year 398; by Severian, bishop of Gabala, in Syria, in 401; by Victor, of Antioch, about 401; by Palladius, author of a Life of Chrysostom, about 408; by Isidore, of Pelusium, about 412; by Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, in 412; by Theodoret, in 423; by Eutherius, bishop of Tiana, in Cappadocia, in 431; by Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, about 440; by Euthalius, in Egypt, about 458; and probably by Dionysius, falsely called the Areopagite, by the author of the Quæstiones et Responsiones, commonly ascribed to Justin Marytr, but rather written in the fifth century. It is in the Alexandrian manuscript, about the year 500; and in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, about 806; is received as Paul’s by Cosmas, of Alexandria, about 535; by Leontius, of Constantinople, about 610; by John Damascen, in 730; by Photius, about 858; by Œcumenius, about the year 950; and by Theophylact, in 1070. I shall not go any lower.
“I shall now rehearse such authors as lived in that part of the Roman empire where the Latin was the vulgar tongue.
“Here, in the first place, offers Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, written about the year 96, or as some others say, about the year 70. For though he wrote in Greek, we rank him among Latin authors, because he was bishop of Rome. In his epistle are many passages, generally supposed to contain allusions or references to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, about 178, as we are assured by Eusebius, alleged some passages out of this epistle, in a work now lost; nevertheless it does not appear that he received it as St. Paul’s. By Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, about the year 200, this epistle is ascribed to Barnabas. Caius, about 212, supposed to have been presbyter in the Church of Rome, reckoning up the epistles of St. Paul, mentions thirteen only, omitting that to the Hebrews. Here I place Hippolytus, who flourished about 220; but it is not certainly known where he was bishop, whether of Porto, in Italy, or of some place in the east: we have seen evidences that he did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul’s, and perhaps that may afford an argument that, though he wrote in Greek, he lived where the Latin tongue prevailed. This epistle is not quoted by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage about 248, and afterwards; nor does it appear to have been received by Novatus, otherwise called Novation, presbyter of Rome about 251. Nevertheless it was in after times received by his followers. It may be thought by some that this epistle is referred to by Arnobius, about 306, and by Lactantius about the same time. It is plainly quoted by another Arnobius, in the fifth century. It was received as Paul’s by Hilary, of Poictiers, about 354, and by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia, about the same time, and by his followers: it was also received as Paul’s by C. M. Victorianus. Whether it was received by Optatus, of Milevi, in Africa, about 370, is doubtful. It was received as Paul’s by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, about 374; by the Priscillianists, about 378. About the year 380 was published a Commentary upon thirteen epistles of Paul only, ascribed to Hilary, deacon of Rome. It was received as Paul’s by Philaster, bishop of Brescia, in Italy, about 380; but he takes notice that it was not then received by all. His successor, Gaudentius, about 387, quotes this epistle as Paul’s; it is also readily received as Paul’s by Jerome, about 392, and he says it was generally received by the Greeks, and the Christians in the east, but not by all the Latins. It was received as Paul’s by Rufinus, in 397; it is also in the Catalogue of the third council of Carthage, in 397. It is frequently quoted by Augustine as St. Paul’s. In one place he says: ‘It is of doubtful authority with some; but he was inclined to follow the opinion of the Churches in the east, who received it among the canonical Scriptures. It was received as Paul’s by Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia, in Italy, about 401; by Innocent, bishop of Rome, about 402; by Paulinus, bishop of Nola, in Italy, about
403. Pelagias, about 405, wrote a commentary upon thirteen epistles of Paul, omitting that to the Hebrews; nevertheless it was received by his followers. It was received by Cassian, about 424; by Prosper, of Aquitain, about 434, and by the authors of the works ascribed to him; by Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, in 434; by Sedulius, about 818; by Leo, bishop of Rome, in 440; by Salvian, presbyter of Marseilles, about 440; by Gelatius, bishop of Rome, about 496: by Facundus, an African bishop, about 540; by Junilius, an African bishop, about 556; by Cassiodorus, in 556, by the author of the imperfect work upon St. Matthew, about 560; by Gregory, bishop of Rome, about 590; by Isidore, of Seville, about 596; and by Bede, about 701, or the beginning of the eighth century.
“Concerning the Latin writers, it is obvious to remark, that this epistle is not expressly quoted as Paul’s by any of them in the three first centuries; however, it was known by Iranæus and Tertullian as we have seen, and possibly to others also. But it is manifest that it was received as an epistle of St. Paul by many Latin writers, in the fourth, fifth, and following centuries.
“The reasons of doubting about the genuineness of this epistle probably were the want of a name at the beginning, and the difference of argument or subject matter, and of the style, from the commonly received epistles of the apostle, as is intimated by Jerome. Whether they are sufficient reasons for rejecting this epistle will be considered in the course of our argument. “2. There is nothing in the epistle itself that renders it impossible or unlikely to be his; for the epistle appears to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, as was of old observed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, and has bean argued also by many moderns. That the temple was still standing, and sacrifices there offered, may be inferred from Hebrews 8:4: ‘For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer according to the law;’ and from Hebrews 13:10: ‘We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat, which serve the tabernacle.’ If the temple had been destroyed, and the worship there abolished, the writer would not have failed to take some notice of it in support of his argument, and for abating the too great attachment of many to the rites of the Mosaic institution. To this purpose speaks Spanheim. It is also probable that those words, Hebrews 3:13, ‘While it is called to-day,’ refer to the patience which God yet continued to exercise toward the Jewish nation; he seems to have had in view the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, which would put an end to that to-day, and finish the time which God gave to the Jews, as a nation, to hear his voice. And Lightfoot argues, from Hebrews 12:4, ‘Ye have not yet resisted unto blood,’ that the epistle was written before the war in Judea was begun.
“Indeed, those words have been the ground of an objection against this epistle having been sent to the believing Jews in Judea, because there had been already several martyrdoms in that country. That difficulty I would now remove; and I have received from a learned friend the following observation, which may be of use: ‘It seems to me,’ says he, ‘that the apostle here, as well as in the preceding context, alludes to the Grecian games or exercises; and he signifies that they to whom he writes had not been called out to the most dangerous combats, and had not run the immediate hazard of their lives; which, I suppose, might be said of them as a body or Church.’ And I shall transfer hither M. Beausobre’s note upon this place: ‘There had been martyrs in Judea, as Stephen and the two James; but, for the most part, the Jews did not put the Christians to death for want of power; they were imprisoned and scourged; see Acts 5:40, and here, Hebrews 13:3. And they endured reproaches, and the loss of their substance, Hebrews 10:32, 34. These were the sufferings which they had met with. The apostle, therefore, here indirectly reproves the Hebrews, that though God treated them with more indulgence than he had done his people in former times, and even than his own Son, they nevertheless wavered in their profession of the Gospel. See Hebrews 12:12.
“3. There are many exhortations in this epistle much resembling some in the epistles of St. Paul. 1. Hebrews 12:3: ‘Lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.’ Galatians 6:9: ‘And let us not be weary in well-doing; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.’ And see 2 Thessalonians 3:13, and Ephesians 3:13. 2. Hebrews 12:14: ‘Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.’ An exhortation very suitable to Paul, and to the Jewish believers in Judea; admonishing them not to impose the rituals of the law upon others, that is, the Gentile believers; and to maintain friendship with them, though they did not embrace the law. It has also a resemblance to Romans 12:18, but the words of the original are different. 3. Hebrews 13:1: ‘Let brotherly love continue,’ and what follows to the end of Hebrews 13:3. Then, in Hebrews 13:4: ‘Marriage is honourable; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.’ Here is an agreement with Ephesians 5:2, 3, 4: ‘And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us-but fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you. For this ye know, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man-has any inheritance in the kingdom of God.’ 4. Hebrews 13:16: ‘But to do good, and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.’ That exhortation is very suitable to Paul’s doctrine, and has an agreement with what he says elsewhere, as Philippians 4:18: ‘An odour of a sweet smell; a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.’ Moreover, as is observed by Grotius upon this text, the word communicate or communion is found in a like sense in the Acts, and in other epistles of St. Paul. See Acts 2:42; Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:13.
“4. In the next place, I observe some instances of agreement in the style or phrases, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the acknowledged epistles of St. Paul. 1. Hebrews 2:4: ‘God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gilts of the Holy Ghost:’-signs and wonders, together, seldom occur in other books of the New Testament; but they are found several times in the Acts, and in St. Paul’s epistles. The phrase is in Matthew 24:24, and Mark 13:22, and once likewise in St. John’s Gospel, John 4:48; but it is several times in the Acts, Acts 2:19; Acts 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 8:13; 14:3; 15:12. The most remarkable are these where there are three different words, Acts 2:22: ‘A man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs.’ Romans 15:19: ‘Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.’ 2 Corinthians 12:12: ‘In signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.’ 2 Thessalonians 2:9: ‘With all power, and signs, and lying wonders.’ 2. Hebrews 2:14: ‘That, through death, he might destroy him who had the power of death.’ The word katargew or katargeomai is, I think, nowhere used in the New Testament, except in Luke 13:7, and St. Paul’s epistles, where it is several times; and is sometimes used in a sense resembling this place, particularly 2 Timothy 1:10: ‘Who has abolished death;’ katarghsantov men ton qanaton, and 1 Corinthians 15:26. Compare Dr. Doddridge’s Family Expositor, vol. iv., upon 1 Corinthians 15:24. 3. Hebrews 3:1: ‘Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.’ Philippians 3:14: ‘The prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.’ 2 Timothy 1:9: ‘Who has called us with a holy calling.’ 4. Hebrews 5:12: ‘And are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.’ 1 Corinthians 3:2: ‘I have fed you with milk, and not with meat.’ However, in the original, there is no great agreement in the words, except that in both places milk is used for the first rudiments of the Christian doctrine. 5. Hebrews 8:1: ‘Who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty on high.’ Ephesians 1:20: ‘And set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.’ 6. Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; and Hebrews 12:24, Jesus Christ is styled Mediator. So likewise in Galatians 3:19,20; 1 Timothy 2:5; and in no other books of the New Testament.
7. Hebrews 8:5: ‘Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; kai skia twn epouraniwn. Hebrews 10:1: ‘For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things;’ skian ecwn twn mellontwn agaqwn, ouk authn thn eikona twn pragmatwn. Colossians 2:17. ‘Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ;’ a esti skia twn mellontwn to de swma tou cristou. 8. Hebrews 10:33: ‘Whilst ye were made a gazing-stock, or spectacle, both by reproaches and afflictions;’ oneidismoiv te kai qliyesi qeatrizomenoi. 1 Corinthians 4:9: ‘For we are made a spectacle unto the world;’ oti qeatron egenhqhmen tw kosmw. 9. St. Paul, in his acknowledged epistles, often alludes to the exercises and games which were then very reputable and frequent in Greece and other parts of the Roman empire. There are many such allusions in this epistle, which have also great elegance. So Hebrews 6:18: ‘Who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us;’ or the reward of eternal life, proposed to animate and encourage us. And, Hebrews 12:1, 2, 3: ‘Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which does so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. Looking unto Jesus-who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross. Lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.’ And, Hebrews 12:12: ‘Wherefore lift up the hands that hang down, and the feeble knees.’ All these texts seem to contain allusions to the celebrated exercises and games of those times. And to these may be added, if I mistake not, the place before noticed, Hebrews 12:4: ‘Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.’ 10. Hebrews 13:9: ‘Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines;’ didacaiv poikilaiv kai cenaiv mh periferesqe. Ephesians 4:14: ‘That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine;’ kludwnizomenoi kai periferomenoi panti anemw thv didaskaliav. 11. Hebrews 13:10: ‘We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat.’ 1 Corinthians 9:13: ‘And they that wait at the altar are partakers with the altar.’ And, 1 Corinthians 10:18: ‘Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?’ 12. Hebrews 13:20, 21: ‘Now the God of peace make you perfect;’ which is a title of the Deity nowhere found in the New Testament but in St. Paul’s epistles, and in them it is several times, and near the conclusion, as here: so Romans 15:33: ‘Now the God of peace be with you all.’ See likewise Romans 16:20; Philippians 4:9 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23: ‘And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;’ and 2 Corinthians 13:11: ‘And the God of love and peace shall be with you.’ “5. The conclusion of this epistle has a remarkable agreement with the conclusions of St. Paul’s epistles in several respects. 1. He here desires the Christians to whom he is writing to pray for him, Hebrews 13:18: ‘Pray for us.’ So Romans 15:30; Ephesians 6:18, 19; Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thessalonians 3:1.
2. It is added in the same Hebrews 13:18: ‘For we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly;’ which may well come from Paul, some of the Jewish believers not being well affected to him, or being even offended with him. So says Theodoret upon this place, and Chrysostom to the like purpose, very largely. To which might be added, Hebrews 13:22: ‘And I beseech you, brethren, to suffer the word of exhortation.’ It is also observable that St. Paul makes a like profession of his sincerity in pleading against the Jews before Felix, Acts 24:16. 3. Having desired the prayers of these Christians for himself, he prays for them, Hebrews 13:20, 21: ‘Now the God of peace make you perfect, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.’ So Romans 15:30, 32, having asked their prayers for him, he adds, Romans 15:33: ‘Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.’ Compare Ephesians 6:19, 23, and 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16. 4. Hebrews 13:24: ‘Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.’ The like salutations are in many of St. Paul’s epistles, Rom. 16:; 1 Corinthians 16:19-21; 2 Corinthians 13:13; Philippians 4:21, 22; not to refer to any more. 5. The valedictory benediction at the end is that which Paul had made the token of the genuineness of his epistles; 2 Thessalonians 3:18. So here, Hebrews 13:25: Grace be with you all. Amen.’ Indeed, sometimes it is ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.’ But at other times it is more contracted. So Colossians 4:18: ‘Grace be with you.’ 1 Timothy 6:21: ‘Grace be with thee.’ See likewise, Ephesians 6:24; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15. The same observation is in Theodoret.
“6. The circumstances of this epistle lead us to the Apostle Paul. 1. Hebrews 13:24: ‘They of Italy salute you.’ The writer, therefore, was then in Italy, whither we know Paul was sent a prisoner, and where he resided two years, Acts 28:30; where also he wrote several epistles still remaining. 2. Hebrews 13:19: He desires them the rather to pray for him, that he might be restored to them the sooner. Paul had been brought from Judea to Rome. And he was willing to go thither again, where he had been several times. And though the original words are not the name, there is an agreement between this and Philemon 1:22: I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.’ This particular is one of the arguments of Euthalius, that this epistle is Paul’s, and written to the Jews of Palestine. 3. Hebrews 13:23: ‘Know ye, that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.’ Timothy was with Paul during his imprisonment at Rome, as is allowed by all: for he is expressly mentioned at the beginning of the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, written when he was in bonds. He is mentioned again, Philippians 2:19. When the apostle writes to Timothy, he calls him his son, or dearly beloved son, 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2. But when he mentions him to others, he calls him brother; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2. In like manner Titus. Compare Titus 1:4 and 2 Corinthians 2:13. This mention of Timothy has, led many, not only moderns, but ancients likewise, to think of Paul as writer of the epistle, particularly Euthalius; and, undoubtedly, many others have been confirmed in that supposition by this circumstance.
“The original word apolelumenon is ambiguous, being capable of two senses: one of which is, that of our translation, set at liberty, that is, from imprisonment; the other is dismissed, sent abroad on an errand. In this last sense it was understood by Euthalius, who, in the place just cited, says: ‘That scarcely any one can be thought of, besides Paul, who would send Timothy abroad upon any service of the Gospel.’ And indeed this passage does put us in mind of what Paul says to the Philippians, Philippians 2:19: ‘But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. Him, therefore, I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me; but I trust in the Lord, that I also myself shall come shortly,’ Philippians 2:23, 24, which induced Beausobre to say in the preface to this epistle: ‘The sacred author concludes with asking the prayers of the Hebrews, Hebrews 13:19, that he may be restored to them. These words intimate that he was still prisoner, but that he hoped to be set at liberty: therefore, he adds, in Hebrews 13:23, that he intended to come and see them, with Timothy, as soon as he should be returned. If this explication be right, this epistle was written at Rome, some time after the Epistle to the Philippians, and since the departure of Timothy for Macedonia.’
“All these considerations just mentioned, added to the testimony of many ancient writers, make out an argument of great weight, (though not decisive and demonstrative,) that the Apostle Paul is the writer of this epistle. An objection against this epistle being St. Paul’s is, that it is supposed to have in it an elegance superior to that of his other writings. This has been judged, by Grotius and Le Clerc, sufficient to show that this was not written by Paul.
“The opinion of Origen, in his homilies upon this epistle, as cited by Eusebius, and by us from him, is, ‘that the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness of speech, but, as to the texture of it, is elegant Greek, as every one will allow who is able to judge of the differences of style.’ Again, he says: ‘The sentiments of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle. This will be assented to by every one who reads the writings of the apostle with attention.’ Afterwards he adds: ‘If I were to speak my opinion, I should say, that the sentiments are the apostle’s, but the language and composition another’s, who committed to writing the apostle’s sense, and, as it were, reduced into commentaries the things spoken by his master,’ &c.
“Eusebius himself, speaking of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, says: ‘Paul having written to the Hebrews in their own language, some think that the Evangelist Luke, others, that this very Clement himself, translated it into Greek: which last is most likely, there being a great resemblance between the style of the epistle of Clement and the Epistle to the Hebrews: nor are the sentiments of those two writings very different. This passage has been already twice quoted by us; once in the chapter of Clement, bishop of Rome, and again in that of Eusebius.’
“Philaster, bishop of Brescia, about 380, says: ‘There are some who do not allow the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul’s, but say it is either an epistle of the Apostle Barnabas, or of Clement, bishop of Rome; but some say it is an epistle of Luke the evangelist: moreover, some reject it, as more eloquent than the apostle’s other writings.
“Jerome, about 392, in his article of St. Paul, in the book of Illustrious Men, says: ‘The Epistle called to the Hebrews is not thought to be his, because of the difference of the argument and style; but either Barnabas’s, as Tertullian thought; or the Evangelist Luke’s, according to some others; or Clement’s, bishop of Rome; who, as some think, being much with him, clothed and adorned Paul’s sense in his own language. Moreover, he wrote as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in pure Hebrew, it being his own language; whence it came to pass that, being translated, it has more elegance in the Greek than his other epistles.’
“Some learned men of late times, as Grotius and Le Clerc, have thought this to be an insuperable objection. Of this opinion also was Jacob Tollius; who, in his notes upon Longinus, of the sublime, has celebrated the sublimity of this epistle, and particularly the elegance of the beginning of it; which alone he thinks sufficient to show that it was not Paul’s. “It remains, therefore, it seems to me, that if the epistle be Paul’s, and was originally written in Greek, as we suppose, the apostle must have had some assistance in composing it; so that we are led to the judgment of Origen, which appears to be as ingenious and probable as any. ‘The sentiments are the apostle’s, but the language and composition of some one else, who committed to writing the apostle’s sense; and, as it were, rendered into commentaries the things spoken by his master.’ According to this account the epistle is St. Paul’s, as to the thoughts and matter; but the words are another’s.
“Jerome, as may be remembered, says: ‘He wrote as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, pure Hebrew; it being his own language; whence it came to pass that, being translated, it has more elegance in the Greek than his other epistles.’ My conjecture, which is not very different, if I may be allowed to mention it, is, that St. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the apostle’s sentiments in his own elegant Greek. But who this assistant of the apostle was is altogether unknown.
“The ancients, besides Paul, have mentioned Barnabas, Luke, and Clement, as writers or translators of this epistle; but I do not know that there is any remarkable agreement between the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the style of the epistle commonly ascribed to Barnabas. The style of Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, is verbose and prolix. St. Luke may have some words which are in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but that does not make out the same style. This epistle, as Origen said, as to the texture of the style, is elegant Greek; but that kind of texture appears not in Luke, so far as I can perceive; there may be more art and labour in the writings of Luke than in those of the other evangelists, but not much more elegance that I can discern. This Epistle to the Hebrews is bright and elegant from the beginning to the end, and surpasses as much the style of St. Luke as it does the style of St. Paul in his acknowledged epistles. In short, this is an admirable epistle, but singular in sentiments and language; somewhat different in both respects from all the other writings of the New Testament; and whose is the language seems to me altogether unknown; whether that of Zenas, or Apollos, or some other of the Apostle Paul’s assistants and fellow labourers.
“There still remains one objection more against this epistle being written by St. Paul, which is, the want of his name; for to all the thirteen epistles, received as his, he prefixes his name, and generally calls himself apostle. This objection has been obvious in all ages; and the omission has been differently accounted for by the ancients who received this epistle as a genuine writing of St. Paul.
“Clement of Alexandria, in his Institutions, speaks to this purpose: ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews,’ he says, ‘is Paul’s, but he did not make use of that inscription Paul the Apostle; for which he assigns this reason: writing to the Hebrews, who had conceived a prejudice against him, and were suspicious of him, he wisely declined setting his name at the beginning lest he should offend them. He also mentions this tradition: ‘forasmuch as the Lord was sent, as the apostle of almighty God, to the Hebrews, Paul, out of modesty, does not style himself the apostle to the Hebrews, both out of respect to the Lord, and that, being preacher and apostle of the Gentiles, he over and above wrote to the Hebrews.’
“Jerome also speaks to this purpose: ‘That Paul might decline putting his name in the inscription on account of the Hebrews being offended with him;’ so in the article of St. Paul, in his book of Illustrious Men. In his Commentary in the beginning of his Epistle to the Galatians, he assigns another reason: ‘That Paul declined to style himself apostle at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, because he should afterwards call Christ the High Priest and Apostle of our profession,’ Hebrews 3:1. “Theodoret says, that Paul was especially the apostle of the Gentiles; for which he alleges Galatians 2:9, and Romans 11:13. ‘Therefore writing to the Hebrews, who were not intrusted to his care, he barely delivered the doctrine of the Gospel without assuming any character of authority, for they were the charge of the other apostles.’ “Lightfoot says, ‘Paul’s not affixing his name to this, as he had done to his other epistles, does no more deny it to be his than the First Epistle of John is denied to be John’s on that account.’
“Tillemont says, ‘Possibly Paul considered it to be a book rather than a letter, since he makes an excuse for its brevity, (Hebrews 13:22,) for indeed it is short for a book, but long for a letter.’
“It is, I think, observable, that there is not at the beginning of this epistle any salutation. As there is no name of the writer, so neither is there any description of the people to whom it is sent. It appears, from the conclusion, that it was sent to some people at a certain place; and undoubtedly they to whom it was sent, and by whom it was received, knew very well from whom it came, nevertheless there might be reasons for omitting an inscription and a salutation at the beginning. This might arise from the circumstances of things; there might be danger of offence at sending at that time a long letter to Jews in Judea; and this omission might be in part owing to a regard for the bearer, who too is not named. The only person named throughout the epistle is Timothy; nor was he then present with the writer. Indeed I imagine that the two great objections against this being an epistle of St. Paul-the elegance of the style, and the want of a name and inscription, are both owing to some particular circumstance of the writer, and the people to whom it was sent. The people to whom it was sent are plainly Jews in Judea; and the writer very probably is St. Paul, whose circumstances at the breaking up of his confinement at Rome, and his setting out upon a new journey, might be attended with some peculiar embarrassments, which obliged him to act differently from his usual method,
“IV. Thus we are brought to the fourth and last part of our inquiry concerning this epistle-the time and place of writing it. Mill was of opinion that this epistle was written by Paul, in the year 63, in some part of Italy, soon after he had been released from his imprisonment at Rome. Mr. Wetstein appears to have been of the same opinion. Tillemont likewise places this epistle in 63, immediately after the apostle’s being set at liberty, who, as he says, was still at Rome, or at least in Italy. Basnage speaks of this epistle at the year 61, and supposes it to be written during the apostle’s imprisonment, for he afterward speaks of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and says it was the last letter the apostle wrote during the time of his bonds. L’Enfant and Beausobre, in their general preface to St. Paul’s epistles, observe, ‘That in the subscription at the end of the epistle it is said to have been written from Italy; the only ground of which, as they add, is what is said Hebrews 13:24: They of Italy salute you. This has made some think that the apostle wrote to the Hebrews after he had been set at liberty, and when he had got into that part of Italy which borders upon Sicily, and in ancient times was called Italy. Nevertheless there is reason to doubt this. When he requests the prayers of the Hebrews, that he might be restored to them the sooner, he intimates that he was not yet set at liberty.’ Accordingly they place this epistle in the year 62.
“There is not any great difference in any of these opinions concerning the time or place of this epistle, all supposing that it was written by the apostle either at Rome or Italy, near the end of his imprisonment at Rome, or soon after it was over, before he removed to any other country. “I cannot perceive why it may not be allowed to have been written at Rome. St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians was written at Ephesus; nevertheless he says, 1 Corinthians 16:19: ‘The Churches of Asia salute you.’ So now he might send salutations from the Christians of Italy, not excluding, but including, those at Rome, together with the rest throughout that country. The argument of L’Enfant and Beausobre, that Paul was not yet set at liberty, because he requested the prayers of the Hebrews that he might be restored to them the sooner, appears to me not of any weight. Though Paul was no longer a prisoner, he might request the prayers of those to whom he was writing, that he might have a prosperous journey to them whom he was desirous to visit, and that all impediments of his intended journey might be removed; and many such there might be, though he was no longer under confinement. Paul was not a prisoner when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; yet he was very fervent in his prayers to God, that he might have a prosperous journey, and come to them, Romans 1:10.
“For determining the time of this epistle, it may be observed that, when the apostle wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon, he had hopes of deliverance. At the writing of all these epistles Timothy was present with him; but now he was absent, as plainly appears from Hebrews 13:23. This leads us to think that this epistle was written after them. And it is not unlikely that the apostle had now obtained that liberty which he expected when they were written.
“Moreover, in the Epistle to the Philippians, he speaks of sending Timothy to them, Philippians 2:19-23: ‘But I trust in the Lord Jesus, to send Timothy shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state.’ Timothy, therefore, if sent, was to come back to the apostle. ‘Him, therefore, I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me.’
“It is probable that Timothy did go to the Philippians, soon after writing the above mentioned epistles, the apostle having gained good assurance of being quite released from his confinement. And this Epistle to the Hebrews was written during the time of that absence; for it is said, Hebrews 13:23: ‘Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, or has been sent abroad.’ The word is capable of that meaning, and it is a better and more likely meaning, because it suits the coherence. And I suppose that Timothy did soon come to the apostle, and that they both sailed to Judea, and after that went to Ephesus, where Timothy was left to reside with his peculiar charge.
“Thus this epistle was written at Rome, or in Italy, soon after that Paul had been released from his confinement at Rome, in the beginning of the year
63. And I suppose it to be the last written of all St. Paul’s epistles which have come down to us, or of which we have any knowledge.”-Dr. Lardner’s WORKS, vol. vi., p. 381.
After this able and most circumstantial investigation I think it would be a mere actum agere to enter farther into this discussion; all that the ancients, both Grecian and Roman, and all that the most intelligent of the moderns, have produced, both for and against the argument stated above, has been both judiciously and candidly stated by Dr. Lardner; and it is not going too far to say that few readers will be found who will draw conclusions different from those of Dr. Lardner, from the same premises. As all the epistles of St. Paul have an evident object and occasion, it is natural to look for these in the Epistle to the Hebrews as well as in those to other Churches. We have already seen that it was most probably written to the converted Jews in Judea, who were then in a state of poverty, affliction, and persecution; and who, it appears, had been assailed by the strongest arguments to apostatize from the faith, and turn back to the poor elementary teaching furnished by Mosaic rites and ceremonies. That in such circumstances they might begin to halt and waver, will not appear strange to any considerate person; and that the apostle should write to guard them against apostasy, by showing them that the religious system which they had embraced was the completion and perfection of all those which had preceded it, and particularly of the Mosaic, is what might be naturally expected. This he has done in the most effectual and masterly manner, and has furnished them with arguments against their opponents which must have given them a complete triumph.
His arguments against backsliding or apostasy are the most awful and powerful that can well be conceived, and are as applicable now to guard Christian believers against falling from grace as they were in the apostolic times, and, from the general laxity in which most professors of religion indulge themselves, not less necessary.
A late sensible writer, Mr. Thomas Olivers, in a discourse on Hebrews 2:3 of this epistle has considered this subject at large, and treated it with great cogency of reasoning. I shall borrow his Analysis of the different chapters, and a few of his concluding remarks, a perusal of the whole work will amply repay the serious reader. After one hundred and thirty-two pages of previous discussion he goes on thus:—
“I shall,” says he, “sum up all that has been said upon this head by giving a brief account of the OCCASION and DESIGN of this epistle, and of the apostle’s manner of reasoning therein.
“The Christian religion being so contrary to the corrupt principles and practices of the world, those who embraced and propagated it were, on those accounts, rendered very odious wherever they came. The consequence of this was, that heavy persecutions were raised against them in most places. The converted Hebrews, because they had turned their backs on the law of Moses, and embraced the religion of Jesus whom their rulers had crucified, were exceedingly persecuted by their countrymen. Sometimes the unconverted Hebrews persecuted their converted brethren themselves; at other times they stirred up the heathen who were round about to do it. By these means the believing Hebrews had a great fight of afflictions, Hebrews 10:32; and were made gazing-stocks, both by reproaches and afflictions, Hebrews 10:33; and experienced the spoiling of their goods, which for a while they took joyfully, Hebrews 10:34. But this was not all; for, as the Christian religion was then a new thing in the world, it is natural to suppose that the new converts had a great many scruples and reasonings in themselves concerning the lawfulness of what they had done in embracing it: and what added to these scruples was, the constant endeavour of the Judaizing teachers to lay stumbling blocks in the way of these Hebrews, which they too often effected by means of their divers and strange doctrines, mentioned Hebrews 13:9. The consequence of this opposition, both from within and without, was, that great numbers of the Hebrews apostatized from Christ and his Gospel, and went back to the law of Moses; while the fluctuating state of the rest gave the apostles too much reason to fear a general, if not universal apostasy. Now this apparent danger was the OCCASION of this epistle, and the DESIGN of it was to prevent the threatened evil if possible.
“That this account is true will fully appear from a more particular survey of the contents of the whole epistle.
“Chap. 1. The apostle shows that all former dispensations were delivered to the world by men and angels, who were only servants in what they did; but that the Gospel salvation was delivered by Christ, who is the Son of God, and the Heir of all things. How naturally does he then infer the superiority of the Gospel over the law; and, of consequence, the great absurdity of leaving the former for the sake of the latter! “Chap. 2. He obviates an objection which might be made to the superior excellency of Christ on account of his humiliation. To this end he shows that this humiliation was voluntary; that it was intended for many important purposes, viz. that we might be sanctified, Hebrews 2:11; that through his death we might be delivered from death, Hebrews 2:14, 15; and that Christ, by experiencing our infirmities in his own person, might become a faithful and merciful High Priest, Hebrews 2:17, 18. The inference then is, that his taking our nature upon him, and dying therein, is no argument of his inferiority either to the prophets or to the angels; and therefore it is no excuse for those who apostatize from the Gospel for the sake of the law.
“Chap. 3. Here Christ is particularly compared with Moses, and shown to be superior to him in many respects. As, 1. Christ is shown to be the great Builder of that house of which Moses is only a small part, Hebrews 3:3, 4. 2. Christ is as a son in his own house; but Moses was only as a servant in his master’s house, Hebrews 3:5. Therefore Christ and his salvation are superior to Moses and his law, and ought not to be neglected on account of any thing inferior. From Hebrews 3:7 of this chapter to Hebrews 4:14, the apostle shows the great danger of apostatizing from Christ, by the severe sentence which was passed on those who rebelled against Moses, and apostatized from his law.
“Chap. 5. Christ is compared to Aaron, and preferred to him on several accounts. As, 1. Aaron offered for his own, as well as for the sins of the people; but Christ offered only for the sins of others, having none of his own to offer for, Hebrews 5:3. 2. Christ was not a priest after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec, which was a superior order, Hebrews 5:10. Concerning Melchisedec and Christ, the apostle observed that, through the dulness of the Hebrews, there were some things which they could not easily understand, Hebrews 5:11-14. “He therefore calls on them, chap. vi., to labour for a more perfect acquaintance therewith; withal promising them his farther assistance, Hebrews 6:1-3. The necessity of their doing this, of their thus going on unto perfection, he enforced by the following consideration, that, if they did not go forward, they would be in danger of apostatizing in such manner as would be irrecoverable, Hebrews 6:7, 8. From thence to the end of the chapter he encourages them to patience and perseverance, by the consideration of the love, oath, and faithfulness of GOD; and also by the example of their father Abraham.
“Chap. 7. The apostle resumes the parallel between Melchisedec and Christ, and shows that they agree in title and descent, Hebrews 7:1-3; and then, from instances wherein the priesthood of Melchisedec was preferable to the priesthood of Aaron, he infers the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of Aaron, Hebrews 7:4-17. From thence to the end of the chapter, he shows that the priesthood of Aaron was only subservient to the priesthood of Christ, in which it was consummated and abolished; and of consequence, that all those legal obligations were thereby abolished. How naturally then did the apostle infer the absurdity of apostatizing from the Gospel to the law, seeing they who did this, not only left the greater for the lesser, but also left that which remained in full force, for the sake of that which was disannulled.
“Chap. 8. is employed partly in recapitulating what had been demonstrated before concerning the superior dignity of our great High Priest, Hebrews 8:1-5; and partly in showing the Superior excellency of the new covenant, as established in Christ, and as containing better promises; Hebrews 8:6 to the end of the chapter. From this last consideration, the impropriety of going from the new covenant to the old is as naturally inferred as from any other of the afore-mentioned considerations. “With the same view the apostle, chap. ix., compares Christ and his priesthood to the tabernacle of old, and to what the high priest did therein on the great day of atonement, in all things giving Christ the preference; from Hebrews 9:1 to the end.
“Chap. 10. The apostle sets down the difference between the legal sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ: the legal sacrifices were weak, and could not put away sin, Hebrews 10:1-4; but the sacrifice of Christ was powerful, doing that which the other could not do, Hebrews 10:5-10.
“The next point of difference was between the legal priests who offered these sacrifices, and the High Priest of our profession. And first, the legal priests were many; ours is one. Secondly, they stood when they presented their offerings to God; CHRIST sits at the right hand of his Father. Thirdly, they offered often; but CHRIST, once for all. Fourthly, they, with all their offerings, could not put away the smallest sin; but Christ, by his one offering, put away all sin, Hebrews 10:11-18. Now, from all these considerations, the apostle infers the great superiority of the Gospel over the law; and, consequently, the impropriety of leaving the former for the latter.
“The next thing that the apostle does is to improve his doctrine; this he does by showing that, for the reasons above given, the Hebrews ought to cleave to Christ, to hold fast their profession, and not to forsake the assembling themselves together, Hebrews 10:19-25. And, as a farther inducement to cleave to Christ, and to persevere unto the end, he urges the consideration of the difficulties which they had already overcome, and also of the love which they had formerly shown towards Christ and his Gospel, Hebrews 10:32-34. He also encouraged them not to cast away their confidence, seeing it had a great recompense of reward, which they should enjoy if they persevered unto the end, Hebrews 10:35-37. Another consideration which he urged was, that they ought not to depart from faith to the works of the law, because it is by faith that a just man liveth, and not by the works of the law; because God has no pleasure in those who draw back from faith in him; and because every one who does this exposes himself to eternal perdition, Hebrews 10:36-39.
“Another inducement which he laid before them, to continue to expect salvation by faith and patience, was the consideration of the powerful effects of these graces as exemplified in the patriarchs of old, and the rest of the ancient worthies; chap. xi. throughout. ‘This chapter,’ according to Mr. Perkins, ‘depends on the former; thus we may read in the former chapter that many Jews, having received the faith and given their names to Christ, did afterwards fall away; therefore, towards the end of the chapter, there is a notable exhortation, tending to persuade the Hebrews to persevere in faith unto the end. Now in this chapter he continues the same exhortation; and the whole chapter (as I take it) is nothing else, in substance, but one reason to urge the former exhortation to perseverance in faith, and the reason is drawn from the excellency of it; for this chapter, in divers ways, sets down what an excellent gift of GOD faith is; his whole scope, therefore, is manifest to be nothing else but to urge them to persevere and continue in that faith, proved at large to be so excellent a thing.’
“As a farther encouragement to patience and perseverance he adds the example of Christ, Hebrews 12:1-3: and as to the afflictions they met with on the Gospel’s account, he tells them they ought not to be discouraged and driven away from Christ on their account, seeing they were signs of the Divine favour, and permitted to come upon them merely for their good, Hebrews 12:4-11. He then exhorts them to encourage one another to persevere in well doing, Hebrews 12:12-14. To watch over one another lest any of them fall from the grace of God, Hebrews 12:15-18. And, seeing they were then in possession of privileges, Gospel privileges, such as the law of Moses could not give, he exhorts them to hold fast the grace they had, that thereby they might serve God in such a manner as the great obligation they were under required, which alone would be acceptable to him; and this they ought to do, the rather because, if they did not, they would find God to be as much more severe to them as his Gospel is superior to the law; Hebrews 12:19 to the end of the chapter.
Chap. 13. He exhorts them, instead of apostatizing, to continue their brotherly affection one for another, Hebrews 13:1-3. To continue their purity of behaviour, their dependence on God, and their regard for their teachers, Hebrews 13:4-8. He exhorts them not to suffer themselves to be carried about (from Christ and his Gospel) by diver’s and strange doctrines, but rather to strive to be established in grace, which they would find to be of more service to them than running about after Jewish ceremonies, Hebrews 13:9. Again he exhorts them to cleave to and to follow JESUS without the camp, and continually to give praise to God through him, Hebrews 13:9-16. And instead of turning away after seducers, that they might avoid persecution and the scandal of the cross, he exhorts them to submit to and obey their own Christian teachers, and to pray for their success and welfare, Hebrews 13:17-19, concluding the whole with some salutations and a solemn benediction from Hebrews 13:20 to the end.
“Now, if we closely attend to these general contents of the epistle, we shall find that every argument and mode of reasoning, which would be proper in a treatise written professedly on the sin and danger of apostasy, is made use of in this epistle.
For, 1. As great temptations to prefer the law of Moses to the Gospel of Christ was one circumstance which exposed them to the danger of apostasy, nothing could be more to the purpose than to show them that the Gospel is superior to the law. Now we have seen how largely this argument is prosecuted in chap. i., ii., iii., v., vii., viii., ix., x. If we reduce it to form, it runs as follows: No one ought to prefer that which is less excellent to that which is more so: but the law is less excellent than the Gospel; therefore none ought to prefer the law to the Gospel, by apostatizing from the latter to the former.
“2. Another argument, equally proper on such an occasion, is that taken from the consideration of the punishment which all apostates are exposed to. This argument is urged Hebrews 2:2, 3; Hebrews 3:7-19; 4:1-14; 6:4, 8; 10:26-31; 12:25, 28, 29. In most of these places the apostle compares the punishment which will be inflicted on apostates from Christ and his Gospel to that which was inflicted on the apostate Israelites of old, and he frequently shows that the former will be far greater than the latter. This argument is as follows: You ought not to do that which will expose you to as great and greater punishment than that which God inflicted on the rebellious Israelites of old: but total and final apostasy from Christ will expose you to this; therefore you ought not to apostatize from Christ.
“3. Another argument proper on such an occasion is that taken from the consideration of the great reward which God has promised to perseverance. This the apostle urges, Hebrews 3:6-14; 4:1-9; Hebrews 5:9; 6:9, 11; 9:28; 10:35-39. This argument runs thus: You ought to be careful to do that which God has promised greatly to reward: but he has promised you this on condition of your perseverance in the Gospel of his Son; therefore you ought to be careful to persevere therein. “4. A fourth argument, which must operate powerfully on such an occasion, is taken from the consideration of losing their present privileges by apostatizing. This argument is insisted on, Hebrews 2:11-18; 3:1; 4:3-16; 6:18-20; 7:19; 8:10, 12; 9:14, 15; Hebrews 10:14, 22; 12:22, 24, 28; 13:10, 14. This argument runs thus: You ought not to do that for which you will lose the Gospel privileges you now enjoy: but if you apostatize from Christ and his Gospel you will lose them; therefore you ought not to apostatize from Christ and his Gospel.
“5. A fifth argument, very proper in such a work, is taken from the consideration of their former zeal and diligence in cleaving to Christ, and in professing his religion. This argument is handled Hebrews 6:10; 10:32-34. The argument here is: Those who have formerly been zealous in well-doing ought not to grow weary, but rather to be steadfast therein unto the end; but you have formerly been zealous in your adherence to Christ, and in professing his religion; therefore you ought not to grow weary of adhering to Christ, or of professing his religion.
“6. Another argument, proper on such an occasion, is taken from the example of such persons as are held in very high esteem. Now this argument is urged, Hebrews 6:12-15; 9: throughout; Hebrews 12:1-3. Here the argument is: Whatever you esteem as an excellency in the example of holy men of old you ought to imitate: but you esteem it as an excellency in their example that they were steadfast, and did not apostatize from God and his ways; therefore you ought to imitate their example in being steadfast, and in not apostatizing from Christ and his Gospel. “From all that has been said in these several surveys of this epistle, it undeniably appears, 1. That the apostle apprehended these Hebrews to be in danger of total and final apostasy; 2. That he wrote this epistle to them on purpose to prevent it if possible; and 3. That it was total and final apostasy from Christ and his Gospel, of which the believing Hebrews were in danger, and which the apostle endeavours to prevent.”
For other matters relative to this subject see the preface, and the notes on all the passages referred to.
Preface to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.
CLA_HEB.PDF, source PDF p. 32
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.
CLA_HEB.PDF, source PDF p. 33
Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 3: “yalcut kadosh, fol. 144: משיה גדול מן האבות ומן משה ומן מלכי השרה mashiach gadol min haaboth”; “and more exalted than ממלאכי השרה the ministering angels.” or”; “ii., fol. 53, says: זה מלך המשׂיה, “this is the king”. source PDF page 33: “and more exalted than השרה ממלאכי the ministering angels Or,”; “Yalcut Kadosh fol. 144: השרה מלכי ומן משה ומן האבות מן גדול”; “ii., fol. 53, says: המשׂיה מלך זה This is the King”. source PDF page 34: “משיה Mashiach gadol min ha-aboth;”. Compared with CLA_HEB.PDF PDF p. 33, CLA_HEB.PDF PDF p. 34. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: an automated comparison of surrounding English text located possible corresponding passages in OCR from separately digitized printed volumes. The linked scan pages are research locators; their images have not been collated for this note's flagged readings. OCR agreement does not verify Greek or Hebrew letters, diacritics, word order, or table layout. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain. CLA_HEB.PDF, PDF page 33; CLA_HEB.PDF, PDF page 34; Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified).
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 המשׂיה, “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 מלכי 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 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, Hebrews 1:4, 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, 9.
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, 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; 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.
3. Because it is from him we are to implore grace and mercy, Hebrews 4:15, 16, and Hebrews 4:1-3.
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. vii. For the excellence and prerogatives of this order, see the notes.
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, Hebrews 8:1-9:11. For the various reasons by which this argument is supported, see also the notes.
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. vi. 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, 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; 12:2.
5. That they should consider and imitate the faith and obedience of their eminent ancestors, chap. xi.
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. xiii.
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 are 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.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5571.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5565.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5555.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4067. -Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4291. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3823. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4422
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2411.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3165. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1003.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 810.
-Year of the CCXth Olympiad, 3.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 810. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 814. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 815. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 816.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 375.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 111.
-Year of the Julian era, 108.
-Year of the Spanish era, 101.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 67. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 63.
-Year of Albinus, governor of the Jews, 2.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 14.
-Year of Domitius Corbulo, governor of Syria, 4.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 1.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 64.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 7; or the second after the second embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 4, or the first after the first embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 16.
-Dominical Letter, it being the third after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, B. -Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the IIId of the calends of April, or, in our common mode of reckoning, the thirtieth of March, which happened in this year on the fourth day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the IIId of the nones of April, named by the Jews the 19th of Nisan or Abib; and by Europeans in general, the 3d of April. -Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 6.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 13.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 13,15,14,15,16,17,18, 19,20,20,22,22.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 9.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Cæsar, the fifth Roman monarch, computing from Octavianus, or Augustus Cæsar, properly the first Roman emperor, 10.
-Roman Consuls, C. Memmius Regulus and L. Verginius Rufus.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 503
EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
PREFACE
AS most of the principal doctrines of the gospel are more expressly asserted and more fully explained in this epistle to the Hebrews than in any other of the inspired writings, it is peculiarly important that its authenticity and divine authority should be established. In order to this, it is only necessary to show that it was written by St. Paul, whose inspiration and apostleship are universally acknowledged, and consequently the divine authority of all his official writings. Now that he was the author of this epistle seems to be satisfactorily proved by the following arguments, advanced by Dr. Whitby and many others.
First, from the words of St. Peter, (2 Peter3:15, 16,) “As our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you,” it is evident, 1. That Paul had written to them to whom St. Peter was then writing, namely, to the believing Jews in general, (2 Peter 1:1,) many of whom were dispersed in divers countries, as mentioned 1 Peter 1:1. 2. That he had written to them a certain letter, distinct from all his other epistolary writings, as appears from those words, “as also in all his epistles,” that is, his other epistles. Since then none of the ancients say that this epistle was lost, it must be that which bears the name of “the epistle to the Hebrews.” Some indeed have thought, the epistle intended by St. Peter might be that written to the Romans, in which St. Paul speaks to the Jews by name, Romans 2:17. But, I. That passage is plainly addressed to the unbelieving Jews, and concerned them only: whereas, St. Peter writes to the brethren, 1 Peter 3:12; the beloved, verses 1, 14, 17; to them who had “received like precious faith,” chap. 1:1. He therefore could not mean the Jews, of whom St. Paul speaks in the epistle to the Romans. A second argument to prove that St. Paul was the author of this epistle is taken from these words, “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you: They of Italy salute you,” Hebrews 13:23, 24. For it was customary with St. Paul, when he wrote to the churches, to call Timothy his brother: see 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; Philemon 1. Timothy was a prisoner at Rome in the seventh year of Nero, and set at liberty the eighth, says Dr. Lightfoot, Harm., pp. 139, 140. Of which here the author of this epistle gives notice, and says, he would come with him to them; that is, to the Jews in Judea, to whom we shall soon see this epistle was written. Now Timothy, we know, was still the companion of St. Paul. Lastly, he desires them to pray for him, which is frequently done by St. Paul in most of his epistles, but is never done in any of the catholic epistles. And, in requesting their prayers, he adds a circumstance which more fully characterizes him; “Pray for me,” says he, “that I may be restored to you the sooner.” Now Paul had been sent bound from Judea to Rome, and therefore his return from Rome to Judea was properly a restoring of him to them. And that he was thus restored to them, we learn from Chrysostom declaring, that, being set at liberty, he went to Spain, thence to Judea, and so back to Rome.
Thirdly. That this epistle was written or composed by St. Paul, may yet more strongly be concluded from the authority of the ancients; for that they did deliver this as the epistle of St. Paul, and that they were not rash in so doing, we learn from the words of Origen. Now among the ancients we may reckon Clemens Romanus, the companion of, and co-worker with, St. Paul; who, as Eusebius and St. Jerome observe, entertained many sentiments which are in this epistle, and used many expressions, word for word, taken thence; which show that this epistle was not new, and that it is duly reckoned among the writings of this apostle. Clemens Alexandrinus cites those words of St. Paul, “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” Hebrews 11:6; adding, that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen,” Hebrews 11:1; κατα τον θειον αποστολον, “according to the divine apostle.” And again he saith, Ο θειος αποστολος, “The divine apostle fears not to say, ‘Remember the former days, in which being enlightened, ye suffered a great fight of affliction,’” Hebrews 10:32. And so he proceeds to cite the apostle’s words to the end of the chapter, and then gives the substance of chap. 11., and the exhortation in the beginning of chap. 12., verses 1, 2. And that this divine apostle was St. Paul, we are assured from these words: “Paul also writing to the Hebrews, relapsing from the faith unto the law, saith, ‘Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat,’” Hebrews 5:12. In the third century Origen, citing the very words now mentioned, and the following words, “For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness,” (verses 13, 14,) saith, “He that wrote this was the same Paul who said to the Corinthians, ‘I have fed you with milk, and not with meat,’” &c., 1 Corinthians 3:2. In his Philocalia he says, “The Apostle Paul, who said to the Corinthians, ‘These things happened in a figure, and they were written for us on whom the ends of the ages are come,’ (1 Corinthians 10:11,) doth also, in another epistle, use these words relating to the tabernacle, ‘Thou shalt make all things according to the pattern showed thee in the mount,’” Hebrews 8:5. And that “the apostle who said, ‘Jerusalem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all,’ (Galatians 4:26,) said also in another epistle, ‘Ye are come to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,’” &c., Hebrews 12:22, 23. In his exhortation to martyrdom he hath these words, Φησι που ο Παυλος, “St. Paul, speaking somewhere to them who suffered from the beginning, and exhorting them to suffer patiently the trials which afterward fell upon them for the word, saith, ‘Call to remembrance the former days, in which ye, being enlightened, suffered a great fight of afflictions.’ ‘Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward; for ye have need of patience,’” Hebrews 10:32-36. And in his answer to Africanus, having cited these words from this epistle, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword,” (Hebrews 11:37,) he says, “If any person, being pressed with these words, should fall into the opinion of those who reject this epistle as not one of St. Paul’s, he would use other words to demonstrate to him that it was the epistle of St. Paul.” He also adds, that “the sentiments contained in it are admirable, and in no respect inferior to the writings of the apostles, as he who diligently reads them must confess. In a word, when this epistle was denied by the Arians in the fourth century, because they were not able to resist the conviction it affords of our Lord’s divinity, Theodoret says, “They ought at least to revere the length of time in which the children of the church have read this epistle in the churches, namely, as long as they have read the apostolic writings; or, if this be not sufficient to persuade them, they should hearken to Eusebius, of whom they boast as of the patron of their doctrine; for he confesses this was St. Paul’s epistle, and declares that all the ancients had this opinion of it.”
That this epistle was written and directed to the Jews dwelling in Judea and Palestine, though not so as to exclude the believing Jews of the dispersion, was the opinion of the ancients. This may be argued from its being inscribed to the Hebrews, rather than to the Jews. It must have been written to the Hebrews, or converts from Judaism to Christianity, who inhabited some one particular country, both because the bearer of it, whoever he was, could not deliver it to all the Jews dispersed through the whole world, and because its author directs them to pray that he might be restored to them, and promises to come and visit them. And this country, most probably, was Judea, where the converts from Judaism to Christianity were almost incessantly persecuted by their unbelieving brethren, who tenaciously adhered to the constitution and ceremonies of the Mosaic law, which Christianity superseded; the title, therefore, “To the Hebrews,” must determine the place, and point out the Jews that dwelt in Judea, a sense which the Holy Ghost puts upon the name “Hebrews,” where it is said, “There was a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews,” Acts 6:1; by the “Hellenists” meaning the Jews that dwelt in foreign countries among the Greeks, and by the “Hebrews,” those that dwelt in Judea. But it cannot be reasonably concluded from hence that this epistle was written in Hebrew, or in Syriac; for the gospel of St. John, and his first epistle, the catholic epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, were also written to the Jews, and yet were written in Greek, that being a tongue so well known to the Jews, that in all their discourses with the Roman governors, who used the Greek tongue, we never read, either in Scripture or Josephus, that the Jews spake to them, or they unto the Jews, by an interpreter; nor are there any of the ancients who pretend to have seen any Hebrew copy of this epistle. That it was written in Greek, appears not only from the passages of Scripture so often cited in it from the Septuagint, even where they differ from the Hebrew, (Hebrews 1:6; 3:8-10; 8:8-10; 10:37, 38,) but also from Hebrews 7:2, where we read thus, πρωτον μεν ερμηνευομενος βασιλευς δικαιοσυνης, “first being interpreted king of righteousness, and afterward king of Salem, which is king of peace;” for both the word “Melchisedec,” and “king of Salem,” being in the first verse, should have been there interpreted, had this been the addition of the interpreter; for so we find it is throughout the New Testament, where the interpretation immediately follows the Hebrew word or phrase, as Mark 5:41, “Talitha cumi, which is by interpretation, Daughter, arise,” (see Mark 15:22; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 1:38, 41; 9:7; 19:17; Acts 4:36; 9:36; 13:8,) whereas here the word “Melchisedec” is in the beginning of the first verse, and the supposed addition of the interpreter is added where the word is not; so “king of Salem” is in the first verse not interpreted, and when it is repeated then comes the interpretation, which plainly shows that it is not made to give the sense, but to explain the mystery contained in the words, namely, that “Christ” was “our peace,” (Ephesians 2:14,) and “his sceptre” was “a sceptre of righteousness,” Hebrews 1:8.
The want of St. Paul’s name has been mentioned by some as a reason for doubting its being originally written by him, or for supposing our present Greek copy is only a translation of an epistle which was written in Hebrew. But this can be no sufficient reason for calling in question his being the author of it. For in our canon of the New Testament, there are epistles universally acknowledged to be the productions of an inspired apostle, notwithstanding his name is nowhere inserted in them; for instance, the three epistles of the Apostle John, who for some reasons, now not known, hath omitted his name in all of them; his first epistle beginning exactly like the epistle to the Hebrews, while in his other epistles he calls himself simply, “the presbyter,” or “elder.” It is true, Paul commonly inserted his name in the beginning of his letters. Yet in this to the Hebrews, he deviated from his usual manner, probably for the following reasons: — 1. Because the doctrines which he set forth in it, being wholly founded by him on the Jewish scriptures, the faith of the Hebrews in these doctrines was to stand, not on the authority of the writer who taught them, but on the clearness of the testimonies which he produced from the Scriptures, the propriety of his application of these testimonies, and the justness of the conclusions which he deduced from them. 2. As Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles, in writing to the Hebrews he did not assume his apostolical character, because it was little respected by the unbelieving Jews and the Judaizing Christians, who traduced him as one who taught the Jews, living in foreign countries, to forsake Moses, Acts 21:21. For which reason, instead of writing to the Hebrews with the authority of an apostle, he, in the conclusion of his letter, “besought them to suffer the word of exhortation,” (Hebrews 13:22,) and protested, that in the whole of the doctrine delivered to them, he had maintained a good conscience, verse 18. Indeed, if he had prefixed his name to this epistle, as he did to the epistles addressed to the Gentile Christians, and termed himself an “apostle of Christ,” it might have so awakened the prejudices conceived against him by the Jewish converts, as to have caused them to throw his letter aside unperused.
As for the date of this epistle, it seems evident that it was written after that to the Colossians and to Philemon; for there he is said to be “Paul the prisoner;” here we find him “set at liberty,” and hoping to come quickly to those to whom he writes: those epistles, therefore, being written in the sixty-fourth year of Christ, this must at least have been written in the following year. Again, in the epistle to the Colossians we have mention of Timothy, but nothing of his bonds; here we have mention both of his imprisonment and his deliverance, which may well cast this epistle into the year above mentioned.
The manifest design of St. Paul in this epistle was to confirm the Jewish Christians in the faith and practice of the gospel of Christ, from which they were in danger of apostatizing, either through the insinuations or ill treatment of their persecutors, or to recover such as had apostatized. I. As the zealous defenders of the Mosaic law would naturally insist upon the divine authority of Moses, the distinguishing glory and majesty which attended its first promulgation by the ministry of angels, and the special privileges with which it invested those who adhered to it, and by arguments and insinuations of that kind would endeavour to shake the faith of those Jews who had embraced Christianity, and to prevail on them to renounce it, and return to Judaism, the apostle shows that in all these several particulars the gospel was infinitely superior to the law; which topic he pursues from chap. 1.-11. 1. He reminds the believing Hebrews of the extraordinary favours shown them by God, in giving them a revelation by his own Son, whose glory was far superior to that of angels, (chap. 1. throughout,) very naturally inferring from hence, the danger of despising Christ on account of his humiliation, which, in perfect consistence with his dominion over the world to come, was voluntarily submitted to by him for wise and important reasons, particularly to deliver us from the fear of death, and encourage the freedom of our access to God, chap. 2. 2. With the same view he further magnifies Christ as superior to Moses, their great legislator; and from the punishment inflicted on those who rebelled against the authority of Moses, he infers the danger of contemning the promises of the gospel, Hebrews 3:1-13. And as it was an easy transition, while treating on that subject, to call to mind that rest in Canaan to which the authority wherewith Moses was invested was intended to lead the Israelites, the apostle, 3. Cautions them against the sin of unbelief, as what would prevent their entering into a state of rest far superior to what the Jews ever enjoyed, (Hebrews 2:14; 4:11,) a caution which is still further enforced by awful views of God’s omniscience, and a lively representation of the high-priesthood of Christ, of whose divine appointment, gracious administration, and previous suffering, he goes on to discourse, promising further illustrations of so important a topic, Hebrews 4:12, 14. 4. He declares that he would advance to sublimer truths, without dwelling upon the first principles, for the sake of those who might have apostatized from the truth, and whose case he represents as very hopeless, (Hebrews 6:1-9,) and then, for the establishment and comfort of sincere believers, he sets before them the consideration of the goodness of God, and his fidelity to his promises, the performance of which is sealed by the entrance of Christ into heaven as our forerunner, Hebrews 6:10, to the end. 5. Still further to illustrate the character of our Lord, he enters into a parallel between him and Melchisedec, as agreeing in title and descent; and from instances wherein the priesthood of Melchisedec excelled the Levitical, he infers that the glory of the priesthood of Christ surpassed that under the law, Hebrews 7:1-17. 6. From these premises, which plainly manifested the defects of the Aaronical priesthood, he argues that it was not only excelled, but consummated, by that of Christ, to which it was introductory and subservient; and, of consequence, that the obligation of the law was henceforth dissolved, Hebrews 7:18, to the end. Then, 7. Recapitulating what he had already demonstrated concerning the superior dignity of Christ’s priesthood, he thence illustrates the distinguished excellence of the new covenant, as not only foretold by Jeremiah, but evidently enriched with much better promises than the old, (chap. 8., throughout,) explaining further the doctrine of the priesthood and intercession of Christ, by comparing it to what the Jewish high-priest did on the great day of atonement, Hebrews 9:1-14. And, 8. Having enlarged on the necessity of shedding Christ’s blood, and the sufficiency of the atonement made by it, (Hebrews 9:15, to the end,) and proved the legal ceremonies could not, by any means, purify the conscience, and from thence argued the insufficiency of the Mosaic law, and the necessity of looking beyond it, (Hebrews 10:1-15,) the apostle urges the Hebrews to improve the privileges which such a High-Priest and covenant conferred on them, to the purposes of approaching God with confidence, a constant attendance on his worship, and most benevolent regards to each other, Hebrews 10:15-25. Having thus obviated the insinuations and objections of the Jews to the gospel of Christ, as inferior to the Mosaic dispensation, by showing its transcendent excellence in a clear and convincing light, for the satisfaction and establishment of the believing Hebrews, the apostle proceeds,
II. To awaken their attention, and fortify their minds against the storm of persecution, which had come, and was further likely to come upon them, for the sake of the Christian faith. To this end he reminds them of the extremities they had already endured in defence of the gospel, and of the fatal consequences which would attend their apostacy, (Hebrews 10:26, to the end,) calling to their remembrance the renowned examples of faith and fortitude which had been exhibited by holy men mentioned in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, (Hebrews 11:1-29,) concluding his discourse with glancing on many illustrious worthies whom he does not name; and, besides those recorded in Scripture, referring also to the case of several who suffered under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, Hebrews 11:30; 12:2.
III. Having thus executed his design in the argumentative part of the epistle, he applies the whole, by exhorting the Hebrew Christians to sustain and improve the afflictions to which they were exposed, and to exert themselves vigorously to promote the united interests of peace and holiness, Hebrews 12:3-14, cautioning them against disparaging the blessings of the gospel, and making them a sacrifice either to any secular views, or sensual gratifications; representing the incomparable excellence of these blessings, and the wonderful manner in which they were introduced, which even the introduction of the Jewish economy, glorious and magnificent as it was, did by no means equal, Hebrews 12:15-29; exhorting them to brotherly affection, purity, compassion, dependance on the divine care, steadfastness in the profession of the truth, and to a life of thankfulness to God, and benevolence to man, from the consideration of the inestimable privileges derived to us from Christ, which ought always to encourage us resolutely to endure any infamy and suffering which we may meet with in his cause, Hebrews 13:1-16; concluding the whole with recommending to them some particular regards to their pious ministers, entreating their prayers, and adding some salutations, and a solemn benediction, Hebrews 13:17, to the end. See Whitby, Macknight, and Doddridge.
Joseph Sutcliffe
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 246
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Ecclesiastes 6:25” here (SUT_VOL5.PDF, physical PDF page 249). The surrounding sentence names Eusebius and abbreviates his work as “Hist.” The reference is to his Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 25, which quotes Origen on the authorship of Hebrews; it is not a verse of Ecclesiastes. The historical wording is retained. SUT_VOL5.PDF, PDF page 249.
ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE
HEBREWS.
OUR learned critics indulge here in length of argument. Among the ancients, Origen, Augustine, and Chrysostom are the principal; among the moderns, Valla, Erasmus, Du Pin, Coccejus, Owen, and Poole are luminous. Poole asks whether this be a divinely inspired and canonical epistle? This some deny, partly through malice, as all the Unitarians, from Marcion to Arius, and down to the present time. Others doubted of it rashly, as in the schism at Rome, when the Novatians made a strong use of the sixth chapter, where the restoration of the fallen who had denied the Lord that bought them, was in some sort regarded as impossible, though not absolutely so.
“This epistle,” says the learned professor and ecclesiastical historian, whose words I translate, “not having the name of Paul at the head, affords no proof that he is not the author; for his name was obnoxious to the jews. Yet this omission has given cause to some of the ancients to doubt whether it really was a production of Paul, and canonical. Notwithstanding it was always received by the oriental churches, and is cited by the Greek fathers as canonical. Origen, in one of his homilies cited by Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes lib. 3. cap. 25, says that the style of this letter is more polished than that of Paul, which is generally simple and often rude. But this letter seems to be among the most elegant productions of the Greek, as those acquainted with that language will generally allow. But the style contains, nevertheless, admirable thoughts, not unworthy of Paul. Yet my opinion is, that the diction and composition are the production of another, who has collected the dictates of Paul, and given them a drapery worthy of his master. For which reason, if some churches have received it as the epistle of Paul, we have reason to applaud their sentiments, because our fathers have apprised us by tradition, that it really was the production of Paul, though God alone for certainty knows who was the author.” Some have ascribed it to St. Clement, bishop of Rome, others to St. Luke. But Clement of Alexandria affirms, that it was really written by St. Paul, and in the Hebrew language, and that St. Luke translated it into Greek; and that the style resembles that of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. He adds, that St. Paul had reasons for not putting his name at the head of the epistle, because the jews for so long a time had been violently prejudiced against him; and judging he would still be suspected, he prudently omitted his name at the head of the letter.
“St. Jerome assures us,” continues Eusebius, in a letter to Evagrius, “that all the Greeks received the epistle to the Hebrews: and, in his letter to Dardanus, that not only all the churches of the east, but also all the ancient Greek writers received it as the genuine production of St. Paul; though there were a few who ascribed it to Barnabas, or to Clement. “All the Greek fathers, who have written since the time of Origen, have cited the epistle as canonical, and under the name of Paul. The council of Laodicea have put it in the sacred canon; and so it stands in all other catalogues of the Greek scriptures.”
“In the course of time, the Arians,” observes Du Pin, “finding that this epistle was strongly urged against them on the Deity of Christ, rejected it altogether; but the Catholics defended its authenticity, as may be seen in Epiphanius, and in Theodoret, who prove that the first Arians had cited it against the Catholics, as is apparent in St. Hilary, and St. Athanasius. “With regard to the Latin church, Jerome remarks in his letter to Dardanus, and in his comment on the sixth of Isaiah, that it was not commonly received by many. Quam Latina consuetudo non recipit inter scripturas canonicas. To Evagrius, he says, that all the Greeks received it, and some of the Latins. Quam omnes Græci recipiunt, et nonnulli Latinorum. It is certain that St. Clement, of Rome, the most ancient of authors in the west, received and acknowledged it, because he cites passages from it. Gobarus, cited by Photinus, acknowledged it. St. Irenæus, who wrote among the Latins, names it, and cites many passages from it in his book, which contains disputations, as is noted by Eusebius: lib. 5. c. 26. The early writers seem to think with Origen, that the sentiments are St. Paul’s, but that the Greek is by another.”
Doubts however are justly entertained of Origen’s opinion. He wrote too much to be the calmest of authors. The epistle of Barnabas, and that of Clement to the Corinthians are works of merit, but by no means to be compared with the epistle to the Hebrews. Tertullian, and Minutius Felix, in their apologies for the christian religion, by study and frequent transcription, gave their works a finish of inimitable beauty. Paul, in like manner, knowing that his epistle would be read and examined by the learned in Jerusalem, took more pains in the arguments, and in the polish and perfection of his letter: he has left the literary talents of all contemporaries far in the shade. He has justified the remark of Augustine, “that no man can attain to the wisdom by which St. Paul wrote his epistles, without divine inspiration.”
St. Augustine remarks farther, as well as Jerome, that the churches of the east have received it, and that the greatest number of ecclesiastical writers have believed it to be the production of St. Paul; on which account it has been put in the number of canonical books, as the genuine epistle of that sacred writer. This judgment was confirmed by the council of Carthage (following the council of Laodicea) and finally by the council of Rome, held under the learned Pope Gelasius, and became established as the epistle of Paul.
Those three councils had reasons, and just reasons on which they founded their decisions; and reasons arising from the internal characters of the letter.
(1) It is no way likely that St. Paul, ever burning with charity for his countrymen, should see the Hebrew christians suffer, without a letter of support and comfort.
(2) This letter was written from Italy, as appears from Hebrews 13:24, where the Roman brethren salute the Hebrew christians.
(3) It was written by a person in prison, who expected liberation: Hebrews 10:34. 13:19. —
(4) It was written by one who had Timothy for a colleague: Hebrews 13:23. Timothy is also named as the colleague of Paul in four places of his epistles. These are circumstances which coincide with no ambassador of the churches but St. Paul.
(5) The author solicits their prayers, hoping shortly to see them: chap. 13:23.
In the synopsis by Poole, we have farther confirmations that this epistle is the genuine letter of Paul, from the ideas, and from the words themselves. St. Peter says, 2 Peter 3:15, 16, “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood.” Τινα δυσνοητα, difficult to be understood. Peter cites here the same Greek word which is used by Paul in Hebrews 5:11. Melchizedec — of whom we have many things to say, και
δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν, et non facile explicabilis dictu; and which are not easily explained.
Peter illustrates the character of Christ, as the Son of God, in whom the Father is well pleased. Paul does the same in the first chapter, and throughout the epistle. Peter warns the saints against falling away: 2 Peter 3:17. Paul does the same in Hebrews 6:4, 5. 10:26-38. Peter exhorts the saints to look for the day of the Lord: Hebrews 3:9-14. Paul does the same in Hebrews 6:12. 10:25-29. These coincidences show that Peter had read the epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul’s, and avowed his belief in the divine inspiration of his beloved brother. To these we may add, that Paul makes a grateful memorial to the Hebrews of their charity, in having had compassion on him in his bonds while in Jerusalem, and for a long time a prisoner in Cæsarea; and of course he writes to comfort them in their long-continued persecutions. But we nowhere read that either Barnabas, or Clement, or Luke, or Apollos were ever in prison at Jerusalem.
Nor should it escape remark, that he mentions ingenuously a fact which they well knew, — that he had not seen Christ, till the Lord appeared to him in the way to Damascus, but that he had received the gospel by revelation, which was confirmed to him by those that heard him, and by the divine endowments of the Holy Ghost: Hebrews 2:3, 4. All this agrees with Paul, and not with Barnabas.
Origen then had reason to add, as cited by Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes 6:25, “that the ancients did not rashly hand it down to us as a production of Paul.” And after three councils have decided that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, nothing but heresy can be the base of doubt and agitation. But against all this weight of evidence, greatly impaired by abbreviations, let us hear what the old Arians, and the modern Unitarians have to say. Let them come forward, and be heard in open court.
They say, first, that Paul does not begin the epistle with benedictions. Answer: neither do Clement and Barnabas begin their epistles in that way. Clement of Alexandria has assigned reasons for the omission of Paul’s name, being a character hated by his nation, and his name proscribed. These reasons have satisfied most learned men.
They object, that the style is superior in point of elegance to the usual style of Paul. Dr. Lardner, a semi-arian, gave up that point: why therefore repeat it now? He allows the sentiments to be those of Paul. Read the sublime passages of this apostle in 2 Corinthians 6., 1 Timothy 6:11, and talk no more of Paul’s inability.
They farther object to the uncertainty of the time when it was written. But what difference can three years make, as it was unquestionably written after the year fifty eight, and some years before Jerusalem was destroyed; for the sacred writer says, “ye see the day approaching:” Hebrews 10:25.
But say ingenuously, Do not your tender scruples arise, because St. Paul made the great mystery of godliness eminently to consist in God being manifest in the flesh, and that he considered this to be the very pillar and ground of the truth? Because he here lays, as the prophet did, the incarnation and mediatorial work of JEHOVAH ELOHIM, as the foundation of the church? Isaiah 28:16. And because he instructs the Hebrew christians, that building on this rock of ages, they would be secure amidst the raging tempests, and the overwhelming floods of divine wrath? But does not the holy apostle establish his doctrine by invincible arguments drawn from the Hebrew scriptures?
Oh base apostates from the faith of the whole primitive world, who all expected a Messiah, and that Messiah from heaven. Oh that I could rebuke their philosophy by revelation, and make them blush, as men that dishonour the sanctuary. Oh that I could rouse certain dignitaries by the example of Jewel, of Pearson, of Jeremy Taylor, of Bull, and of Horsley. Oh that I could also touch their pride of nonconformity, by voices from the tombs of their martyred predecessors, and by the luminous works of Baxter, Bates, Flavel, Howe, and a thousand more. How will their Wakefield stand before the throne of God, with his heretical testament in his hand, indecently saying of his expiring Saviour, “He breathed his last?” — See his note on Matthew 27:50.
What better hope can the Socinian indulge, after betraying the Lord of glory with a kiss, than to perish in the tomb. — Not so St. Paul. He supported the suffering Hebrews, by showing them the Saviour, despising the cross, and now set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, till all his enemies shall be made his footstool. — See more in that invaluable work, “An Introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the holy scriptures.” By T. H. Horne, B. D. This author, with incessant labour, has applained the student’s way to the sanctuary.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 39
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Hebrews 2:7-19” here (WHD_CO14.PDF, PDF page 50). This differs from the chapter or verse numbering in the King James Version. The intended citation is uncertain; the historical wording is retained. An additional printed witness, D. D. Whedon, Commentary on the New Testament, vol. V (Hunt & Eaton; copyright 1880), p. 41, also reads “Heb. ii, 7–19”; this confirms the older reading but does not establish the intended citation. WHD_CO14.PDF, PDF page 50; D. D. Whedon, Commentary on the New Testament, vol. V (Hunt & Eaton; copyright 1880), p. 41.
HEBREWS
INTRODUCTION
TO WHOM WRITTEN.
THE title of the book, “to the Hebrews,” if not given by the author, must have been adopted by its copyists and readers upon its earliest circulation. It is the only title found in all the ancient manuscripts and copies in every part of the world. Its earliest receivers from the author, its earliest publishers and circulators, must, therefore, have certainly been “Hebrews.” But what is meant by “Hebrews?” Primarily, it designates persons of Hebrew descent, whether born in Palestine or elsewhere. Thus Paul, though born in Cilicia, out of Palestine, asserts himself a “Hebrew of the Hebrews.” Philippians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 11:22. At one time, in Jerusalem, (Acts 6:1, where see notes,) it is used in antithesis to Hellenists, or Jews by descent but of foreign birth. This appears to have been but temporary, for the word appears later to be used specially in application to the entire Christian Church at Jerusalem. Thus Delitzsch says, “The Church of Jerusalem actually bore the title η των ‘Εβραιων εκκλησια, (Clementis, Ep. ad Jacob., hom. 11, 35,) as consisting entirely of Hebrews.” So Eusebius, in his Church History, (iv, 5,) says that the Jerusalem Church consisted of believing Hebrews, εξ ‘Εβραιων πιστων. So, as we might expect, the very title of the book, “to the Hebrews,” not only points to Palestine, but designates the capital of Palestine, the sacred head of the Hebrew race.
This designation is confirmed by two considerations. First, the epistle, however widely it was to be afterwards circulated, was primarily addressed to a single Church; and, second, circumstances show that Church to have been Jerusalem. That it was primarily addressed to a single Church is clear from the last chapter, which is familiar in its tone, and adjusted to the peculiarities of a particular Church, especially the last three verses. The writer there informs the Church of Timothy’s liberation, of his own hope soon to visit them with Timothy, and gives them the salutations of the Italian Christians present with him. See our notes on the passage. It is certain, then, that this epistle was sent to, and received by, a single local Church.
And this Church was Jerusalem. To what single Church would an epistle intended for the Hebrew Christians in general be addressed, but to the old representative capital? To what other Church would an epistle be entitled “to the Hebrews?” Such is the fair and clear presumption. We should assume this anticipatively, and maintain it until we are met by fair counter proof. The presumption is also against any sideway city, as Caesarea or Alexandria; none of which ever made any claim in the early ages to the honour. If Caesarea was really the Church addressed, (as Stuart is inclined to think,) how happens it that Eusebius of Caesarea, the great Church historian, never heard of it? If written to Alexandria, strange that the illustrious line of Alexandrian scholars, including Origen, never dreamed of it. If to Rome, as Alford conjectures, it is unaccountable that early Rome ignores or rejects both its Paulinity and its canonicity. We are thus shut up to Jerusalem alone.
This view is confirmed by the minute knowledge of the temple ritual required by the epistle of its readers. Scholarly men might, indeed, be familiar with these details, but our author is not addressing the learned class, but the mass of the people. To the men perfectly acquainted with their minutiae the appeal is first made, namely, to the Jerusalem Christians; and then the epistle could well go the rounds of all the Palestinian, and then of the Gentile, Churches. Particularly the phrase, “without the gate,” (xiii, 12, where see our note,) presupposes that the mind of author and reader is at Jerusalem. Delitzsch acutely remarks, that in the epistle the constant antithesis is not between the synagogue and the Church, but between the temple and the episunagwgh—episynagogue—of the Christians. “No traces,” he remarks, “are found of any such purely Jewish Churches as this addressed Church was, in the dispersion.”
The assumption that this epistle was addressed to Jerusalem agrees remarkably with the relations of Paul to that Church. It was about six years before its writing that the apostle visited Jerusalem, attended by a retinue of friends, bearing donations from Greece and Asia to the “poor saints at Jerusalem.” He was, with his friends, “received gladly,” and was entertained at the house of Mnason, “an old disciple.” And this fact answers the objection, that the “saints” of Jerusalem, being “poor,” could not have exercised the hospitality ascribed to the receivers of this epistle, 6:10. But Paul and his company had experienced these very hospitalities, and could afford to give credit for them. The plentiful hospitalities which, as “mother Church,” the Jerusalem Christians had to exercise, may have contributed to make them “poor.” The next day he was received in state by James with the elders, whom he “saluted” and favoured with a full report of his missionary success “among the Gentiles,” for which “they glorified the Lord.” (Acts 21:17-20.) It is plain that the heart of the Church, including James, was fully with Paul. So it had been at the Jerusalem Council, years before. (Acts 15:1-19.) But, as at the Jerusalem Council, so at this last visit, there was a body of Judaistic outsiders bitterly opposed to Paul. As it was the week of Pentecost, myriads of rural Judaistic Christians were in town, and it was fatally concluded that Paul should perform a ritual to conciliate them. In this performance he was assaulted by a mob of anti-Christian Jews, from them was rescued by the Romans, and sent into what proved an imprisonment finally at Rome. Peculiarly apposite is his application of the word restored (Hebrews 13:19) to his return to a Church from which he had thus been violently snatched without even permission to bid them a hasty farewell. That with this Church he should afterward retain exchanges of communication, and that to it he should address a memorable epistle, second only to his Roman, has an interesting presumption in its favour. It precisely tallies, also, with the fact, that while the closing chapter amply reveals his person to the Church he addresses, his name should be withheld from its commencement, in order that its circulation among the Judaistic Churches of Palestine might not be impeded. This is the ancient solution; and we hold it as still standing good. It blends beautifully, too, with the testimony of the primitive Pantaenus, yet to be given, that Paul declined to style himself Apostle in writing to the Jerusalem “Hebrews,” reverently conceding that title, as the epistle truly does, to Him who was alone the divine Apostle to the chosen race. Hebrews 3:1.
AT WHAT TIME WRITTEN.
The use of the present tense in Hebrews 9:7, in describing the performance of the Jewish ritual, clearly indicates that the temple is still standing and Jerusalem undestroyed. But, as we interpret Hebrews 10:25, 37, the Christians of Jerusalem were looking for the omens designated by our Lord (Matthew 25) as betokening its coming doom. But the most precise date we think is fixed by Hebrews 13:23, (where see our note,) which shows this epistle to have been written not long after Philippians, which was written about A.D. 63. To the Philippians Paul had given notice that when his judicial destiny was decided, he would send Timothy to them, and now he informs the Hebrews that Timothy is on that mission. This epistle, therefore, cannot be dated later than 64, six years before the destruction of Jerusalem. St. James had, according to Josephus, been martyred in 62, so that he may be counted among the martyrs commemorated in Hebrews 13:7. See Introduction to the Epistle to James.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE.
Of the three great divisions of the Church—the EASTERN, including Asia Minor and Palestine, the ALEXANDRIAN, and the WESTERN or ROMAN— the first two received the epistle as Paul’s, the last rejected it, both as canonical and Pauline. Yet those who received it as historically Paul’s, did frequently, on account of its peculiarity of style, either conjecture it to have been translated into Greek from a Hebrew original written by Paul, or that in some way Paul’s thoughts had been clothed with verbiage by another pen than his—as a guess, perhaps Luke’s or Clement’s. And here we reject the illegitimate process by which Lunemann and others bring out a very illegitimate anti-Pauline conclusion. They illogically confound a matter of historical fact, namely, the true authorship by Paul, with a matter of opinion, namely, a conjectural solution of the problem of the style. Eliminate the mere opinion from the historical fact, and we have left a very clear consensus of the Palestinian and Alexandrian Churches in the actual uncontradicted authorship by Paul. And this elimination should be made. For in a matter of style the modern critic may be as well able to judge as the ancient; but in a matter of fact the modern inquirer depends upon the ancient testimony. The one is guess, the other is history. I. That the PALESTINIAN CHURCH, to whom the epistle was addressed, received it as Paul’s, is a very decisive fact. If the epistle were written to Jerusalem Paul was certainly its author. The closing chapter of the epistle entirely demonstrates that the true author was known to the Church addressed, and that in all probability he subsequently visited the Church in company with Timothy. Five or six years afterwards Jerusalem was swept out of existence, and was unable to make its claim to be the Church of this epistle. And yet all the East claimed it as written to the East. The title “To the Hebrews” was stamped upon it. And when the Peshito Version, which was a translation of the Greek Testament into the Palestinian vernacular, was made, Hebrews was inserted by Palestinian authority in the canon, and in immediate connexion with the Pauline epistles.
Though no early Oriental writers are now extant to be quoted in behalf of Paul’s authorship, yet we have the most conclusive evidence of the unanimity of the East. ST. JEROME, though a Latin writer, spent a large share of his life in Bethlehem-Judah, and the real view of the East is by him repeatedly stated. Thus, in his Epistle to Evagrius he uses this expression: “The Epistle to the Hebrews, which all the Greeks receive, and some of the Latins.” In his Epistle to Dardanus he says: “This epistle, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is received as the Apostle Paul’s, not only by the Churches of the East, but by all the past ecclesiastical writers of the Greek language, although the most [that is, of the Latins] think it the work of Barnabas or Clement: and this makes no difference, since it is the work of a man of the Church, and it is daily celebrated in the reading of the Churches. If the custom of the Romans do not receive it among the canonical Scriptures, just as the Greek Churches, with equal freedom, do not receive the Apocalypse of John, yet we receive both; not following the custom of the day, but following the authority of the ancient writers, who mostly use the testimonies of both, not as they are sometimes accustomed to do with the apocryphal writers, but as canonical.”
From this testimony we know that—1. The Churches of Palestine, and the great body of Eastern Greek writers, received the book as Paul’s; he was accepted by the Hebrews as author of their book of Hebrews: 2. In this the Latins dissented from them: 3. The book was read by the Palestinians in the public service: 4. For Jerome to accept the book as Pauline and canonical was to disregard the notion of the hour, and to rely on the “authority of the ancient authors.” Now as Jerome was master of the Christian literature of Palestine and the East, as our modern times are not; and as he knew the public services and sentiments of the Palestinian Churches, this testimony covers the ground conclusively. Jerome would, indeed, be too late to be a primitive witness to the fact of Pauline authorship; but he is a decisive witness of the testimony of all the preceding writers and of the Hebrew Churches. With full knowledge of the whole case he not only abandoned the western opinion for the eastern, but he was, with Augustine, a main mover in converting the Western Church to correct opinions. EUSEBIUS, the father of Church history, resided in Caesarea, Palestine, and was among the first to give a complete catalogue of New Testament books, with their authors. He divides the proposed books into three classes: the undisputed, the disputed, and the spurious. He reckons fourteen epistles, thereby including Hebrews as Paul’s undisputedly, with a reserve—1. That its Pauline authorship was questioned by some of the Latins; and, 2. That its style indicated it to be a translation from Paul’s original Hebrew. His words are, (Book III, chap. iii,) “Fourteen are clearly and certainly Paul’s; although it is proper to be known that some have rejected that which is written to the Hebrews, alleging, with the Church of Rome, that it is spoken against as not belonging to Paul.” Herein we note two things: 1. Eusebius himself considers the epistle to be certainly Paul’s, and that this is the true churchly opinion; 2. That the counter view is limited to “the Church of Rome,” in deference to which a “some” dissent, not numerous enough to prevent the book’s being classed with the undisputed. Yet, in reference to these, he does, in a later passage, call it disputed. According as he recognised these dissenters or not, the epistle was disputed or undisputed. But the dissent was not native to Palestine. In default of extant remains of ancient eastern writers we have some important indications of this unanimity. The Council of Antioch, in about A.D. 264, issued a letter in regard to the heresy of Paul of Samosata, containing passages quoted from our book of Hebrews, and one, as Stuart says, is “directly ascribed to the same apostle who wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians.”—EUSEBIUS, Eccl. Hist., 7:30. This was of course, a testimony of a representative body of eastern bishops.
The argument is conclusive that 2 Peter 3:15, 16 attributes this epistle to Paul. The words are: “Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood.” On these words we note: 1. They speak of a particular epistle “written unto you,” in distinction from “all his epistles.” There is an antithesis between “all” and “written unto you.” One particular epistle is isolated from “all” the rest. 2. That one was “written unto YOU;” that is, to the converted “Hebrews.” For it was to such that the First Epistle to Peter was written, (1 Peter 1:1, where see note;) and “this second epistle” was written to the same, as appears by 2 Peter 3:1. The one epistle “written unto you” was written to the Hebrews, and could be no other than this epistle. 3. The topic treated by that one was the retribution of the judgment day, a topic on which Hebrews is abundantly copious, Hebrews 9:27, 28; 10:19-31; 12:1, 14, 15. 4. The phrase in this passage of 2 Peter, “things hard to be understood,” (δυσνοητα τινα,) is too peculiar and too coincident with” hard to be uttered,” (Hebrews 5:11,) δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν, hard to be interpreted to speak, (see our note on the passage,) not to be a direct reference. So many coincident facts are very decisive that Paul is here declared by the author of 2 Peter to be the writer of Hebrews as a fact notorious to the Hebrew Christians. II. Less primitive, but more learned, than the Church of Palestine, was the CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA, founded, according to good authorities, by St. Mark. Connected by a single intermediate generation with St. Mark was the founder of the celebrated Alexandrian theological school, PANTAENUS, who was succeeded in the theological chair by Clement of Alexandria. Of Pantaenus, Clement informs us that he held the epistle to be Paul’s, which carries the testimony of Alexandria back, as we may say, through Mark, to the apostolic age. This as matter of history—the epistle was Paul’s. As matter either of history or conjectural opinion, Pantaenus held that Paul’s reason for not giving his name was, that he was not apostle of the Hebrews, as truly the Lord himself alone was, as Paul in the epistle truly states. Whether this was with Pantaenus an historically-derived fact, or a critical conjecture, it is quite probably true; and it at any rate assumes that Paul was truly the author of the epistle.
CLEMENT himself attributes the epistle to Paul. To this historic fact he adds, as a solution of the un-Pauline style, that it was first written by Paul in Hebrew, and translated by Luke, and that Paul withheld his name in order not to repel the prejudiced Jews from reading. All this may be true history; or it may be a conjectural solution in addition to the historical fact, which is plainly affirmed, that Paul was author of the book of Hebrews. ORIGEN was the most eminent biblical scholar of his age. He taught in Alexandria., his native city, through the earlier part of his life, but later in Caesarea-Palestine. He was master of all the Alexandrian and Palestinian Christian literature. Critically, he thought the style un-Pauline, being too pure in its Greek, and free from some of Paul’s peculiarities. Historically, his judgment is as follows: “Whatever Church holds this to be an epistle of Paul’s, let it receive approval; for it is not without reason that the men of antiquity (οι αρχαιοι ανδρες) have handed it down as Paul’s.” This is an historical statement of what the original receivers of the epistle, so far as Origen knew, affirmed of its authorship. And it is inadmissible (with Alford) to interpolate a limitation of these “men of antiquity” to Origen’s two predecessors, Pantaenus and Clement, for no such limitation is authorized by Origen; and, in fact, the words may have been written in Palestine. Nor can there be any limitation as to time; for if there were, to his knowledge, any earlier antiquity than that of these “men,” which might have denied the epistle to Paul, he would have noted it. Historically, then, according to all known tradition, the epistle is Paul’s.
Yet Origen pays his respects to the then “modern” criticism. “Nevertheless,” says he, “who wrote the epistle God only knows; but a rumour has come to us, of some saying that Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote it; and of others saying that it was written by Luke.” Lay the emphasis on knows, and the whole is clear and true. Decisive as the historical testimony is, the style has produced conjectural opinions, and absolute truth on the subject is known to God alone. Yet Origen uniformly quotes the epistle as Paul’s, not from a mere “habit,” or from “the current,” as Alford unjustifiably says, forgetting that such a “habit” must have had a reasonable basis, namely, the fact that although God alone absolutely knows the true author, yet there is a reliable human certainty justifying the uniform assumption of its Pauline authorship. Origen’s universal habit of quoting Hebrews as Paul’s own, shows that such was his position.
III. The WESTERN or ROMAN CHURCH, a Church defective in learning, on the contrary, gave this epistle a slow and cold reception, either ignoring it entirely, or ignoring its Paulinity, and even rejecting it from the New Testament Canon. CLEMENT, Bishop of Rome at the close of the first century, probably before St. John’s death, and probably the personal friend of Paul, does, indeed, quote largely from it, apparently as Scripture, yet, as was the custom, without naming the author. He possibly recognised it as both canonical and Pauline. But Clement stands nearly alone in such recognition. IRENAEUS of Lyons, Gaul, probably wholly ignores it, perhaps was ignorant of it; and his pupil, HIPPOLYTUS, Bishop of Novi Portus, near Rome, stands in the same predicament. It is uncertain whether the epistle was received into the earliest Latin Version of the New Testament— certainly not as Paul’s. The MURATORIAN CATALOGUE of New Testament books, belonging at Rome to the second half of the second century, does not clearly name it. There is, however, a remarkable passage in this catalogue, which in the Latin, as corrected by Westcott, (Canon of the New Testament,) reads thus: “Fertur etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine finctae ad haeresim Marcionis.” The last “ad” Westcott holds to be a translation of the Greek prov, and so may be rendered in regard to. We may translate thus: “There is in circulation an epistle to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion.” We shall soon give reasons for supposing this epistle to the Alexandrians to be our Hebrews. In the Latin Church of Africa, TERTULLIAN quotes the epistle in support of a position of his; but he quotes it as written by Barnabas; and he imagines that he is exalting its credit by calling attention to the fact that Barnabas was no less than an apostle’s colleague! Both the Paulinity and the canonicity of our epistle would fail if judged by early Rome alone. The reasons we take to be nearly these. The Church of Jerusalem, the mother Church of all, being demolished and dispersed, was unable to assert her claim to the honour of being its recipient, and no other Church had any claim to assert. The epistle travelled, as an orphan, slowly westward. And the farther the east from which it came (as from Jerusalem rather than Caesarea) the more satisfactory this explanation of its slow reception. It came to Rome, not like Rome’s own great epistle, as well as all the other Pauline epistles, headed with the illustrious name of Paul, but anonymous. Nor did its first chapter open like the Roman document, with an elastic Romanic majesty, (see our vol. iii, p. 289,) but with a certain Alexandrian rhythm and tune. In addition to this, it is held by such scholars as Wetstein and Hug, that such passages as Hebrews 6:4-8, and 10:26-31, were quoted by the heretical Montanists at Rome to prove their doctrine that fallen members of the Church should never be re-admitted. The Roman Church bitterly opposed this Montanist view, and so rejected this anonymous epistle from the East that seemed to sustain it. It was in A.D. 494 that a Roman council, headed by Pope Gelasius, included in their catalogue of canonical books fourteen epistles of Paul, which, of course, embraced Hebrews. The Council of Trent confirmed this decision. RIVAL CLAIMS TO ITS AUTHORSHIP.
Against the other names proposed as authors of this epistle the arguments appear conclusive.
BARNABAS is named by Tertullian alone. None of his great African successors, as Athanasius and Augustine, accept the opinion; but ascribe the epistle to Paul. His native island of Cyprus makes no claim for Barnabas; on the contrary, Epiphanius, the learned Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, sustains the claim of Paul. The opinion of Tertullian has had scarce a follower in any age.
The other rivals, as Clement, Luke, and Apollos are named, not on primitive historical evidence, but as solutions of the problem of style. CLEMENT, being Bishop of Rome, if he were the author of the epistle, would have been loudly sustained by Rome. The epistle would not have been an orphan and a fugitive, but a native and a power, in the West. Besides, his style is less like that of the epistle than Paul’s own style. LUKE was a native, or at least a resident, of Antioch; and Antioch was amply able to give notoriety to his claim; but Antioch speaks for Paul alone. And of Luke, too, we affirm that his style is far more unlike the style of Hebrews than is Paul’s own style. The resemblance to Luke’s style are in minutiae and turns of expression; which he may easily be supposed to have acquired from intimacy with Paul. What has Luke written that indicates that he could have written that grandiloquent first chapter of Hebrews? Where in Luke’s style is the first tinge of Alexandrianism? What authority had Luke entitling him to write the magisterial rebuke of Hebrews 5:12-14? What probability that a modest Gentile like Luke should assume to read so imperatorial a lecture on apostasy to the mother Church of Christianity?
APOLLOS is the last, but not the poorest, guess, having been first suggested by Luther fourteen centuries after date. So far as style of language is concerned, we might say that Luke’s description of him, in Acts 18:24, renders him a fair candidate; but not as to style of mind. He appears as a rich, popular orator, easy to follow, mighty in Scripture. But there are traits in Hebrews of difficult transition, broken connexions of thought, and suspensions of the subject in order to digression, which are by no means easy for the mind to follow, and which are inconsistent with the Apolline theory, and call for Paul alone.
IT BEARS THE SURE TOKEN OF A PAULINE EPISTLE.
Paul, however, never specified his name at the head to be the sure token of an epistle from him, but the benediction at the end. This token he gave in one of his earliest epistles (2 Thessalonians 3:17, 18) as the sure test, in these words: “The salutation of [me] Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” This benedictory salutation is given in all his thirteen epistles; and this token it is very significant, and, we think, very conclusive, to note, is carefully and explicitly given at the end of Hebrews. It is authenticated as Paul’s by Paul’s own appointed token. Thus, while the display of his name was not allowed to impede the general circulation of the epistle, the assurance of his authorship was carefully given to his friends at Jerusalem. Finally, if Delitzsch’s suggestion, given in our note on Hebrews 1:1, is valid, then Paul’s name, twice written, does stand occultly at the head of the epistle; a secret guarantee, perhaps, to his friends, but invisible to the eyes of his opponents; and so leaving its diffusion impeded throughout the Hebrew Christian world.
THE TWO SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM OF STYLE.
The maintainers of Paul’s authorship have suggested two conjectural solutions of the question of the supposed un-Pauline style of the epistle. The first is the hypothesis that Paul, by converse or by notes, gave the thoughts, and Luke, Clement, or Apollos wrote them out in his own style. The second is the assumption of an original Hebrew, of which the present epistle is a Greek translation by one of the above writers. Of these two solutions the preferable would be the hypothesis of a Hebrew original, with a translation under Paul’s supervision. Of that translation, as it stands, we can conceive no one capable but Apollos. He may have furnished the Alexandrian surface varnish; have yet preserved the Pauline peculiarities of connexion and transition underlying; have secured, in Alexandrian fashion, the uniform reference to the Septuagint; and, with Paul’s association, have hit off the Greek word-plays, and even the verbal arguments upon the covenant-testament. There is some appearance in the words of Clement that there was historical authority for this hypothesis; but the fatal defect is, that there is no known trace of the existence of any such Hebrew original. The objection might be plausibly, but not satisfactorily, obviated, by supposing it lost in the destruction of Jerusalem and dispersion of the Church.
SUGGESTION OF A THIRD SOLUTION.
As this is a field still open, we venture a solution of our own. There were, to the later Jewish Church, to the New Testament, and to St. Paul, both a rabbinical and an Alexandrian side. Rabbinism, with its Targum and its talmudical traditions, belonged to Babylon and the East; Alexandrianism, with its Septuagint and its Philonean philosophies, belonged to the West; and both blended their influences upon Palestine and Jerusalem. Delitzsch, who has profoundly studied this subject, very strongly maintains that Alexandrianism performed a very important and divinely-appointed part in bridging over the public thought from the old covenant to the new. Philonism was a brilliant effort to bring the narrower, yet most divine Old Testament thought, into unison with the new expansive age. This it could not by any speculation successfully do; for it required Christ with his divine history to unite the new to the old. Thence it became important to take the right elements that both Rabbinism and Philonism furnished, and reconstruct them into Christian verity. Paul did this largely in regard to Rabbinism in Romans, Colossians, and Galatians. John did this in regard to the Logos, or Word; and in John a shade of the Alexandrian style is distinctly visible, even in the New Testament. In St. Paul such a reconstruction is somewhat performed in Galatians 4:21-31, where see our notes. The same Alexandrianism appears in the speech of Stephen. But its greatest work, after John, is in this Epistle to the Hebrews, and we venture to believe that the work was performed solely by Paul himself. In working this problem it must not be forgotten that Paul had a variety of surface styles, with a wonderful identity of underlying mental style. Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Timothy are remarkably different in surface colorings; yet we feel the one underlying mind of Paul dealing with us in all. There is a great difference in surface, and even in spirit, between the first chapter of Romans and the eighth chapter. The style of that eighth chapter approaches that of Hebrews more than it does that of the first chapter. Specially does Romans 8:18-23 exhibit the same mystical blend of grandeur and slow moving pathos with Hebrews. Who can doubt that 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 and Hebrews 2:7-19 came from the same pen?
Now at Jerusalem there was one or more Alexandrian synagogues, and the speech of St. Stephen shows that an Alexandrian spirit pervaded the air. Among the Alexandrian liberalists of Jerusalem, rather than among the rabbinical bigots, Christianity was likely to prevail. The rabbinical side emphasized the human Messiah, and tended to reject his divinity, and so ran into Ebionism. The Alexandrian preferred the ideal, almost impersonal, Logos-Messiah, and were stumbled at our Lord’s humiliation, weakness, suffering, and death. Philo had taught them this transcendentalism, attenuating the Messiah of prophecy almost into an idealism. It was, then, to save this Alexandrine class of Christians that Paul wrote this epistle. His whole epistle is one great effort to reconstruct Philonean Messianism into Christian Messianism. He begins by affirming all the transcendental grandeur of the Messiah’s origin in the highest style of Philonism; he shows how thereby the very humiliations are as sublime as they are tender. How glorious is his picture of the divine Apostle Messiah; how touching, melting, winning his portraiture of the suffering, dying, priest-victim Messiah! And then all the ritual of Mosaicism is wrought into a vivid symbolism of that divine Sufferer’s expiation. Thereupon with what tearful pathos, yet awful menace, does he warn his Hebrews from apostatizing from this living-dying Christ!
Now let us suppose that having learned the danger of Hebrew apostasy, and, probably, having learned that a large section of the Jerusalem Church had in fact already so apostatized, (note on 6:4,) our apostle, after his release, stopping at Rome—or, as Mr. Lewin suggests, at Puteoli or at Ephesus, (where John’s style shows that Alexandrinism was no stranger,)—had spent some weeks in an intense reading over of the works of Philo and his school, with purpose of this reconstruction. He is about to address a class of thinkers to whom that style is very attractive. Just as he once talked Hebrew to win the Hebrew Jerusalemites, (Acts 22:2,) he can now talk Philo to win these Alexandrian Jerusalemites. His own mind has a side of sympathy for this style, as well as for the measures of the Greek poets, or the wisdom of the rabbies. Partly unconsciously and partly consciously and willingly, he would, at least in parts of his essay—for this style reigns only in parts—adopt the style with which he was then imbued. He will give to his Alexandrians at Jerusalem a better Philo than Philo. And then we shall understand those strange words of the Muratorian fragment, quoted on a previous page, about the “epistle to the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion.” The epistle was truly Paul’s; it was truly addressed to the “Alexandrians,” but to the Alexandrians at Jerusalem; it was, not intentionally but really, a powerful refutation of the “heresy of Marcion;” for Marcion rejected the God of the Old Testament, whereas the very first chapter of Hebrews sublimely identifies the Son with the Father, the Jehovah of the old covenant. PHILO JUDAEUS, born in Egypt a few years before the birth of our Saviour, was a resident of Alexandria, and of priestly rank. He was once ambassador from the Jews to the Roman Emperor Claudius, and was by
Plan of the Epistle.
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 52
marriage allied to the royal house of Judea. In religious philosophy he endeavoured to find all true philosophy, which in his view was mainly identical with Platonism, in the Old Testament. His works, in four volumes, translated by Yonge, form a part of Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library. PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.
PART FIRST.
THE APOSTLE’S ARGUMENT.
I. TRANSCENDENT DIGNITY OF THE SON AS APOSTLE AND HIGH PRIEST INTRODUCTORILY PRESENTED Hebrews 1:1-2:18
1. Transcendent dignity of the Son as divine Apostle of our age Hebrews 1:1-4
2. That transcendence proved by Old Testament texts Hebrews 1:5-14
3. Guilt of disregarding his word proportioned to the dignity of his nature Hebrews 2:1-4
4. Nor are angels lord over this dispensation, but JESUS Hebrews 2:5-8
5. That Lordship assumed that he might be able to suffer for and with our humanity Hebrews 2:9-18
II. THE SON AS OUR DIVINE APOSTLE FULLY CONTEMPLATED Hebrews 3:1-4:13
1. Superior as Son to Moses, who was only servant Hebrews 3:1-6
2. Hence, dread warnings against disobedience to the Son, like the Jews’ disobedience to Moses Hebrews 3:7- Hebrews 4:13 a. Israel’s failure of the divine Rest as warning Hebrews 3:7-11
b. Application of the warning to you Hebrews 3:12-15 c. For was it not the unbeliever that failed of the Rest? Hebrews 3:16-4:2
d. For us, too, remains a rest, a danger, and an adjudging WORD Hebrews 4:3-13
III. THE SON AS OUR DIVINE HIGH PRIEST FULLY CONTEMPLATED Hebrews 4:14-10:18
A. INTRODUCTORY:—
1. Recurrence to former view of our High Priest Hebrews 4:14-16
2. Real qualities of High Priest, exhibited in Christ Hebrews 5:1-10
3. (Parenthetic rebuke for unteachableness and liability to apostasy; encouragement) Hebrews 5:11-6:20
B. FULL UNFOLDING OF THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD:—
1. It is not local and transient, like the Aaronic, but universal and perpetual, like the Melchizedekian Hebrews 7:1-28
2. It is the NEW-DISPENSATIONAL, ANTITYPICAL, TESTAMENTARY, ALL-SUFFICIENT, real High Priesthood and sacrifice of which the whole old-dispensational Priesthood and Ritual were shadows Hebrews 8:1-10:18
1. IT IS NEW-DISPENSATIONAL.—Being the substance of the old shadows, it introduces a new covenant and age Hebrews 8:1-13
a. The (two-fold) tabernacle, with its furniture and priestly service is without worth but as a type Hebrews 9:1-10 b. Of which the heavenly tabernacle, with Christ offering himself, is the antitype Hebrews 9:11-14
c. Testamentary.—(By the death and ascension of our High Priest the new covenant is truly a last will and testament) Hebrews 9:15-18
d. As by a profuse typical bloodshed the earthly ritual things are purified, so with a better sacrifice are the heavenly things consecrated Hebrews 9:19-28
3. IT IS ALL-SUFFICIENT.—Animal blood, being intrinsically worthless for pardon of sin, is antitypically replaced by the all-sufficient self-offered blood Hebrews 10:1-18 a. Animal blood intrinsically worthless for our justification x, 1-4 b. The atonement made by Christ’s submission to the demand for it is ALL-SUFFICIENT Hebrews 10:5-18
PART SECOND.
ADMONITORY, INSPIRATIONAL, AND PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS.
1. ADMONITORY.—Having such a High Priest beware of unbelief tending to apostasy and death Hebrews 10:19-39
2. INSPIRATIONAL.—The glories of Faith in its illustrious examples of old Hebrews 11:1-12:2
3. ADMONITORY.—Review your past history as a lesson of cheerful and hopeful, yet fearful, endurance Hebrews 12:3-17
4. INSPIRATIONAL.—In view of our Mount Zion, so superior to Sinai, let us have grace and confidence Hebrews 12:18-29
5. PERSONAL.—Admonitions and salutations to the Jerusalem Church Hebrews 13:1-21
John Wesley
Notes on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
WES_NTN2.PDF, source PDF p. 276
NOTES ON THE EPISTLE TO THE
HEBREWS.
It is agreed by the general tenor of antiquity that this epistle was written by St. Paul, whose other epistles were sent to the Gentile converts; this only to the Hebrews. But this improper inscription was added by some later hand. It was sent to the Jewish Hellenist Christians, dispersed through various countries. St. Paul's method and style are easily observed therein. He places, as usual, the proposition and division before the treatise, Hebrews 2:17; he subjoins the exhortatory to the doctrinal part, quotes the same scriptures, Hebrews 1:6; 2:8; 10:30, 38; and uses the same expressions as elsewhere. But why does he not prefix his name, which, it is plain from Hebrews 13:19 was dear to them to whom he wrote? Because he prefixes no inscription, in which, if at all, the name would have been mentioned. The ardour of his spirit carries aim directly upon his subject, (just like St. John in his First Epistle,) and throws back his usual salutation and thanksgiving to the conclusion.
This epistle of St. Paul, and both those of St. Peter, (one may add, that of St. James and of St. Jude also,) were written both to the same persons, dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, and other countries, and nearly at the same time. St. Paul suffered at Rome, three years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore this epistle likewise, was written while the temple was standing. St. Peter wrote a little before his martyrdom, and refers to the epistles of St. Paul; this in particular.
The scope of it is, to confirm their faith in Christ; and this he does by demonstrating his glory. All the parts of it are full of the most earnest and pointed admonitions and exhortations; and they go on in one tenor, the particle therefore everywhere connecting the doctrine and the use. THE SUM IS,
The glory of Christ appears,
I. From comparing with him the prophets and angels, Hebrews 1:1-14 Therefore we ought to give heed to him, Hebrews 2:1-4 II. From his passion and consummation. Here we may observe,
1. The proposition and sum, 5-9
2. The treatise itself. We have a perfect author of salvation, who suffered or our sake, that he might be,
(1.) a merciful, and,
(2.) a faithful,
(3.) high priest, 10-13
These three are particularly explained, his passion and consummation being continually interwoven,
1. He has the virtues of an high priest
a. He is faithful, Hebrews 3:1- Therefore be ye not unfaithful iv. 13
b. He is merciful, 15- Therefore come to him with confidence v. 3
2. He is called of God an high priest. Here,
a. The sum is proposed, 4-10 With a summary exhortation 11- Hebrews 6:20
b. The point is copiously,
1. Explained. We have a great high priest,
1. Such as is described in the hundred and tenth Psalm After the order of Melchisedec, Hebrews 7:1-19 Established by an oath, 20-22 For ever, 23-28
2. Therefore peculiarly excellent, Heavenly, Hebrews 8:1-6 Of the new covenant, 7-13 By whom we have an entrance into the sanctuary Hebrews 9:1; 10:18
2. Applied. Therefore,
1. Believe, hope, love 19-25 These three are farther inculcated, a. Faith, with patience, 26-39 Which, after the example of the ancients, Hebrews 11:1; 12:1 And of Christ himself, 2,3 Is to be exercised, 4-11 Cheerfully, peaceably, holily, 12-17
b. Hope, 18-20
c. Love, Hebrews 13:1-6
2. In order to grow in these graces, make use of The remembrance of your former, 7-16 The vigilance of your present, pastors, 17-19 To this period, and to the whole epistle, answers The prayer, the doxology, and the mild conclusion, 20-25
There are many comparisons in this epistle, which may be nearly reduced to two heads: 1. The prophets, the angels, Moses, Joshua, Aaron, are great; but Jesus Christ is infinitely greater 2. The ancient believers enjoyed high privileges; but Christian believers enjoy far higher. To illustrate this, examples both of happiness and misery are everywhere interspersed: so that in this epistle there is a kind of recapitulation of the whole Old Testament. In this also Judaism is abrogated, and Christianity carried to its height.
Adam Clarke
Introduction to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.
CLA_HEB.PDF, source PDF p. 3
Editorial note: Source collation note — source PDF page 3: “HEBREWS INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE”. Compared with CLA_HEB.PDF PDF p. 3. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: the available separately digitized printed volumes were searched, but the corresponding passage was not securely located. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain; this search provides no basis for reconstructing or silently normalizing them. CLA_HEB.PDF, PDF page 3.
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
THE chief points in controversy, relative to the Epistle to the Hebrews, though discussed by many, have not in my opinion been treated so successfully by any writer as by Dr. Lardner; he has entered into the whole controversy, and brought his knowledge from far. I shall avail myself of his labours as the best on the subject, and generally use his own words. “I shall,” says he,” inquire, 1. To whom it was written. 2. In what language. 3. By whom. 4. The time and place of writing it. “I. In the first place, let us consider to whom this epistle was written. “Dr. Lightfoot thought that this epistle was sent by Paul to the believing Jews of Judea; ‘a people,’ says he, ‘that had been much engaged to him, for his care of their poor, getting collections for them all along in his travels.’ He adds, ‘It is not to be doubted, indeed, that he intends the discourse and matter of this epistle to the Jews throughout their dispersion. Yet does he endorse it and send it chiefly to the Hebrews, or the Jews of Judea, the principal part of the circumcision, as the properest centre to which to direct it, and from whence it might be best diffused in time to the whole circumference of the dispersion.’ Whitby, in his preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews, is of the same opinion, and argues much after the same manner as Lightfoot.
“So likewise Mill, Pearson, Lewis Capellus, and Beza, in his preface to this epistle, and Beausobre and L’Enfant, the editors of the French New Testament at Berlin, in their general preface to St. Paul’s epistles, and in their preface to this epistle in particular.
“Of this Mr. Hallet had no doubt, who in his synopsis of the epistle, says, that this epistle was particularly designed for the Hebrew Christians, who dwelt in one certain place, and was sent thither, as appears from the apostle’s saying, Hebrews 13:19, 23: ‘I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner: I will see you.’ And what particular place can this be supposed to be but Judea? There, the Christians were continually persecuted by the unbelieving Jews, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles; and as St. Paul takes notice, 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 10:32-36; 12:4, 5. By these persecutions the Hebrew Christians were tempted to apostatize from Christianity, and to think there was strength in the arguments used by the persecutors in favour of Judaism. The apostle, therefore, sets himself to guard against both these dangers.
“This appears to me to be the most probable opinion: for, 1. It is the opinion of the ancient Christian writers who received this epistle. It may be taken for granted, that this was the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome, and Euthalius, who supposed this epistle to have been first written in Hebrew, and afterwards translated into Greek. It may be allowed to have been also the opinion of many others who quote this epistle, to have been written to Hebrews, when they say nothing to the contrary. Nor do I recollect any of the ancients, who say it was written to Jews living out of Judea.
“Chrysostom says that the epistle was sent to the believing Jews of Palestine, and supposes that the apostle afterwards made them a visit. Theodoret, in his preface to the epistle, allows it to have been sent to the same Jews; and Theophylact, in his argument of the epistle, expressly says, as Chrysostom, that it was sent to the Jews of Palestine. So that this was the general opinion of the ancients.
“There are in this epistle many things especially suitable to the believers in Judea; which must lead us to think it was written to them. I shall select such passages.
“1. Hebrews 1:2: ‘Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.’ “2. Hebrews 4:2: ‘For unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them.’
“3. Hebrews 2:1-4: ‘Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have Heard: How then shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.’
“Does not this exhortation, and the reason with which it is supported, peculiarly suit the believers of Judea, where Christ himself first taught, and then his disciples after him; confirming their testimony with very numerous and conspicuous miracles?
“4. The people to whom this epistle is sent were well acquainted with our Saviour’s sufferings, as they of Judea must have been. This appears in Hebrews 1:3; 2:9,18; 5:7, 8; 9:14, 28; 10:11; Hebrews 12:2,3; 13:12.
“5. Hebrews 5:12: ‘For when ye ought to be teachers of others,’ and what follows, is most properly understood of Christians in Jerusalem and Judea, to whom the Gospel was first preached.
“6. What is said, Hebrews 6:4-6, and Hebrews 10:26, 29, is most probably applicable to apostates in Judea.
“7. Hebrews 10:32-34: ‘But to call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;’ to the end of Hebrews 10:34. This leads us to the Church of Jerusalem, which had suffered much, long before the writing of this epistle, even very soon after they had received the knowledge of the truth. Compare Acts 8:1; 9:1, 2; 11:19, and 1 Thessalonians 2:14. Grotius supposes as much.
“8. Those exhortations, Hebrews 13:13, 14, must have been very suitable to the case of the Jews at Jerusalem, at the supposed time of writing this epistle; a few years before the war in that country broke out. “9. The regard shown in this epistle to the rulers of the Church or Churches to which it is sent, is very remarkable. They are mentioned twice or thrice, first in Hebrews 13:7: ‘Remember your rulers, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith imitate, considering the end of their conversation.’ These were dead, as Grotius observes. And Theodoret’s note is to this purpose. He intends the saints that were dead-Stephen the proto-martyr, James the brother of John, and James called the Just. And there were many others who were taken off by the Jewish rage. Consider these, says he, and, observing their example, imitate their faith. Then again, at Hebrews 13:17: ‘Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. For they watch for your souls.’ And once more, Hebrews 13:24: ‘Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints.’ Upon which Theodoret says: This way of speaking intimates, that their rulers did not need such instruction; for which reason he did not write to them, but to their disciples. That is a fine observation. And Whitby upon that verse says: Hence it seems evident that this epistle was not sent to the bishops or rulers of the Church, but to the whole Church, or the laity; and it may deserve to be considered whether this repeated notice of the rulers among them does not afford ground to believe that some of the apostles were still in Judea. Whether there be sufficient reason to believe that or not, I think these notices very proper and suitable to the state of the Jewish believers in Judea; for I am persuaded, that not only James, and all the other apostles, had exactly the same doctrine with Paul, but that all the elders likewise, and all the understanding men among the Jewish believers, embraced the same doctrine. They were, as I understand, the multitude only, πληθος, plebs, or the men of lower rank among them, who were attached to the peculiarities of the Mosaic law and the customs of their ancestors. This may be argued from what James and the elders of Jerusalem say to Paul, Acts 21:20-22: ‘Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are that believe; and they are all zealous of the law. What is it, therefore? The multitude must needs come together.’ It is hence evident that the zeal for the law, which prevailed in the minds of many, was not approved by James or the elders. That being the case, these recommendations of a regard for their rulers, whether apostles or elders, were very proper in an epistle sent to the believers in Judea.
“For these reasons, I think that this epistle was sent to the Jewish believers at Jerusalem and in Judea. But there are objections which must be considered.
“Obj. 1. Hebrews 6:10: ‘God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love-in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.’ Upon which Dr. Wall remarks: Here again we are put upon thinking to what Church or what Christians this is said; for as to those of Jerusalem, we read much in Paul’s former letters of their poverty, and of their being ministered to by the Gentile Christians of Galatia, Macedonia, and Corinth; and in the Acts, by the Antiochians; but nowhere of their ministering to other saints. This objection, perhaps, might be strengthened from Hebrews 13:2: ‘Be not forgetful to entertain strangers.’ And from Hebrews 13:16: ‘To do good, and to communicate, forget not.’ “Ans. But the poverty of the Jews in Judea, and the contributions of the Gentile Churches for their relief, are no reasons why such admonitions as these should not be sent to them. They are properly directed to all Christians, that they may be induced to exert themselves to the utmost. The Gentile Churches, among whom St. Paul made collections for the saints in Judea, were not rich. As he says, 1 Corinthians 1:26: ‘For ye know your calling, brethren-not many mighty, not many noble, are called.’ And of the Churches in Macedonia, he says, 2 Corinthians 8:2: ‘How that, in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy, and their deep poverty, had abounded unto the riches of their liberality.’ In like manner, there might be instances of liberality to the distressed among the believers in Judea. There is a very fine example recorded, Acts 9:36, 39; nor was there ever any city or country in the world to whom that exhortation, ‘Be not forgetful to entertain strangers,’ or, Be not unmindful of hospitality, της φιλοχενιας μη επιλανθανεσθε, could be more properly given, than Jerusalem and Judea. For the people there must have been much accustomed to it at their festivals, when there was a great resort thither from all countries; and the writer of an epistle to the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea would naturally think of such an admonition; being desirous that they should not fall short of others in that respect. And we may here, not unfitly, recollect the history of St. Paul’s going to Jerusalem; and how he and his fellow travellers were entertained at Cæsarea, in the house of Philip the evangelist and at Jerusalem, in the house of Mnason, an old disciple, as related Acts 21:8-16.
“Obj. 2. Upon Hebrews 13:18,19, the same Dr. Wall says: One would think that Paul should have prayed and purposed to go anywhere rather than to Jerusalem, where he had been so used, and where he fell into that five years’ imprisonment, from which he was but just now delivered. “Ans. But there is not any improbability that Paul might now desire to see his countrymen in Judea, if he might go thither with safety, as I think he might. Almost three years had now passed since he left Judea; and his trial, or apology, had been over two years; and he was now set at liberty by the emperor himself. No man, not very presumptuous would admit a thought of disturbing him.
“Obj. 3. St. Peter’s epistles were written to the Hebrew Christians, scattered in Asia and Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia. St. Paul must have written an epistle to those Hebrew Christians to whom St. Peter writes his two epistles. For St. Peter, 2 Peter 3:15, cites to them what Paul had written unto them. No epistle of Paul was written to the Hebrews particularly but this; so that these must be the Hebrews of the above named countries. To which I answer: That St. Peter’s epistles were not sent to Jews, but to Gentiles, or to all Christians in general, in the places above mentioned, as will be clearly shown hereafter. When St. Peter says, As Paul has written unto you, he may intend Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, and some other epistles written to Gentiles. If he refers at all to this Epistle to the Hebrews, it is comprehended under that expression, 2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles.
“Obj. 4. This Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been written in Greek. But if it had been sent to the Jewish believers in Judea, it would have been written in Hebrew. To which I answer: That, allowing the epistle to have been written in Greek, it might be sent to the believers in Judea. If St. Paul wrote to the Jewish believers in Palestine he intended the epistle for general use-for all Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile original. Many of the Jews in Judea understood Greek; few of the Jews out of Judea understood Hebrew. The Greek language was almost universal, and therefore generally used. All St Paul’s epistles are in Greek, even that to the Romans. And are not both St. Peter’s epistles in Greek. And St. John’s, and St. Jude’s? Did not St. James likewise write in Greek, who is supposed to have resided in Jerusalem from the time of our Lord’s ascension to the time of his own death? His epistle is inscribed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. But I presume that they of the twelve tribes who dwelt in Judea are not excluded by him, but intended. Nor could he be unwilling that this epistle should be read and understood by those who were his especial charge. The epistle written by Barnabas, a Levite, or ascribed to him, was written in Greek; not now to mention any other Jewish writers who have used the Greek language.
“II. Thus we are unawares brought to the inquiry, in what language was this epistle written? For there have been doubts about it, among both ancients and moderns. Yet many learned and judicious moderns have been of opinion that Greek, and not Hebrew, was the original language of this epistle; Beausobre, James Capellus, S. Basnage, Mill, in his Prolegomena to the New Testament, and the late Mr. Wetstein, and also Spanheim, in his Dissertation concerning the author of this epistle, which well deserves to be consulted. One argument for this, both of Spanheim and Wetstein, is taken from the Greek paronomasias in the epistle, or the frequent concurrence of Greek words of like sound; which seem to be an argument not easy to be answered.
“Some ancient Christian writers were of opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, and translated into Greek by Luke or Clement of Rome. Jerome, in particular, seems to have supposed that this epistle was written in Hebrew; and Origen is also sometimes reckoned among those who were of this opinion. But I think I have shown it to be probable that he thought it was written in Greek. It seems likewise that they must have been of the same opinion who considered the elegance of the Greek language of this epistle as an objection against its having been written by St. Paul; for if the Greek epistle had been supposed to be a translation, the superior elegance of the style of this epistle above that of the other epistles of Paul, could have afforded no objection against his being the author of it. Indeed the ancients, as Beausobre said, formerly had no other reason to believe that St. Paul wrote in Hebrew, but that he wrote to the Hebrews. So, likewise, says Capellus. The title deceived them. And because it was written to Hebrews, they concluded it was written IN Hebrew; for none of the ancients appear to have seen a copy of this epistle in that language.
“III. I now proceed to the third inquiry, Who is the writer of this epistle? And many things offer in favour of the Apostle PAUL.
“1. It is ascribed to him by many of the ancients. Here I think myself obliged briefly to recollect the testimonies of ancient authors; and I shall rank them under two heads: First, the testimonies of writers who used the Greek tongue; then the testimonies of those who lived in that part of the Roman empire where the Latin was the vulgar language.
“There are some passages in the epistles of Ignatius, about the year 107, which may be thought, by some to contain allusions to the Epistle to the Hebrews. This epistle seems to be referred to by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, in his epistle written to the Philippians, in the year 108, and in the relation of his martyrdom, written about the middle of the second century. This epistle is often quoted as Paul’s by Clement of Alexandria, about the year 194. It is received and quoted as Paul’s by Origen, about 230. It was also received as the apostle’s by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in 247. It is plainly referred to by Theognostus, of Alexandria, about 282. It appears to have been received by Methodius about 292; by Pamphilius, about 294; and by Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia, at the beginning of the fourth century; by the Manichees in the fourth; and by the Paulicians, in the seventh century. It was received and ascribed to Paul by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in the year 313; and by the Arians, in the fourth century. Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, about 315, 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.’ It is often quoted by Eusebius himself as Paul’s, and sacred Scripture. This epistle was received by Athanasius, without any hesitation. In his enumeration of St. Paul’s fourteen epistles, this is placed next after the two to the Thessalonians, and before the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The same order is observed in the Synopsis of Scripture, ascribed to him. This epistle is received as Paul’s by Adamantius, author of a dialogue against the Marcionites, in 380; and by Cyril of Jerusalem, in 347; by the council of Laodicea, in 363; where St. Paul’s epistles are enumerated in the same order as in Athanasius just noticed. This epistle is also received as Paul’s by Epiphanius, about 368 by the apostolical constitutions, about the end of the fourth century; by Basil, about 370; by Gregory Nazianzen, in 370; by Amphilochius also. But he says it was not received by all as Paul’s. It was received by Gregory Nyssen, about 370; by Didymus, of Alexandria, about the same time; by Ephrem, the Syrian, in 370, and by the Churches of Syria; by Diodorus, of Tarsus, in 378; by Hierax, a learned Egyptian, about the year 302; by Serapion, bishop of Thumis, in Egypt, about 347; by Titus, bishop of Bostria, in Arabia, about 362; by Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia, about the year 394; by Chrysostom, about the year 398; by Severian, bishop of Gabala, in Syria, in 401; by Victor, of Antioch, about 401; by Palladius, author of a Life of Chrysostom, about 408; by Isidore, of Pelusium, about 412; by Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, in 412; by Theodoret, in 423; by Eutherius, bishop of Tiana, in Cappadocia, in 431; by Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, about 440; by Euthalius, in Egypt, about 458; and probably by Dionysius, falsely called the Areopagite, by the author of the Quæstiones et Responsiones, commonly ascribed to Justin Marytr, but rather written in the fifth century. It is in the Alexandrian manuscript, about the year 500; and in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, about 806; is received as Paul’s by Cosmas, of Alexandria, about 535; by Leontius, of Constantinople, about 610; by John Damascen, in 730; by Photius, about 858; by Œcumenius, about the year 950; and by Theophylact, in 1070. I shall not go any lower.
“I shall now rehearse such authors as lived in that part of the Roman empire where the Latin was the vulgar tongue.
“Here, in the first place, offers Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, written about the year 96, or as some others say, about the year 70. For though he wrote in Greek, we rank him among Latin authors, because he was bishop of Rome. In his epistle are many passages, generally supposed to contain allusions or references to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, about 178, as we are assured by Eusebius, alleged some passages out of this epistle, in a work now lost; nevertheless it does not appear that he received it as St. Paul’s. By Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, about the year 200, this epistle is ascribed to Barnabas. Caius, about 212, supposed to have been presbyter in the Church of Rome, reckoning up the epistles of St. Paul, mentions thirteen only, omitting that to the Hebrews. Here I place Hippolytus, who flourished about 220; but it is not certainly known where he was bishop, whether of Porto, in Italy, or of some place in the east: we have seen evidences that he did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul’s, and perhaps that may afford an argument that, though he wrote in Greek, he lived where the Latin tongue prevailed. This epistle is not quoted by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage about 248, and afterwards; nor does it appear to have been received by Novatus, otherwise called Novation, presbyter of Rome about 251. Nevertheless it was in after times received by his followers. It may be thought by some that this epistle is referred to by Arnobius, about 306, and by Lactantius about the same time. It is plainly quoted by another Arnobius, in the fifth century. It was received as Paul’s by Hilary, of Poictiers, about 354, and by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia, about the same time, and by his followers: it was also received as Paul’s by C. M. Victorianus. Whether it was received by Optatus, of Milevi, in Africa, about 370, is doubtful. It was received as Paul’s by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, about 374; by the Priscillianists, about 378. About the year 380 was published a Commentary upon thirteen epistles of Paul only, ascribed to Hilary, deacon of Rome. It was received as Paul’s by Philaster, bishop of Brescia, in Italy, about 380; but he takes notice that it was not then received by all. His successor, Gaudentius, about 387, quotes this epistle as Paul’s; it is also readily received as Paul’s by Jerome, about 392, and he says it was generally received by the Greeks, and the Christians in the east, but not by all the Latins. It was received as Paul’s by Rufinus, in 397; it is also in the Catalogue of the third council of Carthage, in 397. It is frequently quoted by Augustine as St. Paul’s. In one place he says: ‘It is of doubtful authority with some; but he was inclined to follow the opinion of the Churches in the east, who received it among the canonical Scriptures. It was received as Paul’s by Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia, in Italy, about 401; by Innocent, bishop of Rome, about 402; by Paulinus, bishop of Nola, in Italy, about
403. Pelagias, about 405, wrote a commentary upon thirteen epistles of Paul, omitting that to the Hebrews; nevertheless it was received by his followers. It was received by Cassian, about 424; by Prosper, of Aquitain, about 434, and by the authors of the works ascribed to him; by Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, in 434; by Sedulius, about 818; by Leo, bishop of Rome, in 440; by Salvian, presbyter of Marseilles, about 440; by Gelatius, bishop of Rome, about 496: by Facundus, an African bishop, about 540; by Junilius, an African bishop, about 556; by Cassiodorus, in 556, by the author of the imperfect work upon St. Matthew, about 560; by Gregory, bishop of Rome, about 590; by Isidore, of Seville, about 596; and by Bede, about 701, or the beginning of the eighth century.
“Concerning the Latin writers, it is obvious to remark, that this epistle is not expressly quoted as Paul’s by any of them in the three first centuries; however, it was known by Iranæus and Tertullian as we have seen, and possibly to others also. But it is manifest that it was received as an epistle of St. Paul by many Latin writers, in the fourth, fifth, and following centuries.
“The reasons of doubting about the genuineness of this epistle probably were the want of a name at the beginning, and the difference of argument or subject matter, and of the style, from the commonly received epistles of the apostle, as is intimated by Jerome. Whether they are sufficient reasons for rejecting this epistle will be considered in the course of our argument. “2. There is nothing in the epistle itself that renders it impossible or unlikely to be his; for the epistle appears to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, as was of old observed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, and has bean argued also by many moderns. That the temple was still standing, and sacrifices there offered, may be inferred from Hebrews 8:4: ‘For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer according to the law;’ and from Hebrews 13:10: ‘We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat, which serve the tabernacle.’ If the temple had been destroyed, and the worship there abolished, the writer would not have failed to take some notice of it in support of his argument, and for abating the too great attachment of many to the rites of the Mosaic institution. To this purpose speaks Spanheim. It is also probable that those words, Hebrews 3:13, ‘While it is called to-day,’ refer to the patience which God yet continued to exercise toward the Jewish nation; he seems to have had in view the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, which would put an end to that to-day, and finish the time which God gave to the Jews, as a nation, to hear his voice. And Lightfoot argues, from Hebrews 12:4, ‘Ye have not yet resisted unto blood,’ that the epistle was written before the war in Judea was begun.
“Indeed, those words have been the ground of an objection against this epistle having been sent to the believing Jews in Judea, because there had been already several martyrdoms in that country. That difficulty I would now remove; and I have received from a learned friend the following observation, which may be of use: ‘It seems to me,’ says he, ‘that the apostle here, as well as in the preceding context, alludes to the Grecian games or exercises; and he signifies that they to whom he writes had not been called out to the most dangerous combats, and had not run the immediate hazard of their lives; which, I suppose, might be said of them as a body or Church.’ And I shall transfer hither M. Beausobre’s note upon this place: ‘There had been martyrs in Judea, as Stephen and the two James; but, for the most part, the Jews did not put the Christians to death for want of power; they were imprisoned and scourged; see Acts 5:40, and here, Hebrews 13:3. And they endured reproaches, and the loss of their substance, Hebrews 10:32, 34. These were the sufferings which they had met with. The apostle, therefore, here indirectly reproves the Hebrews, that though God treated them with more indulgence than he had done his people in former times, and even than his own Son, they nevertheless wavered in their profession of the Gospel. See Hebrews 12:12.
“3. There are many exhortations in this epistle much resembling some in the epistles of St. Paul. 1. Hebrews 12:3: ‘Lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.’ Galatians 6:9: ‘And let us not be weary in well-doing; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.’ And see 2 Thessalonians 3:13, and Ephesians 3:13. 2. Hebrews 12:14: ‘Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.’ An exhortation very suitable to Paul, and to the Jewish believers in Judea; admonishing them not to impose the rituals of the law upon others, that is, the Gentile believers; and to maintain friendship with them, though they did not embrace the law. It has also a resemblance to Romans 12:18, but the words of the original are different. 3. Hebrews 13:1: ‘Let brotherly love continue,’ and what follows to the end of Hebrews 13:3. Then, in Hebrews 13:4: ‘Marriage is honourable; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.’ Here is an agreement with Ephesians 5:2, 3, 4: ‘And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us-but fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you. For this ye know, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man-has any inheritance in the kingdom of God.’ 4. Hebrews 13:16: ‘But to do good, and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.’ That exhortation is very suitable to Paul’s doctrine, and has an agreement with what he says elsewhere, as Philippians 4:18: ‘An odour of a sweet smell; a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.’ Moreover, as is observed by Grotius upon this text, the word communicate or communion is found in a like sense in the Acts, and in other epistles of St. Paul. See Acts 2:42; Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:13.
“4. In the next place, I observe some instances of agreement in the style or phrases, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the acknowledged epistles of St. Paul. 1. Hebrews 2:4: ‘God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gilts of the Holy Ghost:’-signs and wonders, together, seldom occur in other books of the New Testament; but they are found several times in the Acts, and in St. Paul’s epistles. The phrase is in Matthew 24:24, and Mark 13:22, and once likewise in St. John’s Gospel, John 4:48; but it is several times in the Acts, Acts 2:19; Acts 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 8:13; 14:3; 15:12. The most remarkable are these where there are three different words, Acts 2:22: ‘A man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs.’ Romans 15:19: ‘Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.’ 2 Corinthians 12:12: ‘In signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.’ 2 Thessalonians 2:9: ‘With all power, and signs, and lying wonders.’ 2. Hebrews 2:14: ‘That, through death, he might destroy him who had the power of death.’ The word katargew or katargeomai is, I think, nowhere used in the New Testament, except in Luke 13:7, and St. Paul’s epistles, where it is several times; and is sometimes used in a sense resembling this place, particularly 2 Timothy 1:10: ‘Who has abolished death;’ katarghsantov men ton qanaton, and 1 Corinthians 15:26. Compare Dr. Doddridge’s Family Expositor, vol. iv., upon 1 Corinthians 15:24. 3. Hebrews 3:1: ‘Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.’ Philippians 3:14: ‘The prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.’ 2 Timothy 1:9: ‘Who has called us with a holy calling.’ 4. Hebrews 5:12: ‘And are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.’ 1 Corinthians 3:2: ‘I have fed you with milk, and not with meat.’ However, in the original, there is no great agreement in the words, except that in both places milk is used for the first rudiments of the Christian doctrine. 5. Hebrews 8:1: ‘Who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty on high.’ Ephesians 1:20: ‘And set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.’ 6. Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; and Hebrews 12:24, Jesus Christ is styled Mediator. So likewise in Galatians 3:19,20; 1 Timothy 2:5; and in no other books of the New Testament.
7. Hebrews 8:5: ‘Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; kai skia twn epouraniwn. Hebrews 10:1: ‘For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things;’ skian ecwn twn mellontwn agaqwn, ouk authn thn eikona twn pragmatwn. Colossians 2:17. ‘Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ;’ a esti skia twn mellontwn to de swma tou cristou. 8. Hebrews 10:33: ‘Whilst ye were made a gazing-stock, or spectacle, both by reproaches and afflictions;’ oneidismoiv te kai qliyesi qeatrizomenoi. 1 Corinthians 4:9: ‘For we are made a spectacle unto the world;’ oti qeatron egenhqhmen tw kosmw. 9. St. Paul, in his acknowledged epistles, often alludes to the exercises and games which were then very reputable and frequent in Greece and other parts of the Roman empire. There are many such allusions in this epistle, which have also great elegance. So Hebrews 6:18: ‘Who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us;’ or the reward of eternal life, proposed to animate and encourage us. And, Hebrews 12:1, 2, 3: ‘Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which does so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. Looking unto Jesus-who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross. Lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.’ And, Hebrews 12:12: ‘Wherefore lift up the hands that hang down, and the feeble knees.’ All these texts seem to contain allusions to the celebrated exercises and games of those times. And to these may be added, if I mistake not, the place before noticed, Hebrews 12:4: ‘Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.’ 10. Hebrews 13:9: ‘Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines;’ didacaiv poikilaiv kai cenaiv mh periferesqe. Ephesians 4:14: ‘That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine;’ kludwnizomenoi kai periferomenoi panti anemw thv didaskaliav. 11. Hebrews 13:10: ‘We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat.’ 1 Corinthians 9:13: ‘And they that wait at the altar are partakers with the altar.’ And, 1 Corinthians 10:18: ‘Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?’ 12. Hebrews 13:20, 21: ‘Now the God of peace make you perfect;’ which is a title of the Deity nowhere found in the New Testament but in St. Paul’s epistles, and in them it is several times, and near the conclusion, as here: so Romans 15:33: ‘Now the God of peace be with you all.’ See likewise Romans 16:20; Philippians 4:9 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23: ‘And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;’ and 2 Corinthians 13:11: ‘And the God of love and peace shall be with you.’ “5. The conclusion of this epistle has a remarkable agreement with the conclusions of St. Paul’s epistles in several respects. 1. He here desires the Christians to whom he is writing to pray for him, Hebrews 13:18: ‘Pray for us.’ So Romans 15:30; Ephesians 6:18, 19; Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thessalonians 3:1.
2. It is added in the same Hebrews 13:18: ‘For we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly;’ which may well come from Paul, some of the Jewish believers not being well affected to him, or being even offended with him. So says Theodoret upon this place, and Chrysostom to the like purpose, very largely. To which might be added, Hebrews 13:22: ‘And I beseech you, brethren, to suffer the word of exhortation.’ It is also observable that St. Paul makes a like profession of his sincerity in pleading against the Jews before Felix, Acts 24:16. 3. Having desired the prayers of these Christians for himself, he prays for them, Hebrews 13:20, 21: ‘Now the God of peace make you perfect, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.’ So Romans 15:30, 32, having asked their prayers for him, he adds, Romans 15:33: ‘Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.’ Compare Ephesians 6:19, 23, and 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16. 4. Hebrews 13:24: ‘Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.’ The like salutations are in many of St. Paul’s epistles, Rom. 16:; 1 Corinthians 16:19-21; 2 Corinthians 13:13; Philippians 4:21, 22; not to refer to any more. 5. The valedictory benediction at the end is that which Paul had made the token of the genuineness of his epistles; 2 Thessalonians 3:18. So here, Hebrews 13:25: Grace be with you all. Amen.’ Indeed, sometimes it is ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.’ But at other times it is more contracted. So Colossians 4:18: ‘Grace be with you.’ 1 Timothy 6:21: ‘Grace be with thee.’ See likewise, Ephesians 6:24; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15. The same observation is in Theodoret.
“6. The circumstances of this epistle lead us to the Apostle Paul. 1. Hebrews 13:24: ‘They of Italy salute you.’ The writer, therefore, was then in Italy, whither we know Paul was sent a prisoner, and where he resided two years, Acts 28:30; where also he wrote several epistles still remaining. 2. Hebrews 13:19: He desires them the rather to pray for him, that he might be restored to them the sooner. Paul had been brought from Judea to Rome. And he was willing to go thither again, where he had been several times. And though the original words are not the name, there is an agreement between this and Philemon 1:22: I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.’ This particular is one of the arguments of Euthalius, that this epistle is Paul’s, and written to the Jews of Palestine. 3. Hebrews 13:23: ‘Know ye, that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.’ Timothy was with Paul during his imprisonment at Rome, as is allowed by all: for he is expressly mentioned at the beginning of the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, written when he was in bonds. He is mentioned again, Philippians 2:19. When the apostle writes to Timothy, he calls him his son, or dearly beloved son, 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2. But when he mentions him to others, he calls him brother; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2. In like manner Titus. Compare Titus 1:4 and 2 Corinthians 2:13. This mention of Timothy has, led many, not only moderns, but ancients likewise, to think of Paul as writer of the epistle, particularly Euthalius; and, undoubtedly, many others have been confirmed in that supposition by this circumstance.
“The original word apolelumenon is ambiguous, being capable of two senses: one of which is, that of our translation, set at liberty, that is, from imprisonment; the other is dismissed, sent abroad on an errand. In this last sense it was understood by Euthalius, who, in the place just cited, says: ‘That scarcely any one can be thought of, besides Paul, who would send Timothy abroad upon any service of the Gospel.’ And indeed this passage does put us in mind of what Paul says to the Philippians, Philippians 2:19: ‘But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. Him, therefore, I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me; but I trust in the Lord, that I also myself shall come shortly,’ Philippians 2:23, 24, which induced Beausobre to say in the preface to this epistle: ‘The sacred author concludes with asking the prayers of the Hebrews, Hebrews 13:19, that he may be restored to them. These words intimate that he was still prisoner, but that he hoped to be set at liberty: therefore, he adds, in Hebrews 13:23, that he intended to come and see them, with Timothy, as soon as he should be returned. If this explication be right, this epistle was written at Rome, some time after the Epistle to the Philippians, and since the departure of Timothy for Macedonia.’
“All these considerations just mentioned, added to the testimony of many ancient writers, make out an argument of great weight, (though not decisive and demonstrative,) that the Apostle Paul is the writer of this epistle. An objection against this epistle being St. Paul’s is, that it is supposed to have in it an elegance superior to that of his other writings. This has been judged, by Grotius and Le Clerc, sufficient to show that this was not written by Paul.
“The opinion of Origen, in his homilies upon this epistle, as cited by Eusebius, and by us from him, is, ‘that the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness of speech, but, as to the texture of it, is elegant Greek, as every one will allow who is able to judge of the differences of style.’ Again, he says: ‘The sentiments of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle. This will be assented to by every one who reads the writings of the apostle with attention.’ Afterwards he adds: ‘If I were to speak my opinion, I should say, that the sentiments are the apostle’s, but the language and composition another’s, who committed to writing the apostle’s sense, and, as it were, reduced into commentaries the things spoken by his master,’ &c.
“Eusebius himself, speaking of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, says: ‘Paul having written to the Hebrews in their own language, some think that the Evangelist Luke, others, that this very Clement himself, translated it into Greek: which last is most likely, there being a great resemblance between the style of the epistle of Clement and the Epistle to the Hebrews: nor are the sentiments of those two writings very different. This passage has been already twice quoted by us; once in the chapter of Clement, bishop of Rome, and again in that of Eusebius.’
“Philaster, bishop of Brescia, about 380, says: ‘There are some who do not allow the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul’s, but say it is either an epistle of the Apostle Barnabas, or of Clement, bishop of Rome; but some say it is an epistle of Luke the evangelist: moreover, some reject it, as more eloquent than the apostle’s other writings.
“Jerome, about 392, in his article of St. Paul, in the book of Illustrious Men, says: ‘The Epistle called to the Hebrews is not thought to be his, because of the difference of the argument and style; but either Barnabas’s, as Tertullian thought; or the Evangelist Luke’s, according to some others; or Clement’s, bishop of Rome; who, as some think, being much with him, clothed and adorned Paul’s sense in his own language. Moreover, he wrote as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in pure Hebrew, it being his own language; whence it came to pass that, being translated, it has more elegance in the Greek than his other epistles.’
“Some learned men of late times, as Grotius and Le Clerc, have thought this to be an insuperable objection. Of this opinion also was Jacob Tollius; who, in his notes upon Longinus, of the sublime, has celebrated the sublimity of this epistle, and particularly the elegance of the beginning of it; which alone he thinks sufficient to show that it was not Paul’s. “It remains, therefore, it seems to me, that if the epistle be Paul’s, and was originally written in Greek, as we suppose, the apostle must have had some assistance in composing it; so that we are led to the judgment of Origen, which appears to be as ingenious and probable as any. ‘The sentiments are the apostle’s, but the language and composition of some one else, who committed to writing the apostle’s sense; and, as it were, rendered into commentaries the things spoken by his master.’ According to this account the epistle is St. Paul’s, as to the thoughts and matter; but the words are another’s.
“Jerome, as may be remembered, says: ‘He wrote as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, pure Hebrew; it being his own language; whence it came to pass that, being translated, it has more elegance in the Greek than his other epistles.’ My conjecture, which is not very different, if I may be allowed to mention it, is, that St. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the apostle’s sentiments in his own elegant Greek. But who this assistant of the apostle was is altogether unknown.
“The ancients, besides Paul, have mentioned Barnabas, Luke, and Clement, as writers or translators of this epistle; but I do not know that there is any remarkable agreement between the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the style of the epistle commonly ascribed to Barnabas. The style of Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, is verbose and prolix. St. Luke may have some words which are in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but that does not make out the same style. This epistle, as Origen said, as to the texture of the style, is elegant Greek; but that kind of texture appears not in Luke, so far as I can perceive; there may be more art and labour in the writings of Luke than in those of the other evangelists, but not much more elegance that I can discern. This Epistle to the Hebrews is bright and elegant from the beginning to the end, and surpasses as much the style of St. Luke as it does the style of St. Paul in his acknowledged epistles. In short, this is an admirable epistle, but singular in sentiments and language; somewhat different in both respects from all the other writings of the New Testament; and whose is the language seems to me altogether unknown; whether that of Zenas, or Apollos, or some other of the Apostle Paul’s assistants and fellow labourers.
“There still remains one objection more against this epistle being written by St. Paul, which is, the want of his name; for to all the thirteen epistles, received as his, he prefixes his name, and generally calls himself apostle. This objection has been obvious in all ages; and the omission has been differently accounted for by the ancients who received this epistle as a genuine writing of St. Paul.
“Clement of Alexandria, in his Institutions, speaks to this purpose: ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews,’ he says, ‘is Paul’s, but he did not make use of that inscription Paul the Apostle; for which he assigns this reason: writing to the Hebrews, who had conceived a prejudice against him, and were suspicious of him, he wisely declined setting his name at the beginning lest he should offend them. He also mentions this tradition: ‘forasmuch as the Lord was sent, as the apostle of almighty God, to the Hebrews, Paul, out of modesty, does not style himself the apostle to the Hebrews, both out of respect to the Lord, and that, being preacher and apostle of the Gentiles, he over and above wrote to the Hebrews.’
“Jerome also speaks to this purpose: ‘That Paul might decline putting his name in the inscription on account of the Hebrews being offended with him;’ so in the article of St. Paul, in his book of Illustrious Men. In his Commentary in the beginning of his Epistle to the Galatians, he assigns another reason: ‘That Paul declined to style himself apostle at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, because he should afterwards call Christ the High Priest and Apostle of our profession,’ Hebrews 3:1. “Theodoret says, that Paul was especially the apostle of the Gentiles; for which he alleges Galatians 2:9, and Romans 11:13. ‘Therefore writing to the Hebrews, who were not intrusted to his care, he barely delivered the doctrine of the Gospel without assuming any character of authority, for they were the charge of the other apostles.’ “Lightfoot says, ‘Paul’s not affixing his name to this, as he had done to his other epistles, does no more deny it to be his than the First Epistle of John is denied to be John’s on that account.’
“Tillemont says, ‘Possibly Paul considered it to be a book rather than a letter, since he makes an excuse for its brevity, (Hebrews 13:22,) for indeed it is short for a book, but long for a letter.’
“It is, I think, observable, that there is not at the beginning of this epistle any salutation. As there is no name of the writer, so neither is there any description of the people to whom it is sent. It appears, from the conclusion, that it was sent to some people at a certain place; and undoubtedly they to whom it was sent, and by whom it was received, knew very well from whom it came, nevertheless there might be reasons for omitting an inscription and a salutation at the beginning. This might arise from the circumstances of things; there might be danger of offence at sending at that time a long letter to Jews in Judea; and this omission might be in part owing to a regard for the bearer, who too is not named. The only person named throughout the epistle is Timothy; nor was he then present with the writer. Indeed I imagine that the two great objections against this being an epistle of St. Paul-the elegance of the style, and the want of a name and inscription, are both owing to some particular circumstance of the writer, and the people to whom it was sent. The people to whom it was sent are plainly Jews in Judea; and the writer very probably is St. Paul, whose circumstances at the breaking up of his confinement at Rome, and his setting out upon a new journey, might be attended with some peculiar embarrassments, which obliged him to act differently from his usual method,
“IV. Thus we are brought to the fourth and last part of our inquiry concerning this epistle-the time and place of writing it. Mill was of opinion that this epistle was written by Paul, in the year 63, in some part of Italy, soon after he had been released from his imprisonment at Rome. Mr. Wetstein appears to have been of the same opinion. Tillemont likewise places this epistle in 63, immediately after the apostle’s being set at liberty, who, as he says, was still at Rome, or at least in Italy. Basnage speaks of this epistle at the year 61, and supposes it to be written during the apostle’s imprisonment, for he afterward speaks of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and says it was the last letter the apostle wrote during the time of his bonds. L’Enfant and Beausobre, in their general preface to St. Paul’s epistles, observe, ‘That in the subscription at the end of the epistle it is said to have been written from Italy; the only ground of which, as they add, is what is said Hebrews 13:24: They of Italy salute you. This has made some think that the apostle wrote to the Hebrews after he had been set at liberty, and when he had got into that part of Italy which borders upon Sicily, and in ancient times was called Italy. Nevertheless there is reason to doubt this. When he requests the prayers of the Hebrews, that he might be restored to them the sooner, he intimates that he was not yet set at liberty.’ Accordingly they place this epistle in the year 62.
“There is not any great difference in any of these opinions concerning the time or place of this epistle, all supposing that it was written by the apostle either at Rome or Italy, near the end of his imprisonment at Rome, or soon after it was over, before he removed to any other country. “I cannot perceive why it may not be allowed to have been written at Rome. St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians was written at Ephesus; nevertheless he says, 1 Corinthians 16:19: ‘The Churches of Asia salute you.’ So now he might send salutations from the Christians of Italy, not excluding, but including, those at Rome, together with the rest throughout that country. The argument of L’Enfant and Beausobre, that Paul was not yet set at liberty, because he requested the prayers of the Hebrews that he might be restored to them the sooner, appears to me not of any weight. Though Paul was no longer a prisoner, he might request the prayers of those to whom he was writing, that he might have a prosperous journey to them whom he was desirous to visit, and that all impediments of his intended journey might be removed; and many such there might be, though he was no longer under confinement. Paul was not a prisoner when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; yet he was very fervent in his prayers to God, that he might have a prosperous journey, and come to them, Romans 1:10.
“For determining the time of this epistle, it may be observed that, when the apostle wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon, he had hopes of deliverance. At the writing of all these epistles Timothy was present with him; but now he was absent, as plainly appears from Hebrews 13:23. This leads us to think that this epistle was written after them. And it is not unlikely that the apostle had now obtained that liberty which he expected when they were written.
“Moreover, in the Epistle to the Philippians, he speaks of sending Timothy to them, Philippians 2:19-23: ‘But I trust in the Lord Jesus, to send Timothy shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state.’ Timothy, therefore, if sent, was to come back to the apostle. ‘Him, therefore, I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me.’
“It is probable that Timothy did go to the Philippians, soon after writing the above mentioned epistles, the apostle having gained good assurance of being quite released from his confinement. And this Epistle to the Hebrews was written during the time of that absence; for it is said, Hebrews 13:23: ‘Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, or has been sent abroad.’ The word is capable of that meaning, and it is a better and more likely meaning, because it suits the coherence. And I suppose that Timothy did soon come to the apostle, and that they both sailed to Judea, and after that went to Ephesus, where Timothy was left to reside with his peculiar charge.
“Thus this epistle was written at Rome, or in Italy, soon after that Paul had been released from his confinement at Rome, in the beginning of the year
63. And I suppose it to be the last written of all St. Paul’s epistles which have come down to us, or of which we have any knowledge.”-Dr. Lardner’s WORKS, vol. vi., p. 381.
After this able and most circumstantial investigation I think it would be a mere actum agere to enter farther into this discussion; all that the ancients, both Grecian and Roman, and all that the most intelligent of the moderns, have produced, both for and against the argument stated above, has been both judiciously and candidly stated by Dr. Lardner; and it is not going too far to say that few readers will be found who will draw conclusions different from those of Dr. Lardner, from the same premises. As all the epistles of St. Paul have an evident object and occasion, it is natural to look for these in the Epistle to the Hebrews as well as in those to other Churches. We have already seen that it was most probably written to the converted Jews in Judea, who were then in a state of poverty, affliction, and persecution; and who, it appears, had been assailed by the strongest arguments to apostatize from the faith, and turn back to the poor elementary teaching furnished by Mosaic rites and ceremonies. That in such circumstances they might begin to halt and waver, will not appear strange to any considerate person; and that the apostle should write to guard them against apostasy, by showing them that the religious system which they had embraced was the completion and perfection of all those which had preceded it, and particularly of the Mosaic, is what might be naturally expected. This he has done in the most effectual and masterly manner, and has furnished them with arguments against their opponents which must have given them a complete triumph.
His arguments against backsliding or apostasy are the most awful and powerful that can well be conceived, and are as applicable now to guard Christian believers against falling from grace as they were in the apostolic times, and, from the general laxity in which most professors of religion indulge themselves, not less necessary.
A late sensible writer, Mr. Thomas Olivers, in a discourse on Hebrews 2:3 of this epistle has considered this subject at large, and treated it with great cogency of reasoning. I shall borrow his Analysis of the different chapters, and a few of his concluding remarks, a perusal of the whole work will amply repay the serious reader. After one hundred and thirty-two pages of previous discussion he goes on thus:—
“I shall,” says he, “sum up all that has been said upon this head by giving a brief account of the OCCASION and DESIGN of this epistle, and of the apostle’s manner of reasoning therein.
“The Christian religion being so contrary to the corrupt principles and practices of the world, those who embraced and propagated it were, on those accounts, rendered very odious wherever they came. The consequence of this was, that heavy persecutions were raised against them in most places. The converted Hebrews, because they had turned their backs on the law of Moses, and embraced the religion of Jesus whom their rulers had crucified, were exceedingly persecuted by their countrymen. Sometimes the unconverted Hebrews persecuted their converted brethren themselves; at other times they stirred up the heathen who were round about to do it. By these means the believing Hebrews had a great fight of afflictions, Hebrews 10:32; and were made gazing-stocks, both by reproaches and afflictions, Hebrews 10:33; and experienced the spoiling of their goods, which for a while they took joyfully, Hebrews 10:34. But this was not all; for, as the Christian religion was then a new thing in the world, it is natural to suppose that the new converts had a great many scruples and reasonings in themselves concerning the lawfulness of what they had done in embracing it: and what added to these scruples was, the constant endeavour of the Judaizing teachers to lay stumbling blocks in the way of these Hebrews, which they too often effected by means of their divers and strange doctrines, mentioned Hebrews 13:9. The consequence of this opposition, both from within and without, was, that great numbers of the Hebrews apostatized from Christ and his Gospel, and went back to the law of Moses; while the fluctuating state of the rest gave the apostles too much reason to fear a general, if not universal apostasy. Now this apparent danger was the OCCASION of this epistle, and the DESIGN of it was to prevent the threatened evil if possible.
“That this account is true will fully appear from a more particular survey of the contents of the whole epistle.
“Chap. 1. The apostle shows that all former dispensations were delivered to the world by men and angels, who were only servants in what they did; but that the Gospel salvation was delivered by Christ, who is the Son of God, and the Heir of all things. How naturally does he then infer the superiority of the Gospel over the law; and, of consequence, the great absurdity of leaving the former for the sake of the latter! “Chap. 2. He obviates an objection which might be made to the superior excellency of Christ on account of his humiliation. To this end he shows that this humiliation was voluntary; that it was intended for many important purposes, viz. that we might be sanctified, Hebrews 2:11; that through his death we might be delivered from death, Hebrews 2:14, 15; and that Christ, by experiencing our infirmities in his own person, might become a faithful and merciful High Priest, Hebrews 2:17, 18. The inference then is, that his taking our nature upon him, and dying therein, is no argument of his inferiority either to the prophets or to the angels; and therefore it is no excuse for those who apostatize from the Gospel for the sake of the law.
“Chap. 3. Here Christ is particularly compared with Moses, and shown to be superior to him in many respects. As, 1. Christ is shown to be the great Builder of that house of which Moses is only a small part, Hebrews 3:3, 4. 2. Christ is as a son in his own house; but Moses was only as a servant in his master’s house, Hebrews 3:5. Therefore Christ and his salvation are superior to Moses and his law, and ought not to be neglected on account of any thing inferior. From Hebrews 3:7 of this chapter to Hebrews 4:14, the apostle shows the great danger of apostatizing from Christ, by the severe sentence which was passed on those who rebelled against Moses, and apostatized from his law.
“Chap. 5. Christ is compared to Aaron, and preferred to him on several accounts. As, 1. Aaron offered for his own, as well as for the sins of the people; but Christ offered only for the sins of others, having none of his own to offer for, Hebrews 5:3. 2. Christ was not a priest after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec, which was a superior order, Hebrews 5:10. Concerning Melchisedec and Christ, the apostle observed that, through the dulness of the Hebrews, there were some things which they could not easily understand, Hebrews 5:11-14. “He therefore calls on them, chap. vi., to labour for a more perfect acquaintance therewith; withal promising them his farther assistance, Hebrews 6:1-3. The necessity of their doing this, of their thus going on unto perfection, he enforced by the following consideration, that, if they did not go forward, they would be in danger of apostatizing in such manner as would be irrecoverable, Hebrews 6:7, 8. From thence to the end of the chapter he encourages them to patience and perseverance, by the consideration of the love, oath, and faithfulness of GOD; and also by the example of their father Abraham.
“Chap. 7. The apostle resumes the parallel between Melchisedec and Christ, and shows that they agree in title and descent, Hebrews 7:1-3; and then, from instances wherein the priesthood of Melchisedec was preferable to the priesthood of Aaron, he infers the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of Aaron, Hebrews 7:4-17. From thence to the end of the chapter, he shows that the priesthood of Aaron was only subservient to the priesthood of Christ, in which it was consummated and abolished; and of consequence, that all those legal obligations were thereby abolished. How naturally then did the apostle infer the absurdity of apostatizing from the Gospel to the law, seeing they who did this, not only left the greater for the lesser, but also left that which remained in full force, for the sake of that which was disannulled.
“Chap. 8. is employed partly in recapitulating what had been demonstrated before concerning the superior dignity of our great High Priest, Hebrews 8:1-5; and partly in showing the Superior excellency of the new covenant, as established in Christ, and as containing better promises; Hebrews 8:6 to the end of the chapter. From this last consideration, the impropriety of going from the new covenant to the old is as naturally inferred as from any other of the afore-mentioned considerations. “With the same view the apostle, chap. ix., compares Christ and his priesthood to the tabernacle of old, and to what the high priest did therein on the great day of atonement, in all things giving Christ the preference; from Hebrews 9:1 to the end.
“Chap. 10. The apostle sets down the difference between the legal sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ: the legal sacrifices were weak, and could not put away sin, Hebrews 10:1-4; but the sacrifice of Christ was powerful, doing that which the other could not do, Hebrews 10:5-10.
“The next point of difference was between the legal priests who offered these sacrifices, and the High Priest of our profession. And first, the legal priests were many; ours is one. Secondly, they stood when they presented their offerings to God; CHRIST sits at the right hand of his Father. Thirdly, they offered often; but CHRIST, once for all. Fourthly, they, with all their offerings, could not put away the smallest sin; but Christ, by his one offering, put away all sin, Hebrews 10:11-18. Now, from all these considerations, the apostle infers the great superiority of the Gospel over the law; and, consequently, the impropriety of leaving the former for the latter.
“The next thing that the apostle does is to improve his doctrine; this he does by showing that, for the reasons above given, the Hebrews ought to cleave to Christ, to hold fast their profession, and not to forsake the assembling themselves together, Hebrews 10:19-25. And, as a farther inducement to cleave to Christ, and to persevere unto the end, he urges the consideration of the difficulties which they had already overcome, and also of the love which they had formerly shown towards Christ and his Gospel, Hebrews 10:32-34. He also encouraged them not to cast away their confidence, seeing it had a great recompense of reward, which they should enjoy if they persevered unto the end, Hebrews 10:35-37. Another consideration which he urged was, that they ought not to depart from faith to the works of the law, because it is by faith that a just man liveth, and not by the works of the law; because God has no pleasure in those who draw back from faith in him; and because every one who does this exposes himself to eternal perdition, Hebrews 10:36-39.
“Another inducement which he laid before them, to continue to expect salvation by faith and patience, was the consideration of the powerful effects of these graces as exemplified in the patriarchs of old, and the rest of the ancient worthies; chap. xi. throughout. ‘This chapter,’ according to Mr. Perkins, ‘depends on the former; thus we may read in the former chapter that many Jews, having received the faith and given their names to Christ, did afterwards fall away; therefore, towards the end of the chapter, there is a notable exhortation, tending to persuade the Hebrews to persevere in faith unto the end. Now in this chapter he continues the same exhortation; and the whole chapter (as I take it) is nothing else, in substance, but one reason to urge the former exhortation to perseverance in faith, and the reason is drawn from the excellency of it; for this chapter, in divers ways, sets down what an excellent gift of GOD faith is; his whole scope, therefore, is manifest to be nothing else but to urge them to persevere and continue in that faith, proved at large to be so excellent a thing.’
“As a farther encouragement to patience and perseverance he adds the example of Christ, Hebrews 12:1-3: and as to the afflictions they met with on the Gospel’s account, he tells them they ought not to be discouraged and driven away from Christ on their account, seeing they were signs of the Divine favour, and permitted to come upon them merely for their good, Hebrews 12:4-11. He then exhorts them to encourage one another to persevere in well doing, Hebrews 12:12-14. To watch over one another lest any of them fall from the grace of God, Hebrews 12:15-18. And, seeing they were then in possession of privileges, Gospel privileges, such as the law of Moses could not give, he exhorts them to hold fast the grace they had, that thereby they might serve God in such a manner as the great obligation they were under required, which alone would be acceptable to him; and this they ought to do, the rather because, if they did not, they would find God to be as much more severe to them as his Gospel is superior to the law; Hebrews 12:19 to the end of the chapter.
Chap. 13. He exhorts them, instead of apostatizing, to continue their brotherly affection one for another, Hebrews 13:1-3. To continue their purity of behaviour, their dependence on God, and their regard for their teachers, Hebrews 13:4-8. He exhorts them not to suffer themselves to be carried about (from Christ and his Gospel) by diver’s and strange doctrines, but rather to strive to be established in grace, which they would find to be of more service to them than running about after Jewish ceremonies, Hebrews 13:9. Again he exhorts them to cleave to and to follow JESUS without the camp, and continually to give praise to God through him, Hebrews 13:9-16. And instead of turning away after seducers, that they might avoid persecution and the scandal of the cross, he exhorts them to submit to and obey their own Christian teachers, and to pray for their success and welfare, Hebrews 13:17-19, concluding the whole with some salutations and a solemn benediction from Hebrews 13:20 to the end.
“Now, if we closely attend to these general contents of the epistle, we shall find that every argument and mode of reasoning, which would be proper in a treatise written professedly on the sin and danger of apostasy, is made use of in this epistle.
For, 1. As great temptations to prefer the law of Moses to the Gospel of Christ was one circumstance which exposed them to the danger of apostasy, nothing could be more to the purpose than to show them that the Gospel is superior to the law. Now we have seen how largely this argument is prosecuted in chap. i., ii., iii., v., vii., viii., ix., x. If we reduce it to form, it runs as follows: No one ought to prefer that which is less excellent to that which is more so: but the law is less excellent than the Gospel; therefore none ought to prefer the law to the Gospel, by apostatizing from the latter to the former.
“2. Another argument, equally proper on such an occasion, is that taken from the consideration of the punishment which all apostates are exposed to. This argument is urged Hebrews 2:2, 3; Hebrews 3:7-19; 4:1-14; 6:4, 8; 10:26-31; 12:25, 28, 29. In most of these places the apostle compares the punishment which will be inflicted on apostates from Christ and his Gospel to that which was inflicted on the apostate Israelites of old, and he frequently shows that the former will be far greater than the latter. This argument is as follows: You ought not to do that which will expose you to as great and greater punishment than that which God inflicted on the rebellious Israelites of old: but total and final apostasy from Christ will expose you to this; therefore you ought not to apostatize from Christ.
“3. Another argument proper on such an occasion is that taken from the consideration of the great reward which God has promised to perseverance. This the apostle urges, Hebrews 3:6-14; 4:1-9; Hebrews 5:9; 6:9, 11; 9:28; 10:35-39. This argument runs thus: You ought to be careful to do that which God has promised greatly to reward: but he has promised you this on condition of your perseverance in the Gospel of his Son; therefore you ought to be careful to persevere therein. “4. A fourth argument, which must operate powerfully on such an occasion, is taken from the consideration of losing their present privileges by apostatizing. This argument is insisted on, Hebrews 2:11-18; 3:1; 4:3-16; 6:18-20; 7:19; 8:10, 12; 9:14, 15; Hebrews 10:14, 22; 12:22, 24, 28; 13:10, 14. This argument runs thus: You ought not to do that for which you will lose the Gospel privileges you now enjoy: but if you apostatize from Christ and his Gospel you will lose them; therefore you ought not to apostatize from Christ and his Gospel.
“5. A fifth argument, very proper in such a work, is taken from the consideration of their former zeal and diligence in cleaving to Christ, and in professing his religion. This argument is handled Hebrews 6:10; 10:32-34. The argument here is: Those who have formerly been zealous in well-doing ought not to grow weary, but rather to be steadfast therein unto the end; but you have formerly been zealous in your adherence to Christ, and in professing his religion; therefore you ought not to grow weary of adhering to Christ, or of professing his religion.
“6. Another argument, proper on such an occasion, is taken from the example of such persons as are held in very high esteem. Now this argument is urged, Hebrews 6:12-15; 9: throughout; Hebrews 12:1-3. Here the argument is: Whatever you esteem as an excellency in the example of holy men of old you ought to imitate: but you esteem it as an excellency in their example that they were steadfast, and did not apostatize from God and his ways; therefore you ought to imitate their example in being steadfast, and in not apostatizing from Christ and his Gospel. “From all that has been said in these several surveys of this epistle, it undeniably appears, 1. That the apostle apprehended these Hebrews to be in danger of total and final apostasy; 2. That he wrote this epistle to them on purpose to prevent it if possible; and 3. That it was total and final apostasy from Christ and his Gospel, of which the believing Hebrews were in danger, and which the apostle endeavours to prevent.”
For other matters relative to this subject see the preface, and the notes on all the passages referred to.
Preface to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.
CLA_HEB.PDF, source PDF p. 32
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.
CLA_HEB.PDF, source PDF p. 33
Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 3: “yalcut kadosh, fol. 144: משיה גדול מן האבות ומן משה ומן מלכי השרה mashiach gadol min haaboth”; “and more exalted than ממלאכי השרה the ministering angels.” or”; “ii., fol. 53, says: זה מלך המשׂיה, “this is the king”. source PDF page 33: “and more exalted than השרה ממלאכי the ministering angels Or,”; “Yalcut Kadosh fol. 144: השרה מלכי ומן משה ומן האבות מן גדול”; “ii., fol. 53, says: המשׂיה מלך זה This is the King”. source PDF page 34: “משיה Mashiach gadol min ha-aboth;”. Compared with CLA_HEB.PDF PDF p. 33, CLA_HEB.PDF PDF p. 34. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: an automated comparison of surrounding English text located possible corresponding passages in OCR from separately digitized printed volumes. The linked scan pages are research locators; their images have not been collated for this note's flagged readings. OCR agreement does not verify Greek or Hebrew letters, diacritics, word order, or table layout. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain. CLA_HEB.PDF, PDF page 33; CLA_HEB.PDF, PDF page 34; Additional printed-scan page locator (OCR context only; flagged reading unverified).
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 המשׂיה, “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 מלכי 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 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, Hebrews 1:4, 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, 9.
5. Because he is eternal, Hebrews 1:10-12.
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, Hebrews 2:1, by arguments drawn,:—
1. From the minor to the major, Hebrews 2:2, 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, 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; 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, 16, and Hebrews 4:1-3.
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. vii. For the excellence and prerogatives of this order, see the notes.
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, Hebrews 8:1-9:11. For the various reasons by which this argument is supported, see also the notes.
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. vi. 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, 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; 12:2.
5. That they should consider and imitate the faith and obedience of their eminent ancestors, chap. xi.
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. xiii.
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 are 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.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5571.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5565.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5555.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4067. -Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4291. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3823. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4422
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2411.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3165. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1003.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 810.
-Year of the CCXth Olympiad, 3.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 810. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 814. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 815. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 816.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 375.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 111.
-Year of the Julian era, 108.
-Year of the Spanish era, 101.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 67. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 63.
-Year of Albinus, governor of the Jews, 2.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 14.
-Year of Domitius Corbulo, governor of Syria, 4.
-Year of Matthias, high priest of the Jews, 1.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 64.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 7; or the second after the second embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 4, or the first after the first embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 16.
-Dominical Letter, it being the third after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, B. -Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the IIId of the calends of April, or, in our common mode of reckoning, the thirtieth of March, which happened in this year on the fourth day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the IIId of the nones of April, named by the Jews the 19th of Nisan or Abib; and by Europeans in general, the 3d of April. -Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 6.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 13.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 13,15,14,15,16,17,18, 19,20,20,22,22.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 9.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Cæsar, the fifth Roman monarch, computing from Octavianus, or Augustus Cæsar, properly the first Roman emperor, 10.
-Roman Consuls, C. Memmius Regulus and L. Verginius Rufus.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 503
EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
PREFACE
AS most of the principal doctrines of the gospel are more expressly asserted and more fully explained in this epistle to the Hebrews than in any other of the inspired writings, it is peculiarly important that its authenticity and divine authority should be established. In order to this, it is only necessary to show that it was written by St. Paul, whose inspiration and apostleship are universally acknowledged, and consequently the divine authority of all his official writings. Now that he was the author of this epistle seems to be satisfactorily proved by the following arguments, advanced by Dr. Whitby and many others.
First, from the words of St. Peter, (2 Peter3:15, 16,) “As our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you,” it is evident, 1. That Paul had written to them to whom St. Peter was then writing, namely, to the believing Jews in general, (2 Peter 1:1,) many of whom were dispersed in divers countries, as mentioned 1 Peter 1:1. 2. That he had written to them a certain letter, distinct from all his other epistolary writings, as appears from those words, “as also in all his epistles,” that is, his other epistles. Since then none of the ancients say that this epistle was lost, it must be that which bears the name of “the epistle to the Hebrews.” Some indeed have thought, the epistle intended by St. Peter might be that written to the Romans, in which St. Paul speaks to the Jews by name, Romans 2:17. But, I. That passage is plainly addressed to the unbelieving Jews, and concerned them only: whereas, St. Peter writes to the brethren, 1 Peter 3:12; the beloved, verses 1, 14, 17; to them who had “received like precious faith,” chap. 1:1. He therefore could not mean the Jews, of whom St. Paul speaks in the epistle to the Romans. A second argument to prove that St. Paul was the author of this epistle is taken from these words, “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you: They of Italy salute you,” Hebrews 13:23, 24. For it was customary with St. Paul, when he wrote to the churches, to call Timothy his brother: see 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; Philemon 1. Timothy was a prisoner at Rome in the seventh year of Nero, and set at liberty the eighth, says Dr. Lightfoot, Harm., pp. 139, 140. Of which here the author of this epistle gives notice, and says, he would come with him to them; that is, to the Jews in Judea, to whom we shall soon see this epistle was written. Now Timothy, we know, was still the companion of St. Paul. Lastly, he desires them to pray for him, which is frequently done by St. Paul in most of his epistles, but is never done in any of the catholic epistles. And, in requesting their prayers, he adds a circumstance which more fully characterizes him; “Pray for me,” says he, “that I may be restored to you the sooner.” Now Paul had been sent bound from Judea to Rome, and therefore his return from Rome to Judea was properly a restoring of him to them. And that he was thus restored to them, we learn from Chrysostom declaring, that, being set at liberty, he went to Spain, thence to Judea, and so back to Rome.
Thirdly. That this epistle was written or composed by St. Paul, may yet more strongly be concluded from the authority of the ancients; for that they did deliver this as the epistle of St. Paul, and that they were not rash in so doing, we learn from the words of Origen. Now among the ancients we may reckon Clemens Romanus, the companion of, and co-worker with, St. Paul; who, as Eusebius and St. Jerome observe, entertained many sentiments which are in this epistle, and used many expressions, word for word, taken thence; which show that this epistle was not new, and that it is duly reckoned among the writings of this apostle. Clemens Alexandrinus cites those words of St. Paul, “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” Hebrews 11:6; adding, that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen,” Hebrews 11:1; κατα τον θειον αποστολον, “according to the divine apostle.” And again he saith, Ο θειος αποστολος, “The divine apostle fears not to say, ‘Remember the former days, in which being enlightened, ye suffered a great fight of affliction,’” Hebrews 10:32. And so he proceeds to cite the apostle’s words to the end of the chapter, and then gives the substance of chap. 11., and the exhortation in the beginning of chap. 12., verses 1, 2. And that this divine apostle was St. Paul, we are assured from these words: “Paul also writing to the Hebrews, relapsing from the faith unto the law, saith, ‘Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat,’” Hebrews 5:12. In the third century Origen, citing the very words now mentioned, and the following words, “For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness,” (verses 13, 14,) saith, “He that wrote this was the same Paul who said to the Corinthians, ‘I have fed you with milk, and not with meat,’” &c., 1 Corinthians 3:2. In his Philocalia he says, “The Apostle Paul, who said to the Corinthians, ‘These things happened in a figure, and they were written for us on whom the ends of the ages are come,’ (1 Corinthians 10:11,) doth also, in another epistle, use these words relating to the tabernacle, ‘Thou shalt make all things according to the pattern showed thee in the mount,’” Hebrews 8:5. And that “the apostle who said, ‘Jerusalem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all,’ (Galatians 4:26,) said also in another epistle, ‘Ye are come to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,’” &c., Hebrews 12:22, 23. In his exhortation to martyrdom he hath these words, Φησι που ο Παυλος, “St. Paul, speaking somewhere to them who suffered from the beginning, and exhorting them to suffer patiently the trials which afterward fell upon them for the word, saith, ‘Call to remembrance the former days, in which ye, being enlightened, suffered a great fight of afflictions.’ ‘Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward; for ye have need of patience,’” Hebrews 10:32-36. And in his answer to Africanus, having cited these words from this epistle, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword,” (Hebrews 11:37,) he says, “If any person, being pressed with these words, should fall into the opinion of those who reject this epistle as not one of St. Paul’s, he would use other words to demonstrate to him that it was the epistle of St. Paul.” He also adds, that “the sentiments contained in it are admirable, and in no respect inferior to the writings of the apostles, as he who diligently reads them must confess. In a word, when this epistle was denied by the Arians in the fourth century, because they were not able to resist the conviction it affords of our Lord’s divinity, Theodoret says, “They ought at least to revere the length of time in which the children of the church have read this epistle in the churches, namely, as long as they have read the apostolic writings; or, if this be not sufficient to persuade them, they should hearken to Eusebius, of whom they boast as of the patron of their doctrine; for he confesses this was St. Paul’s epistle, and declares that all the ancients had this opinion of it.”
That this epistle was written and directed to the Jews dwelling in Judea and Palestine, though not so as to exclude the believing Jews of the dispersion, was the opinion of the ancients. This may be argued from its being inscribed to the Hebrews, rather than to the Jews. It must have been written to the Hebrews, or converts from Judaism to Christianity, who inhabited some one particular country, both because the bearer of it, whoever he was, could not deliver it to all the Jews dispersed through the whole world, and because its author directs them to pray that he might be restored to them, and promises to come and visit them. And this country, most probably, was Judea, where the converts from Judaism to Christianity were almost incessantly persecuted by their unbelieving brethren, who tenaciously adhered to the constitution and ceremonies of the Mosaic law, which Christianity superseded; the title, therefore, “To the Hebrews,” must determine the place, and point out the Jews that dwelt in Judea, a sense which the Holy Ghost puts upon the name “Hebrews,” where it is said, “There was a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews,” Acts 6:1; by the “Hellenists” meaning the Jews that dwelt in foreign countries among the Greeks, and by the “Hebrews,” those that dwelt in Judea. But it cannot be reasonably concluded from hence that this epistle was written in Hebrew, or in Syriac; for the gospel of St. John, and his first epistle, the catholic epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, were also written to the Jews, and yet were written in Greek, that being a tongue so well known to the Jews, that in all their discourses with the Roman governors, who used the Greek tongue, we never read, either in Scripture or Josephus, that the Jews spake to them, or they unto the Jews, by an interpreter; nor are there any of the ancients who pretend to have seen any Hebrew copy of this epistle. That it was written in Greek, appears not only from the passages of Scripture so often cited in it from the Septuagint, even where they differ from the Hebrew, (Hebrews 1:6; 3:8-10; 8:8-10; 10:37, 38,) but also from Hebrews 7:2, where we read thus, πρωτον μεν ερμηνευομενος βασιλευς δικαιοσυνης, “first being interpreted king of righteousness, and afterward king of Salem, which is king of peace;” for both the word “Melchisedec,” and “king of Salem,” being in the first verse, should have been there interpreted, had this been the addition of the interpreter; for so we find it is throughout the New Testament, where the interpretation immediately follows the Hebrew word or phrase, as Mark 5:41, “Talitha cumi, which is by interpretation, Daughter, arise,” (see Mark 15:22; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 1:38, 41; 9:7; 19:17; Acts 4:36; 9:36; 13:8,) whereas here the word “Melchisedec” is in the beginning of the first verse, and the supposed addition of the interpreter is added where the word is not; so “king of Salem” is in the first verse not interpreted, and when it is repeated then comes the interpretation, which plainly shows that it is not made to give the sense, but to explain the mystery contained in the words, namely, that “Christ” was “our peace,” (Ephesians 2:14,) and “his sceptre” was “a sceptre of righteousness,” Hebrews 1:8.
The want of St. Paul’s name has been mentioned by some as a reason for doubting its being originally written by him, or for supposing our present Greek copy is only a translation of an epistle which was written in Hebrew. But this can be no sufficient reason for calling in question his being the author of it. For in our canon of the New Testament, there are epistles universally acknowledged to be the productions of an inspired apostle, notwithstanding his name is nowhere inserted in them; for instance, the three epistles of the Apostle John, who for some reasons, now not known, hath omitted his name in all of them; his first epistle beginning exactly like the epistle to the Hebrews, while in his other epistles he calls himself simply, “the presbyter,” or “elder.” It is true, Paul commonly inserted his name in the beginning of his letters. Yet in this to the Hebrews, he deviated from his usual manner, probably for the following reasons: — 1. Because the doctrines which he set forth in it, being wholly founded by him on the Jewish scriptures, the faith of the Hebrews in these doctrines was to stand, not on the authority of the writer who taught them, but on the clearness of the testimonies which he produced from the Scriptures, the propriety of his application of these testimonies, and the justness of the conclusions which he deduced from them. 2. As Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles, in writing to the Hebrews he did not assume his apostolical character, because it was little respected by the unbelieving Jews and the Judaizing Christians, who traduced him as one who taught the Jews, living in foreign countries, to forsake Moses, Acts 21:21. For which reason, instead of writing to the Hebrews with the authority of an apostle, he, in the conclusion of his letter, “besought them to suffer the word of exhortation,” (Hebrews 13:22,) and protested, that in the whole of the doctrine delivered to them, he had maintained a good conscience, verse 18. Indeed, if he had prefixed his name to this epistle, as he did to the epistles addressed to the Gentile Christians, and termed himself an “apostle of Christ,” it might have so awakened the prejudices conceived against him by the Jewish converts, as to have caused them to throw his letter aside unperused.
As for the date of this epistle, it seems evident that it was written after that to the Colossians and to Philemon; for there he is said to be “Paul the prisoner;” here we find him “set at liberty,” and hoping to come quickly to those to whom he writes: those epistles, therefore, being written in the sixty-fourth year of Christ, this must at least have been written in the following year. Again, in the epistle to the Colossians we have mention of Timothy, but nothing of his bonds; here we have mention both of his imprisonment and his deliverance, which may well cast this epistle into the year above mentioned.
The manifest design of St. Paul in this epistle was to confirm the Jewish Christians in the faith and practice of the gospel of Christ, from which they were in danger of apostatizing, either through the insinuations or ill treatment of their persecutors, or to recover such as had apostatized. I. As the zealous defenders of the Mosaic law would naturally insist upon the divine authority of Moses, the distinguishing glory and majesty which attended its first promulgation by the ministry of angels, and the special privileges with which it invested those who adhered to it, and by arguments and insinuations of that kind would endeavour to shake the faith of those Jews who had embraced Christianity, and to prevail on them to renounce it, and return to Judaism, the apostle shows that in all these several particulars the gospel was infinitely superior to the law; which topic he pursues from chap. 1.-11. 1. He reminds the believing Hebrews of the extraordinary favours shown them by God, in giving them a revelation by his own Son, whose glory was far superior to that of angels, (chap. 1. throughout,) very naturally inferring from hence, the danger of despising Christ on account of his humiliation, which, in perfect consistence with his dominion over the world to come, was voluntarily submitted to by him for wise and important reasons, particularly to deliver us from the fear of death, and encourage the freedom of our access to God, chap. 2. 2. With the same view he further magnifies Christ as superior to Moses, their great legislator; and from the punishment inflicted on those who rebelled against the authority of Moses, he infers the danger of contemning the promises of the gospel, Hebrews 3:1-13. And as it was an easy transition, while treating on that subject, to call to mind that rest in Canaan to which the authority wherewith Moses was invested was intended to lead the Israelites, the apostle, 3. Cautions them against the sin of unbelief, as what would prevent their entering into a state of rest far superior to what the Jews ever enjoyed, (Hebrews 2:14; 4:11,) a caution which is still further enforced by awful views of God’s omniscience, and a lively representation of the high-priesthood of Christ, of whose divine appointment, gracious administration, and previous suffering, he goes on to discourse, promising further illustrations of so important a topic, Hebrews 4:12, 14. 4. He declares that he would advance to sublimer truths, without dwelling upon the first principles, for the sake of those who might have apostatized from the truth, and whose case he represents as very hopeless, (Hebrews 6:1-9,) and then, for the establishment and comfort of sincere believers, he sets before them the consideration of the goodness of God, and his fidelity to his promises, the performance of which is sealed by the entrance of Christ into heaven as our forerunner, Hebrews 6:10, to the end. 5. Still further to illustrate the character of our Lord, he enters into a parallel between him and Melchisedec, as agreeing in title and descent; and from instances wherein the priesthood of Melchisedec excelled the Levitical, he infers that the glory of the priesthood of Christ surpassed that under the law, Hebrews 7:1-17. 6. From these premises, which plainly manifested the defects of the Aaronical priesthood, he argues that it was not only excelled, but consummated, by that of Christ, to which it was introductory and subservient; and, of consequence, that the obligation of the law was henceforth dissolved, Hebrews 7:18, to the end. Then, 7. Recapitulating what he had already demonstrated concerning the superior dignity of Christ’s priesthood, he thence illustrates the distinguished excellence of the new covenant, as not only foretold by Jeremiah, but evidently enriched with much better promises than the old, (chap. 8., throughout,) explaining further the doctrine of the priesthood and intercession of Christ, by comparing it to what the Jewish high-priest did on the great day of atonement, Hebrews 9:1-14. And, 8. Having enlarged on the necessity of shedding Christ’s blood, and the sufficiency of the atonement made by it, (Hebrews 9:15, to the end,) and proved the legal ceremonies could not, by any means, purify the conscience, and from thence argued the insufficiency of the Mosaic law, and the necessity of looking beyond it, (Hebrews 10:1-15,) the apostle urges the Hebrews to improve the privileges which such a High-Priest and covenant conferred on them, to the purposes of approaching God with confidence, a constant attendance on his worship, and most benevolent regards to each other, Hebrews 10:15-25. Having thus obviated the insinuations and objections of the Jews to the gospel of Christ, as inferior to the Mosaic dispensation, by showing its transcendent excellence in a clear and convincing light, for the satisfaction and establishment of the believing Hebrews, the apostle proceeds,
II. To awaken their attention, and fortify their minds against the storm of persecution, which had come, and was further likely to come upon them, for the sake of the Christian faith. To this end he reminds them of the extremities they had already endured in defence of the gospel, and of the fatal consequences which would attend their apostacy, (Hebrews 10:26, to the end,) calling to their remembrance the renowned examples of faith and fortitude which had been exhibited by holy men mentioned in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, (Hebrews 11:1-29,) concluding his discourse with glancing on many illustrious worthies whom he does not name; and, besides those recorded in Scripture, referring also to the case of several who suffered under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, Hebrews 11:30; 12:2.
III. Having thus executed his design in the argumentative part of the epistle, he applies the whole, by exhorting the Hebrew Christians to sustain and improve the afflictions to which they were exposed, and to exert themselves vigorously to promote the united interests of peace and holiness, Hebrews 12:3-14, cautioning them against disparaging the blessings of the gospel, and making them a sacrifice either to any secular views, or sensual gratifications; representing the incomparable excellence of these blessings, and the wonderful manner in which they were introduced, which even the introduction of the Jewish economy, glorious and magnificent as it was, did by no means equal, Hebrews 12:15-29; exhorting them to brotherly affection, purity, compassion, dependance on the divine care, steadfastness in the profession of the truth, and to a life of thankfulness to God, and benevolence to man, from the consideration of the inestimable privileges derived to us from Christ, which ought always to encourage us resolutely to endure any infamy and suffering which we may meet with in his cause, Hebrews 13:1-16; concluding the whole with recommending to them some particular regards to their pious ministers, entreating their prayers, and adding some salutations, and a solemn benediction, Hebrews 13:17, to the end. See Whitby, Macknight, and Doddridge.
Joseph Sutcliffe
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 246
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Ecclesiastes 6:25” here (SUT_VOL5.PDF, physical PDF page 249). The surrounding sentence names Eusebius and abbreviates his work as “Hist.” The reference is to his Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 25, which quotes Origen on the authorship of Hebrews; it is not a verse of Ecclesiastes. The historical wording is retained. SUT_VOL5.PDF, PDF page 249.
ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE
HEBREWS.
OUR learned critics indulge here in length of argument. Among the ancients, Origen, Augustine, and Chrysostom are the principal; among the moderns, Valla, Erasmus, Du Pin, Coccejus, Owen, and Poole are luminous. Poole asks whether this be a divinely inspired and canonical epistle? This some deny, partly through malice, as all the Unitarians, from Marcion to Arius, and down to the present time. Others doubted of it rashly, as in the schism at Rome, when the Novatians made a strong use of the sixth chapter, where the restoration of the fallen who had denied the Lord that bought them, was in some sort regarded as impossible, though not absolutely so.
“This epistle,” says the learned professor and ecclesiastical historian, whose words I translate, “not having the name of Paul at the head, affords no proof that he is not the author; for his name was obnoxious to the jews. Yet this omission has given cause to some of the ancients to doubt whether it really was a production of Paul, and canonical. Notwithstanding it was always received by the oriental churches, and is cited by the Greek fathers as canonical. Origen, in one of his homilies cited by Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes lib. 3. cap. 25, says that the style of this letter is more polished than that of Paul, which is generally simple and often rude. But this letter seems to be among the most elegant productions of the Greek, as those acquainted with that language will generally allow. But the style contains, nevertheless, admirable thoughts, not unworthy of Paul. Yet my opinion is, that the diction and composition are the production of another, who has collected the dictates of Paul, and given them a drapery worthy of his master. For which reason, if some churches have received it as the epistle of Paul, we have reason to applaud their sentiments, because our fathers have apprised us by tradition, that it really was the production of Paul, though God alone for certainty knows who was the author.” Some have ascribed it to St. Clement, bishop of Rome, others to St. Luke. But Clement of Alexandria affirms, that it was really written by St. Paul, and in the Hebrew language, and that St. Luke translated it into Greek; and that the style resembles that of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. He adds, that St. Paul had reasons for not putting his name at the head of the epistle, because the jews for so long a time had been violently prejudiced against him; and judging he would still be suspected, he prudently omitted his name at the head of the letter.
“St. Jerome assures us,” continues Eusebius, in a letter to Evagrius, “that all the Greeks received the epistle to the Hebrews: and, in his letter to Dardanus, that not only all the churches of the east, but also all the ancient Greek writers received it as the genuine production of St. Paul; though there were a few who ascribed it to Barnabas, or to Clement. “All the Greek fathers, who have written since the time of Origen, have cited the epistle as canonical, and under the name of Paul. The council of Laodicea have put it in the sacred canon; and so it stands in all other catalogues of the Greek scriptures.”
“In the course of time, the Arians,” observes Du Pin, “finding that this epistle was strongly urged against them on the Deity of Christ, rejected it altogether; but the Catholics defended its authenticity, as may be seen in Epiphanius, and in Theodoret, who prove that the first Arians had cited it against the Catholics, as is apparent in St. Hilary, and St. Athanasius. “With regard to the Latin church, Jerome remarks in his letter to Dardanus, and in his comment on the sixth of Isaiah, that it was not commonly received by many. Quam Latina consuetudo non recipit inter scripturas canonicas. To Evagrius, he says, that all the Greeks received it, and some of the Latins. Quam omnes Græci recipiunt, et nonnulli Latinorum. It is certain that St. Clement, of Rome, the most ancient of authors in the west, received and acknowledged it, because he cites passages from it. Gobarus, cited by Photinus, acknowledged it. St. Irenæus, who wrote among the Latins, names it, and cites many passages from it in his book, which contains disputations, as is noted by Eusebius: lib. 5. c. 26. The early writers seem to think with Origen, that the sentiments are St. Paul’s, but that the Greek is by another.”
Doubts however are justly entertained of Origen’s opinion. He wrote too much to be the calmest of authors. The epistle of Barnabas, and that of Clement to the Corinthians are works of merit, but by no means to be compared with the epistle to the Hebrews. Tertullian, and Minutius Felix, in their apologies for the christian religion, by study and frequent transcription, gave their works a finish of inimitable beauty. Paul, in like manner, knowing that his epistle would be read and examined by the learned in Jerusalem, took more pains in the arguments, and in the polish and perfection of his letter: he has left the literary talents of all contemporaries far in the shade. He has justified the remark of Augustine, “that no man can attain to the wisdom by which St. Paul wrote his epistles, without divine inspiration.”
St. Augustine remarks farther, as well as Jerome, that the churches of the east have received it, and that the greatest number of ecclesiastical writers have believed it to be the production of St. Paul; on which account it has been put in the number of canonical books, as the genuine epistle of that sacred writer. This judgment was confirmed by the council of Carthage (following the council of Laodicea) and finally by the council of Rome, held under the learned Pope Gelasius, and became established as the epistle of Paul.
Those three councils had reasons, and just reasons on which they founded their decisions; and reasons arising from the internal characters of the letter.
(1) It is no way likely that St. Paul, ever burning with charity for his countrymen, should see the Hebrew christians suffer, without a letter of support and comfort.
(2) This letter was written from Italy, as appears from Hebrews 13:24, where the Roman brethren salute the Hebrew christians.
(3) It was written by a person in prison, who expected liberation: Hebrews 10:34. 13:19. —
(4) It was written by one who had Timothy for a colleague: Hebrews 13:23. Timothy is also named as the colleague of Paul in four places of his epistles. These are circumstances which coincide with no ambassador of the churches but St. Paul.
(5) The author solicits their prayers, hoping shortly to see them: chap. 13:23.
In the synopsis by Poole, we have farther confirmations that this epistle is the genuine letter of Paul, from the ideas, and from the words themselves. St. Peter says, 2 Peter 3:15, 16, “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood.” Τινα δυσνοητα, difficult to be understood. Peter cites here the same Greek word which is used by Paul in Hebrews 5:11. Melchizedec — of whom we have many things to say, και
δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν, et non facile explicabilis dictu; and which are not easily explained.
Peter illustrates the character of Christ, as the Son of God, in whom the Father is well pleased. Paul does the same in the first chapter, and throughout the epistle. Peter warns the saints against falling away: 2 Peter 3:17. Paul does the same in Hebrews 6:4, 5. 10:26-38. Peter exhorts the saints to look for the day of the Lord: Hebrews 3:9-14. Paul does the same in Hebrews 6:12. 10:25-29. These coincidences show that Peter had read the epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul’s, and avowed his belief in the divine inspiration of his beloved brother. To these we may add, that Paul makes a grateful memorial to the Hebrews of their charity, in having had compassion on him in his bonds while in Jerusalem, and for a long time a prisoner in Cæsarea; and of course he writes to comfort them in their long-continued persecutions. But we nowhere read that either Barnabas, or Clement, or Luke, or Apollos were ever in prison at Jerusalem.
Nor should it escape remark, that he mentions ingenuously a fact which they well knew, — that he had not seen Christ, till the Lord appeared to him in the way to Damascus, but that he had received the gospel by revelation, which was confirmed to him by those that heard him, and by the divine endowments of the Holy Ghost: Hebrews 2:3, 4. All this agrees with Paul, and not with Barnabas.
Origen then had reason to add, as cited by Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes 6:25, “that the ancients did not rashly hand it down to us as a production of Paul.” And after three councils have decided that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, nothing but heresy can be the base of doubt and agitation. But against all this weight of evidence, greatly impaired by abbreviations, let us hear what the old Arians, and the modern Unitarians have to say. Let them come forward, and be heard in open court.
They say, first, that Paul does not begin the epistle with benedictions. Answer: neither do Clement and Barnabas begin their epistles in that way. Clement of Alexandria has assigned reasons for the omission of Paul’s name, being a character hated by his nation, and his name proscribed. These reasons have satisfied most learned men.
They object, that the style is superior in point of elegance to the usual style of Paul. Dr. Lardner, a semi-arian, gave up that point: why therefore repeat it now? He allows the sentiments to be those of Paul. Read the sublime passages of this apostle in 2 Corinthians 6., 1 Timothy 6:11, and talk no more of Paul’s inability.
They farther object to the uncertainty of the time when it was written. But what difference can three years make, as it was unquestionably written after the year fifty eight, and some years before Jerusalem was destroyed; for the sacred writer says, “ye see the day approaching:” Hebrews 10:25.
But say ingenuously, Do not your tender scruples arise, because St. Paul made the great mystery of godliness eminently to consist in God being manifest in the flesh, and that he considered this to be the very pillar and ground of the truth? Because he here lays, as the prophet did, the incarnation and mediatorial work of JEHOVAH ELOHIM, as the foundation of the church? Isaiah 28:16. And because he instructs the Hebrew christians, that building on this rock of ages, they would be secure amidst the raging tempests, and the overwhelming floods of divine wrath? But does not the holy apostle establish his doctrine by invincible arguments drawn from the Hebrew scriptures?
Oh base apostates from the faith of the whole primitive world, who all expected a Messiah, and that Messiah from heaven. Oh that I could rebuke their philosophy by revelation, and make them blush, as men that dishonour the sanctuary. Oh that I could rouse certain dignitaries by the example of Jewel, of Pearson, of Jeremy Taylor, of Bull, and of Horsley. Oh that I could also touch their pride of nonconformity, by voices from the tombs of their martyred predecessors, and by the luminous works of Baxter, Bates, Flavel, Howe, and a thousand more. How will their Wakefield stand before the throne of God, with his heretical testament in his hand, indecently saying of his expiring Saviour, “He breathed his last?” — See his note on Matthew 27:50.
What better hope can the Socinian indulge, after betraying the Lord of glory with a kiss, than to perish in the tomb. — Not so St. Paul. He supported the suffering Hebrews, by showing them the Saviour, despising the cross, and now set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, till all his enemies shall be made his footstool. — See more in that invaluable work, “An Introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the holy scriptures.” By T. H. Horne, B. D. This author, with incessant labour, has applained the student’s way to the sanctuary.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 39
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Hebrews 2:7-19” here (WHD_CO14.PDF, PDF page 50). This differs from the chapter or verse numbering in the King James Version. The intended citation is uncertain; the historical wording is retained. An additional printed witness, D. D. Whedon, Commentary on the New Testament, vol. V (Hunt & Eaton; copyright 1880), p. 41, also reads “Heb. ii, 7–19”; this confirms the older reading but does not establish the intended citation. WHD_CO14.PDF, PDF page 50; D. D. Whedon, Commentary on the New Testament, vol. V (Hunt & Eaton; copyright 1880), p. 41.
HEBREWS
INTRODUCTION
TO WHOM WRITTEN.
THE title of the book, “to the Hebrews,” if not given by the author, must have been adopted by its copyists and readers upon its earliest circulation. It is the only title found in all the ancient manuscripts and copies in every part of the world. Its earliest receivers from the author, its earliest publishers and circulators, must, therefore, have certainly been “Hebrews.” But what is meant by “Hebrews?” Primarily, it designates persons of Hebrew descent, whether born in Palestine or elsewhere. Thus Paul, though born in Cilicia, out of Palestine, asserts himself a “Hebrew of the Hebrews.” Philippians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 11:22. At one time, in Jerusalem, (Acts 6:1, where see notes,) it is used in antithesis to Hellenists, or Jews by descent but of foreign birth. This appears to have been but temporary, for the word appears later to be used specially in application to the entire Christian Church at Jerusalem. Thus Delitzsch says, “The Church of Jerusalem actually bore the title η των ‘Εβραιων εκκλησια, (Clementis, Ep. ad Jacob., hom. 11, 35,) as consisting entirely of Hebrews.” So Eusebius, in his Church History, (iv, 5,) says that the Jerusalem Church consisted of believing Hebrews, εξ ‘Εβραιων πιστων. So, as we might expect, the very title of the book, “to the Hebrews,” not only points to Palestine, but designates the capital of Palestine, the sacred head of the Hebrew race.
This designation is confirmed by two considerations. First, the epistle, however widely it was to be afterwards circulated, was primarily addressed to a single Church; and, second, circumstances show that Church to have been Jerusalem. That it was primarily addressed to a single Church is clear from the last chapter, which is familiar in its tone, and adjusted to the peculiarities of a particular Church, especially the last three verses. The writer there informs the Church of Timothy’s liberation, of his own hope soon to visit them with Timothy, and gives them the salutations of the Italian Christians present with him. See our notes on the passage. It is certain, then, that this epistle was sent to, and received by, a single local Church.
And this Church was Jerusalem. To what single Church would an epistle intended for the Hebrew Christians in general be addressed, but to the old representative capital? To what other Church would an epistle be entitled “to the Hebrews?” Such is the fair and clear presumption. We should assume this anticipatively, and maintain it until we are met by fair counter proof. The presumption is also against any sideway city, as Caesarea or Alexandria; none of which ever made any claim in the early ages to the honour. If Caesarea was really the Church addressed, (as Stuart is inclined to think,) how happens it that Eusebius of Caesarea, the great Church historian, never heard of it? If written to Alexandria, strange that the illustrious line of Alexandrian scholars, including Origen, never dreamed of it. If to Rome, as Alford conjectures, it is unaccountable that early Rome ignores or rejects both its Paulinity and its canonicity. We are thus shut up to Jerusalem alone.
This view is confirmed by the minute knowledge of the temple ritual required by the epistle of its readers. Scholarly men might, indeed, be familiar with these details, but our author is not addressing the learned class, but the mass of the people. To the men perfectly acquainted with their minutiae the appeal is first made, namely, to the Jerusalem Christians; and then the epistle could well go the rounds of all the Palestinian, and then of the Gentile, Churches. Particularly the phrase, “without the gate,” (xiii, 12, where see our note,) presupposes that the mind of author and reader is at Jerusalem. Delitzsch acutely remarks, that in the epistle the constant antithesis is not between the synagogue and the Church, but between the temple and the episunagwgh—episynagogue—of the Christians. “No traces,” he remarks, “are found of any such purely Jewish Churches as this addressed Church was, in the dispersion.”
The assumption that this epistle was addressed to Jerusalem agrees remarkably with the relations of Paul to that Church. It was about six years before its writing that the apostle visited Jerusalem, attended by a retinue of friends, bearing donations from Greece and Asia to the “poor saints at Jerusalem.” He was, with his friends, “received gladly,” and was entertained at the house of Mnason, “an old disciple.” And this fact answers the objection, that the “saints” of Jerusalem, being “poor,” could not have exercised the hospitality ascribed to the receivers of this epistle, 6:10. But Paul and his company had experienced these very hospitalities, and could afford to give credit for them. The plentiful hospitalities which, as “mother Church,” the Jerusalem Christians had to exercise, may have contributed to make them “poor.” The next day he was received in state by James with the elders, whom he “saluted” and favoured with a full report of his missionary success “among the Gentiles,” for which “they glorified the Lord.” (Acts 21:17-20.) It is plain that the heart of the Church, including James, was fully with Paul. So it had been at the Jerusalem Council, years before. (Acts 15:1-19.) But, as at the Jerusalem Council, so at this last visit, there was a body of Judaistic outsiders bitterly opposed to Paul. As it was the week of Pentecost, myriads of rural Judaistic Christians were in town, and it was fatally concluded that Paul should perform a ritual to conciliate them. In this performance he was assaulted by a mob of anti-Christian Jews, from them was rescued by the Romans, and sent into what proved an imprisonment finally at Rome. Peculiarly apposite is his application of the word restored (Hebrews 13:19) to his return to a Church from which he had thus been violently snatched without even permission to bid them a hasty farewell. That with this Church he should afterward retain exchanges of communication, and that to it he should address a memorable epistle, second only to his Roman, has an interesting presumption in its favour. It precisely tallies, also, with the fact, that while the closing chapter amply reveals his person to the Church he addresses, his name should be withheld from its commencement, in order that its circulation among the Judaistic Churches of Palestine might not be impeded. This is the ancient solution; and we hold it as still standing good. It blends beautifully, too, with the testimony of the primitive Pantaenus, yet to be given, that Paul declined to style himself Apostle in writing to the Jerusalem “Hebrews,” reverently conceding that title, as the epistle truly does, to Him who was alone the divine Apostle to the chosen race. Hebrews 3:1.
AT WHAT TIME WRITTEN.
The use of the present tense in Hebrews 9:7, in describing the performance of the Jewish ritual, clearly indicates that the temple is still standing and Jerusalem undestroyed. But, as we interpret Hebrews 10:25, 37, the Christians of Jerusalem were looking for the omens designated by our Lord (Matthew 25) as betokening its coming doom. But the most precise date we think is fixed by Hebrews 13:23, (where see our note,) which shows this epistle to have been written not long after Philippians, which was written about A.D. 63. To the Philippians Paul had given notice that when his judicial destiny was decided, he would send Timothy to them, and now he informs the Hebrews that Timothy is on that mission. This epistle, therefore, cannot be dated later than 64, six years before the destruction of Jerusalem. St. James had, according to Josephus, been martyred in 62, so that he may be counted among the martyrs commemorated in Hebrews 13:7. See Introduction to the Epistle to James.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE.
Of the three great divisions of the Church—the EASTERN, including Asia Minor and Palestine, the ALEXANDRIAN, and the WESTERN or ROMAN— the first two received the epistle as Paul’s, the last rejected it, both as canonical and Pauline. Yet those who received it as historically Paul’s, did frequently, on account of its peculiarity of style, either conjecture it to have been translated into Greek from a Hebrew original written by Paul, or that in some way Paul’s thoughts had been clothed with verbiage by another pen than his—as a guess, perhaps Luke’s or Clement’s. And here we reject the illegitimate process by which Lunemann and others bring out a very illegitimate anti-Pauline conclusion. They illogically confound a matter of historical fact, namely, the true authorship by Paul, with a matter of opinion, namely, a conjectural solution of the problem of the style. Eliminate the mere opinion from the historical fact, and we have left a very clear consensus of the Palestinian and Alexandrian Churches in the actual uncontradicted authorship by Paul. And this elimination should be made. For in a matter of style the modern critic may be as well able to judge as the ancient; but in a matter of fact the modern inquirer depends upon the ancient testimony. The one is guess, the other is history. I. That the PALESTINIAN CHURCH, to whom the epistle was addressed, received it as Paul’s, is a very decisive fact. If the epistle were written to Jerusalem Paul was certainly its author. The closing chapter of the epistle entirely demonstrates that the true author was known to the Church addressed, and that in all probability he subsequently visited the Church in company with Timothy. Five or six years afterwards Jerusalem was swept out of existence, and was unable to make its claim to be the Church of this epistle. And yet all the East claimed it as written to the East. The title “To the Hebrews” was stamped upon it. And when the Peshito Version, which was a translation of the Greek Testament into the Palestinian vernacular, was made, Hebrews was inserted by Palestinian authority in the canon, and in immediate connexion with the Pauline epistles.
Though no early Oriental writers are now extant to be quoted in behalf of Paul’s authorship, yet we have the most conclusive evidence of the unanimity of the East. ST. JEROME, though a Latin writer, spent a large share of his life in Bethlehem-Judah, and the real view of the East is by him repeatedly stated. Thus, in his Epistle to Evagrius he uses this expression: “The Epistle to the Hebrews, which all the Greeks receive, and some of the Latins.” In his Epistle to Dardanus he says: “This epistle, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is received as the Apostle Paul’s, not only by the Churches of the East, but by all the past ecclesiastical writers of the Greek language, although the most [that is, of the Latins] think it the work of Barnabas or Clement: and this makes no difference, since it is the work of a man of the Church, and it is daily celebrated in the reading of the Churches. If the custom of the Romans do not receive it among the canonical Scriptures, just as the Greek Churches, with equal freedom, do not receive the Apocalypse of John, yet we receive both; not following the custom of the day, but following the authority of the ancient writers, who mostly use the testimonies of both, not as they are sometimes accustomed to do with the apocryphal writers, but as canonical.”
From this testimony we know that—1. The Churches of Palestine, and the great body of Eastern Greek writers, received the book as Paul’s; he was accepted by the Hebrews as author of their book of Hebrews: 2. In this the Latins dissented from them: 3. The book was read by the Palestinians in the public service: 4. For Jerome to accept the book as Pauline and canonical was to disregard the notion of the hour, and to rely on the “authority of the ancient authors.” Now as Jerome was master of the Christian literature of Palestine and the East, as our modern times are not; and as he knew the public services and sentiments of the Palestinian Churches, this testimony covers the ground conclusively. Jerome would, indeed, be too late to be a primitive witness to the fact of Pauline authorship; but he is a decisive witness of the testimony of all the preceding writers and of the Hebrew Churches. With full knowledge of the whole case he not only abandoned the western opinion for the eastern, but he was, with Augustine, a main mover in converting the Western Church to correct opinions. EUSEBIUS, the father of Church history, resided in Caesarea, Palestine, and was among the first to give a complete catalogue of New Testament books, with their authors. He divides the proposed books into three classes: the undisputed, the disputed, and the spurious. He reckons fourteen epistles, thereby including Hebrews as Paul’s undisputedly, with a reserve—1. That its Pauline authorship was questioned by some of the Latins; and, 2. That its style indicated it to be a translation from Paul’s original Hebrew. His words are, (Book III, chap. iii,) “Fourteen are clearly and certainly Paul’s; although it is proper to be known that some have rejected that which is written to the Hebrews, alleging, with the Church of Rome, that it is spoken against as not belonging to Paul.” Herein we note two things: 1. Eusebius himself considers the epistle to be certainly Paul’s, and that this is the true churchly opinion; 2. That the counter view is limited to “the Church of Rome,” in deference to which a “some” dissent, not numerous enough to prevent the book’s being classed with the undisputed. Yet, in reference to these, he does, in a later passage, call it disputed. According as he recognised these dissenters or not, the epistle was disputed or undisputed. But the dissent was not native to Palestine. In default of extant remains of ancient eastern writers we have some important indications of this unanimity. The Council of Antioch, in about A.D. 264, issued a letter in regard to the heresy of Paul of Samosata, containing passages quoted from our book of Hebrews, and one, as Stuart says, is “directly ascribed to the same apostle who wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians.”—EUSEBIUS, Eccl. Hist., 7:30. This was of course, a testimony of a representative body of eastern bishops.
The argument is conclusive that 2 Peter 3:15, 16 attributes this epistle to Paul. The words are: “Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood.” On these words we note: 1. They speak of a particular epistle “written unto you,” in distinction from “all his epistles.” There is an antithesis between “all” and “written unto you.” One particular epistle is isolated from “all” the rest. 2. That one was “written unto YOU;” that is, to the converted “Hebrews.” For it was to such that the First Epistle to Peter was written, (1 Peter 1:1, where see note;) and “this second epistle” was written to the same, as appears by 2 Peter 3:1. The one epistle “written unto you” was written to the Hebrews, and could be no other than this epistle. 3. The topic treated by that one was the retribution of the judgment day, a topic on which Hebrews is abundantly copious, Hebrews 9:27, 28; 10:19-31; 12:1, 14, 15. 4. The phrase in this passage of 2 Peter, “things hard to be understood,” (δυσνοητα τινα,) is too peculiar and too coincident with” hard to be uttered,” (Hebrews 5:11,) δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν, hard to be interpreted to speak, (see our note on the passage,) not to be a direct reference. So many coincident facts are very decisive that Paul is here declared by the author of 2 Peter to be the writer of Hebrews as a fact notorious to the Hebrew Christians. II. Less primitive, but more learned, than the Church of Palestine, was the CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA, founded, according to good authorities, by St. Mark. Connected by a single intermediate generation with St. Mark was the founder of the celebrated Alexandrian theological school, PANTAENUS, who was succeeded in the theological chair by Clement of Alexandria. Of Pantaenus, Clement informs us that he held the epistle to be Paul’s, which carries the testimony of Alexandria back, as we may say, through Mark, to the apostolic age. This as matter of history—the epistle was Paul’s. As matter either of history or conjectural opinion, Pantaenus held that Paul’s reason for not giving his name was, that he was not apostle of the Hebrews, as truly the Lord himself alone was, as Paul in the epistle truly states. Whether this was with Pantaenus an historically-derived fact, or a critical conjecture, it is quite probably true; and it at any rate assumes that Paul was truly the author of the epistle.
CLEMENT himself attributes the epistle to Paul. To this historic fact he adds, as a solution of the un-Pauline style, that it was first written by Paul in Hebrew, and translated by Luke, and that Paul withheld his name in order not to repel the prejudiced Jews from reading. All this may be true history; or it may be a conjectural solution in addition to the historical fact, which is plainly affirmed, that Paul was author of the book of Hebrews. ORIGEN was the most eminent biblical scholar of his age. He taught in Alexandria., his native city, through the earlier part of his life, but later in Caesarea-Palestine. He was master of all the Alexandrian and Palestinian Christian literature. Critically, he thought the style un-Pauline, being too pure in its Greek, and free from some of Paul’s peculiarities. Historically, his judgment is as follows: “Whatever Church holds this to be an epistle of Paul’s, let it receive approval; for it is not without reason that the men of antiquity (οι αρχαιοι ανδρες) have handed it down as Paul’s.” This is an historical statement of what the original receivers of the epistle, so far as Origen knew, affirmed of its authorship. And it is inadmissible (with Alford) to interpolate a limitation of these “men of antiquity” to Origen’s two predecessors, Pantaenus and Clement, for no such limitation is authorized by Origen; and, in fact, the words may have been written in Palestine. Nor can there be any limitation as to time; for if there were, to his knowledge, any earlier antiquity than that of these “men,” which might have denied the epistle to Paul, he would have noted it. Historically, then, according to all known tradition, the epistle is Paul’s.
Yet Origen pays his respects to the then “modern” criticism. “Nevertheless,” says he, “who wrote the epistle God only knows; but a rumour has come to us, of some saying that Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote it; and of others saying that it was written by Luke.” Lay the emphasis on knows, and the whole is clear and true. Decisive as the historical testimony is, the style has produced conjectural opinions, and absolute truth on the subject is known to God alone. Yet Origen uniformly quotes the epistle as Paul’s, not from a mere “habit,” or from “the current,” as Alford unjustifiably says, forgetting that such a “habit” must have had a reasonable basis, namely, the fact that although God alone absolutely knows the true author, yet there is a reliable human certainty justifying the uniform assumption of its Pauline authorship. Origen’s universal habit of quoting Hebrews as Paul’s own, shows that such was his position.
III. The WESTERN or ROMAN CHURCH, a Church defective in learning, on the contrary, gave this epistle a slow and cold reception, either ignoring it entirely, or ignoring its Paulinity, and even rejecting it from the New Testament Canon. CLEMENT, Bishop of Rome at the close of the first century, probably before St. John’s death, and probably the personal friend of Paul, does, indeed, quote largely from it, apparently as Scripture, yet, as was the custom, without naming the author. He possibly recognised it as both canonical and Pauline. But Clement stands nearly alone in such recognition. IRENAEUS of Lyons, Gaul, probably wholly ignores it, perhaps was ignorant of it; and his pupil, HIPPOLYTUS, Bishop of Novi Portus, near Rome, stands in the same predicament. It is uncertain whether the epistle was received into the earliest Latin Version of the New Testament— certainly not as Paul’s. The MURATORIAN CATALOGUE of New Testament books, belonging at Rome to the second half of the second century, does not clearly name it. There is, however, a remarkable passage in this catalogue, which in the Latin, as corrected by Westcott, (Canon of the New Testament,) reads thus: “Fertur etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine finctae ad haeresim Marcionis.” The last “ad” Westcott holds to be a translation of the Greek prov, and so may be rendered in regard to. We may translate thus: “There is in circulation an epistle to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion.” We shall soon give reasons for supposing this epistle to the Alexandrians to be our Hebrews. In the Latin Church of Africa, TERTULLIAN quotes the epistle in support of a position of his; but he quotes it as written by Barnabas; and he imagines that he is exalting its credit by calling attention to the fact that Barnabas was no less than an apostle’s colleague! Both the Paulinity and the canonicity of our epistle would fail if judged by early Rome alone. The reasons we take to be nearly these. The Church of Jerusalem, the mother Church of all, being demolished and dispersed, was unable to assert her claim to the honour of being its recipient, and no other Church had any claim to assert. The epistle travelled, as an orphan, slowly westward. And the farther the east from which it came (as from Jerusalem rather than Caesarea) the more satisfactory this explanation of its slow reception. It came to Rome, not like Rome’s own great epistle, as well as all the other Pauline epistles, headed with the illustrious name of Paul, but anonymous. Nor did its first chapter open like the Roman document, with an elastic Romanic majesty, (see our vol. iii, p. 289,) but with a certain Alexandrian rhythm and tune. In addition to this, it is held by such scholars as Wetstein and Hug, that such passages as Hebrews 6:4-8, and 10:26-31, were quoted by the heretical Montanists at Rome to prove their doctrine that fallen members of the Church should never be re-admitted. The Roman Church bitterly opposed this Montanist view, and so rejected this anonymous epistle from the East that seemed to sustain it. It was in A.D. 494 that a Roman council, headed by Pope Gelasius, included in their catalogue of canonical books fourteen epistles of Paul, which, of course, embraced Hebrews. The Council of Trent confirmed this decision. RIVAL CLAIMS TO ITS AUTHORSHIP.
Against the other names proposed as authors of this epistle the arguments appear conclusive.
BARNABAS is named by Tertullian alone. None of his great African successors, as Athanasius and Augustine, accept the opinion; but ascribe the epistle to Paul. His native island of Cyprus makes no claim for Barnabas; on the contrary, Epiphanius, the learned Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, sustains the claim of Paul. The opinion of Tertullian has had scarce a follower in any age.
The other rivals, as Clement, Luke, and Apollos are named, not on primitive historical evidence, but as solutions of the problem of style. CLEMENT, being Bishop of Rome, if he were the author of the epistle, would have been loudly sustained by Rome. The epistle would not have been an orphan and a fugitive, but a native and a power, in the West. Besides, his style is less like that of the epistle than Paul’s own style. LUKE was a native, or at least a resident, of Antioch; and Antioch was amply able to give notoriety to his claim; but Antioch speaks for Paul alone. And of Luke, too, we affirm that his style is far more unlike the style of Hebrews than is Paul’s own style. The resemblance to Luke’s style are in minutiae and turns of expression; which he may easily be supposed to have acquired from intimacy with Paul. What has Luke written that indicates that he could have written that grandiloquent first chapter of Hebrews? Where in Luke’s style is the first tinge of Alexandrianism? What authority had Luke entitling him to write the magisterial rebuke of Hebrews 5:12-14? What probability that a modest Gentile like Luke should assume to read so imperatorial a lecture on apostasy to the mother Church of Christianity?
APOLLOS is the last, but not the poorest, guess, having been first suggested by Luther fourteen centuries after date. So far as style of language is concerned, we might say that Luke’s description of him, in Acts 18:24, renders him a fair candidate; but not as to style of mind. He appears as a rich, popular orator, easy to follow, mighty in Scripture. But there are traits in Hebrews of difficult transition, broken connexions of thought, and suspensions of the subject in order to digression, which are by no means easy for the mind to follow, and which are inconsistent with the Apolline theory, and call for Paul alone.
IT BEARS THE SURE TOKEN OF A PAULINE EPISTLE.
Paul, however, never specified his name at the head to be the sure token of an epistle from him, but the benediction at the end. This token he gave in one of his earliest epistles (2 Thessalonians 3:17, 18) as the sure test, in these words: “The salutation of [me] Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” This benedictory salutation is given in all his thirteen epistles; and this token it is very significant, and, we think, very conclusive, to note, is carefully and explicitly given at the end of Hebrews. It is authenticated as Paul’s by Paul’s own appointed token. Thus, while the display of his name was not allowed to impede the general circulation of the epistle, the assurance of his authorship was carefully given to his friends at Jerusalem. Finally, if Delitzsch’s suggestion, given in our note on Hebrews 1:1, is valid, then Paul’s name, twice written, does stand occultly at the head of the epistle; a secret guarantee, perhaps, to his friends, but invisible to the eyes of his opponents; and so leaving its diffusion impeded throughout the Hebrew Christian world.
THE TWO SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM OF STYLE.
The maintainers of Paul’s authorship have suggested two conjectural solutions of the question of the supposed un-Pauline style of the epistle. The first is the hypothesis that Paul, by converse or by notes, gave the thoughts, and Luke, Clement, or Apollos wrote them out in his own style. The second is the assumption of an original Hebrew, of which the present epistle is a Greek translation by one of the above writers. Of these two solutions the preferable would be the hypothesis of a Hebrew original, with a translation under Paul’s supervision. Of that translation, as it stands, we can conceive no one capable but Apollos. He may have furnished the Alexandrian surface varnish; have yet preserved the Pauline peculiarities of connexion and transition underlying; have secured, in Alexandrian fashion, the uniform reference to the Septuagint; and, with Paul’s association, have hit off the Greek word-plays, and even the verbal arguments upon the covenant-testament. There is some appearance in the words of Clement that there was historical authority for this hypothesis; but the fatal defect is, that there is no known trace of the existence of any such Hebrew original. The objection might be plausibly, but not satisfactorily, obviated, by supposing it lost in the destruction of Jerusalem and dispersion of the Church.
SUGGESTION OF A THIRD SOLUTION.
As this is a field still open, we venture a solution of our own. There were, to the later Jewish Church, to the New Testament, and to St. Paul, both a rabbinical and an Alexandrian side. Rabbinism, with its Targum and its talmudical traditions, belonged to Babylon and the East; Alexandrianism, with its Septuagint and its Philonean philosophies, belonged to the West; and both blended their influences upon Palestine and Jerusalem. Delitzsch, who has profoundly studied this subject, very strongly maintains that Alexandrianism performed a very important and divinely-appointed part in bridging over the public thought from the old covenant to the new. Philonism was a brilliant effort to bring the narrower, yet most divine Old Testament thought, into unison with the new expansive age. This it could not by any speculation successfully do; for it required Christ with his divine history to unite the new to the old. Thence it became important to take the right elements that both Rabbinism and Philonism furnished, and reconstruct them into Christian verity. Paul did this largely in regard to Rabbinism in Romans, Colossians, and Galatians. John did this in regard to the Logos, or Word; and in John a shade of the Alexandrian style is distinctly visible, even in the New Testament. In St. Paul such a reconstruction is somewhat performed in Galatians 4:21-31, where see our notes. The same Alexandrianism appears in the speech of Stephen. But its greatest work, after John, is in this Epistle to the Hebrews, and we venture to believe that the work was performed solely by Paul himself. In working this problem it must not be forgotten that Paul had a variety of surface styles, with a wonderful identity of underlying mental style. Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Timothy are remarkably different in surface colorings; yet we feel the one underlying mind of Paul dealing with us in all. There is a great difference in surface, and even in spirit, between the first chapter of Romans and the eighth chapter. The style of that eighth chapter approaches that of Hebrews more than it does that of the first chapter. Specially does Romans 8:18-23 exhibit the same mystical blend of grandeur and slow moving pathos with Hebrews. Who can doubt that 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 and Hebrews 2:7-19 came from the same pen?
Now at Jerusalem there was one or more Alexandrian synagogues, and the speech of St. Stephen shows that an Alexandrian spirit pervaded the air. Among the Alexandrian liberalists of Jerusalem, rather than among the rabbinical bigots, Christianity was likely to prevail. The rabbinical side emphasized the human Messiah, and tended to reject his divinity, and so ran into Ebionism. The Alexandrian preferred the ideal, almost impersonal, Logos-Messiah, and were stumbled at our Lord’s humiliation, weakness, suffering, and death. Philo had taught them this transcendentalism, attenuating the Messiah of prophecy almost into an idealism. It was, then, to save this Alexandrine class of Christians that Paul wrote this epistle. His whole epistle is one great effort to reconstruct Philonean Messianism into Christian Messianism. He begins by affirming all the transcendental grandeur of the Messiah’s origin in the highest style of Philonism; he shows how thereby the very humiliations are as sublime as they are tender. How glorious is his picture of the divine Apostle Messiah; how touching, melting, winning his portraiture of the suffering, dying, priest-victim Messiah! And then all the ritual of Mosaicism is wrought into a vivid symbolism of that divine Sufferer’s expiation. Thereupon with what tearful pathos, yet awful menace, does he warn his Hebrews from apostatizing from this living-dying Christ!
Now let us suppose that having learned the danger of Hebrew apostasy, and, probably, having learned that a large section of the Jerusalem Church had in fact already so apostatized, (note on 6:4,) our apostle, after his release, stopping at Rome—or, as Mr. Lewin suggests, at Puteoli or at Ephesus, (where John’s style shows that Alexandrinism was no stranger,)—had spent some weeks in an intense reading over of the works of Philo and his school, with purpose of this reconstruction. He is about to address a class of thinkers to whom that style is very attractive. Just as he once talked Hebrew to win the Hebrew Jerusalemites, (Acts 22:2,) he can now talk Philo to win these Alexandrian Jerusalemites. His own mind has a side of sympathy for this style, as well as for the measures of the Greek poets, or the wisdom of the rabbies. Partly unconsciously and partly consciously and willingly, he would, at least in parts of his essay—for this style reigns only in parts—adopt the style with which he was then imbued. He will give to his Alexandrians at Jerusalem a better Philo than Philo. And then we shall understand those strange words of the Muratorian fragment, quoted on a previous page, about the “epistle to the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion.” The epistle was truly Paul’s; it was truly addressed to the “Alexandrians,” but to the Alexandrians at Jerusalem; it was, not intentionally but really, a powerful refutation of the “heresy of Marcion;” for Marcion rejected the God of the Old Testament, whereas the very first chapter of Hebrews sublimely identifies the Son with the Father, the Jehovah of the old covenant. PHILO JUDAEUS, born in Egypt a few years before the birth of our Saviour, was a resident of Alexandria, and of priestly rank. He was once ambassador from the Jews to the Roman Emperor Claudius, and was by
Plan of the Epistle.
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 52
marriage allied to the royal house of Judea. In religious philosophy he endeavoured to find all true philosophy, which in his view was mainly identical with Platonism, in the Old Testament. His works, in four volumes, translated by Yonge, form a part of Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library. PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.
PART FIRST.
THE APOSTLE’S ARGUMENT.
I. TRANSCENDENT DIGNITY OF THE SON AS APOSTLE AND HIGH PRIEST INTRODUCTORILY PRESENTED Hebrews 1:1-2:18
1. Transcendent dignity of the Son as divine Apostle of our age Hebrews 1:1-4
2. That transcendence proved by Old Testament texts Hebrews 1:5-14
3. Guilt of disregarding his word proportioned to the dignity of his nature Hebrews 2:1-4
4. Nor are angels lord over this dispensation, but JESUS Hebrews 2:5-8
5. That Lordship assumed that he might be able to suffer for and with our humanity Hebrews 2:9-18
II. THE SON AS OUR DIVINE APOSTLE FULLY CONTEMPLATED Hebrews 3:1-4:13
1. Superior as Son to Moses, who was only servant Hebrews 3:1-6
2. Hence, dread warnings against disobedience to the Son, like the Jews’ disobedience to Moses Hebrews 3:7- Hebrews 4:13 a. Israel’s failure of the divine Rest as warning Hebrews 3:7-11
b. Application of the warning to you Hebrews 3:12-15 c. For was it not the unbeliever that failed of the Rest? Hebrews 3:16-4:2
d. For us, too, remains a rest, a danger, and an adjudging WORD Hebrews 4:3-13
III. THE SON AS OUR DIVINE HIGH PRIEST FULLY CONTEMPLATED Hebrews 4:14-10:18
A. INTRODUCTORY:—
1. Recurrence to former view of our High Priest Hebrews 4:14-16
2. Real qualities of High Priest, exhibited in Christ Hebrews 5:1-10
3. (Parenthetic rebuke for unteachableness and liability to apostasy; encouragement) Hebrews 5:11-6:20
B. FULL UNFOLDING OF THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD:—
1. It is not local and transient, like the Aaronic, but universal and perpetual, like the Melchizedekian Hebrews 7:1-28
2. It is the NEW-DISPENSATIONAL, ANTITYPICAL, TESTAMENTARY, ALL-SUFFICIENT, real High Priesthood and sacrifice of which the whole old-dispensational Priesthood and Ritual were shadows Hebrews 8:1-10:18
1. IT IS NEW-DISPENSATIONAL.—Being the substance of the old shadows, it introduces a new covenant and age Hebrews 8:1-13
2. IT IS ANTITYPICAL Hebrews 9:1-28
a. The (two-fold) tabernacle, with its furniture and priestly service is without worth but as a type Hebrews 9:1-10 b. Of which the heavenly tabernacle, with Christ offering himself, is the antitype Hebrews 9:11-14
c. Testamentary.—(By the death and ascension of our High Priest the new covenant is truly a last will and testament) Hebrews 9:15-18
d. As by a profuse typical bloodshed the earthly ritual things are purified, so with a better sacrifice are the heavenly things consecrated Hebrews 9:19-28
3. IT IS ALL-SUFFICIENT.—Animal blood, being intrinsically worthless for pardon of sin, is antitypically replaced by the all-sufficient self-offered blood Hebrews 10:1-18 a. Animal blood intrinsically worthless for our justification x, 1-4 b. The atonement made by Christ’s submission to the demand for it is ALL-SUFFICIENT Hebrews 10:5-18
PART SECOND.
ADMONITORY, INSPIRATIONAL, AND PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS.
1. ADMONITORY.—Having such a High Priest beware of unbelief tending to apostasy and death Hebrews 10:19-39
2. INSPIRATIONAL.—The glories of Faith in its illustrious examples of old Hebrews 11:1-12:2
3. ADMONITORY.—Review your past history as a lesson of cheerful and hopeful, yet fearful, endurance Hebrews 12:3-17
4. INSPIRATIONAL.—In view of our Mount Zion, so superior to Sinai, let us have grace and confidence Hebrews 12:18-29
5. PERSONAL.—Admonitions and salutations to the Jerusalem Church Hebrews 13:1-21
6. POSTSCRIPT Hebrews 13:22-25