Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Book Overview - Hebrews

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews

Commentary by A. R. Faussett

Introduction

Canonicity and Authorship. — Clement of Rome, at the end of the first century (a.d.), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term “Scripture,” which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the writer, Clement‘s adoption of extracts from it is virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age. Justin Martyr quotes it as divinely authoritative, to establish the titles “apostle,” as well as “angel,” as applied to the Son of God. Clement of Alexandria refers it expressly to Paul, on the authority of Pantaenus, chief of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus is termed in it the “apostle” sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being apostle to the Gentiles. Clement also says that Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing Greek Epistle as Paul‘s words. Origen similarly quotes it as Paul‘s Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as “more Grecian,” but the thoughts as the apostle‘s; adding that the “ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer” (that is, probably “transcriber” of the apostle‘s thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third century, Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in Eusebius, as quoting from this Epistle, though without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius, the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included, there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the second century, or beginning of the third, published by Muratori, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul‘s till a considerable time after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also, Novatian of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, and Victorinus, also of the Latin Church. But in the fourth century, Hilary of Poitiers (a.d. 368), Lucifer of Cagliari (a.d. 371), Ambrose of Milan (a.d. 397) and other Latins, quote it as Paul‘s; and the fifth Council of Carthage (a.d. 419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.

As to the similarity of its style to that of Luke‘s writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul. Chrysostom, comparing Luke and Mark, says, “Each imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than river fullness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style.” Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in this Epistle than in Luke‘s writings. There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom Alford upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and Paul, from his Hebraeo-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and Tarsus, would be familiar with Philo‘s modes of thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a characteristic of Apollos‘ at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in words unadorned by man‘s wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no such danger. And his Hebraeo-Grecian education would enable him to write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations from the Old Testament, excepting two (Hebrews 10:30; Hebrews 13:5), are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and rhythmically constructed periods. Calvin observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew, Hebrews 9:15-17 would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double meaning of the Greek “{(diathece},” a “covenant,” or a “testament,” whereas the Hebrew “{(berith}” means only “covenant.”

Internal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare 2 Corinthians 3:6-18; Galatians 3:23-25; Galatians 4:1-9, Galatians 4:21-31, wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely sanctioned application - a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in Hebrews 1:3, etc., as in other Epistles of Paul (Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15-20), as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering of Himself for man‘s sake similarly, compare Hebrews 2:9, with 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:7, Philippians 2:8. Also His final exaltation, compare Hebrews 2:8; Hebrews 10:13; Hebrews 12:2, with 1 Corinthians 15:25, 1 Corinthians 15:27. The word “Mediator” is peculiar to Paul alone, compare Hebrews 8:6, with Galatians 3:19, Galatians 3:20. Christ‘s death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, compare Romans 3:22-26; 1 Corinthians 5:7, with Hebrews 7:1-10:39. The phrase, “God of Peace,” is peculiar to Paul, compare Hebrews 13:20; Romans 15:33; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Also, compare Hebrews 2:4, Margin, 1 Corinthians 12:4. Justification, or “righteousness by faith.” appears in Hebrews 11:7; Hebrews 10:38, as in Romans 1:17; Romans 4:22; Romans 5:1; Galatians 3:11; Philippians 3:9. The word of God is the “sword of the Spirit,” compare Hebrews 4:12, with Ephesians 6:17. Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as full-grown men, require strong meat, compare Hebrews 5:12, Hebrews 5:13; Hebrews 6:1, with 1 Corinthians 3:1, 1 Corinthians 3:2; 1 Corinthians 14:20; Galatians 4:9; Colossians 3:14. Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by Christ, compare Hebrews 10:19, with Romans 5:2; Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12. Afflictions are a fight, Hebrews 10:32; compare Philippians 1:30; Colossians 2:1. The Christian life is a race, Hebrews 12:1; compare 1 Corinthians 9:24; Philippians 3:12-14. The Jewish ritual is a service, Romans 9:4; compare Hebrews 9:1, Hebrews 9:6. Compare “subject to bondage,” Hebrews 2:15, with Galatians 5:1. Other characteristics of Paul‘s style appear in this Epistle; namely, a propensity “to go off at a word” and enter on a long parenthesis suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by “and again,” compare Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 2:12, Hebrews 2:13, with Romans 15:9-12. Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare Hebrews 2:8, with 1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 1:22. Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the Septuagint, and with the addition “saith the Lord,” not found in the Hebrew, in Hebrews 10:30; Romans 12:19.