exegeting hebrews

Exegesis of Hebrews

One of the most noteworthy things about the Letter to the Hebrews is that its authorship is unknown. While anonymous authorship is not exactly unusual for books in the Bible, it is somewhat unusual given the context of Hebrews. Hebrews is grouped among the letters. The other letters have known authors, most notably Paul. In fact, Hebrews is sometimes attributed to Paul, despite the fact that "even early Christian scholars...recognized that its style is quite different from that of Paul's letters. Not only do most modern scholars think that there is insufficient evidence to attribute Hebrews to Paul, but they actually do not believe that it is possible to name Paul as Hebrews' author. "The Greek of the epistle is very different from that of Paul, the author writing in a careful and elaborate style and employing a quite distinctive vocabulary." Furthermore, the author's treatment of Judaism differs vastly from Paul's, which not only rules out Paul as the author, but also suggests that the author was not one of Paul's disciples. In fact, although somewhat similar in style to Biblical authors and prominent Christians of its time period, Hebrews is sufficiently unique to make determining the author impossible; therefore, the authorship of Hebrews remains anonymous.

Although the author of Hebrews is unknown, one can make several education assumptions about the author. For example, one may infer that the author is a second-generation Christian by examining the text of Hebrews:

In Heb 2:3, the author implies that he was not an apostle or even an eyewitness of the events in Jesus' life. He writes, "Which [salvation] began to be spoken through the Lord was confirmed to us by those who heard him." The author includes himself with the readers as among those who were dependent upon the testimony of the original eyewitnesses and transmitters of authoritative traditions about Jesus.

Furthermore, the author indicates that he knows Timothy, which narrows the field of potential authors, but not in a conclusive manner because it is unlikely that even Timothy's contemporaries could have named all of his acquaintances, and such a task is an absolute impossibility for modern scholars. What does appear clear is that the author was not an apostle; he certainly does not make any claims in Hebrews that he is an apostle or that he has any type of "ecclesiastical authority over the readers." These internal clues as to authorship suggest that Hebrew's writer was not responsible for any other books in the Bible. This conclusion is bolstered when one examines the vocabulary found in the original Greek text. "The Letter to the Hebrews has 154 hapaxlegomena, words that are found in it but nowhere else in the New Testament."

The fact that Hebrews' author is unknown makes it even more difficult to determine when it was written. It was clearly written before 95 C.E., because I Clement was written in that year and it heavily quoted Hebrews. In addition, it is unlikely that Hebrews was written immediately following the death of Christ, because Hebrews contains a substantial elaboration of Christian doctrine, which was unlikely to exist in the years or even decades immediately following Christ's death. Therefore, Biblical scholars suggest that Hebrews was written between 60 C.E. And 95 C.E. In addition, some scholars believe that Hebrews had to have been written during a much narrower period of time. For example:

The reference to Timothy's imprisonment suggests a date subsequent to the last of Paul's epistle, and, if the epistle is meant for Roman Christians, the persecution of Nero in a.D. 64 appears to be referred to as past (10: 32-34); some leading Christians of the community are already dead (13:7). On the other hand a strict interpretation of 8:4 may imply that the temple at Jerusalem has not yet been destroyed, if the reference is to the temple and not, as has been suggested by some critics, to 'the tabernacle of the written law'. A date about a.D. 66 is perhaps most probable, but the epistle may be as late as a.D. 80.

Other scholars have used internal references in Hebrews to further narrow the window of authorship, suggesting that it had to be written before 70 C.E., because the author refers to Jerusalem as if it is still standing, and Jerusalem destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E.

Furthermore, while Hebrews is classed with the Letters of the New Testament, this placement is somewhat arbitrary. The ending of the book suggests that it was some type of communication from afar, as it states "Those from Italy send you greetings." However, the text from Hebrews differs substantially from the text of other books classed with the Letters. Many of the other Letters are classified by known recipients and are written in a style that reflects communication between two people or between a person and a discrete group of people. In contrast, little is known about the actual intended audience for Hebrews. In fact, the title of the book is mere conjecture; the author refers to his audience members as brothers and sisters, but without knowing the identify of the author, it is impossible to know his exact target audience. Despite this difficulty, one can accurately identify some characteristics of the author's target audience. Because the author repeatedly references Jewish history and religious tradition, one may assume that he expected his audience to understand the significance of these references. Therefore, one may make the supposition that the audience members were of Jewish descent or had an extensive understanding of Judaism. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the author is concerned that "the readers are in danger of reverting to participation in the Levitical sacrificial system, which would only be possible for Jews." Additionally, "the fact that the author attempts to convince his readers not to revert to participation in the Levitical sacrificial system implies that they are in or near Jerusalem because Jews farther away from the Temple would not have the same opportunity to take part in the Temple cult." It is important to keep in mind that the fact that the audience was Jewish did not mean that they were not Christian, because early Christians retained their Jewish identity. In fact, the author is clearly Christian and is writing to an audience of Christians. In addition, internal references support the idea that the author was writing to a subgroup of people within a larger group. For example:

The author distinguishes the readers from their "leaders" and "the rest of the saints" (Heb 13:24); the implication is that the readers are a sub-group of the church in the city where they reside. What distinguishes them from their leaders and other believers presumably are the issues dealt with in the letter. The author may view the readers as the potential leadership of the larger Christian community to which they belong (Heb 5:12; 10:25). But the readers have not reached their potential as teachers (Heb 5:12), and have separated themselves off from those they should have been teaching (Heb 10:25).

Furthermore, historical analysis has helped demonstrate why Hebrews was written. Early Christians were under immense pressure to return to Judaism rather than continue the development of the early Christian church. Early Christians were "harassed, jibed, persecuted, martyred, and ostracized for abandoning Judaism and following Jesus of Nazareth. Many Jewish Christians succumbed to this increasing pressure and simply found it easier to return to Judaism with its...tangible evidences of God's supposedly eternal covenant with Israel." This pressure was especially significant for second-generation Christians, many of whom had become disillusioned by what they may have seen as a delay in the fulfillment of the promise of Christ. "The author intends to forestall such an apostasy by explaining to them the full salvation-theological significance of Christ's death and resurrection/exaltation." An internal examination of Hebrews supports the idea that it was written to encourage and enforce Christianity by refuting misconceptions about Christianity and Levitical Judaism. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Hebrews is essentially "a refutation of those theological views that are incompatible with his assumption of the salvation-historical supremacy of Christ." While the author does not explicitly state what aspects of Levitical Judaism he seeks to refute:

One can reconstruct those deficient views that the readers held or were inclined to hold by negating the author's own affirmations (the so-called method of "mirror-reading"). These views may relate to the salvation-historical role of angels, including Melchizedek, the nature of work of the Davidic Messiah and the expectation of a priestly Messiah, the Davidic Messiah's status relative to Moses, the Levitical priesthood and its connection to the angelic priesthood and whether the Law is eternal. The views that the readers probably held or were moving towards are consistent with Second-Temple Judaism. It must be kept in mind, however, that the author argues extensively from typology. In typological interpretation a person, place, thing or event in the Old Testament functions to foreshadow an eschatological reality to which it is analogically or functionally similar. Unless the author's typological approach is appreciated, the interpreter may wrongly assume that the author is making literal statements about the salvation-historical significance of Christ.

The fact that Hebrews was originally written in Greek does not provide any substantial or definitive help in the search for author or audience. During the time period in which Hebrews had to be composed, Christians in Rome spoke Greece. In fact, Hellenism had much of Western Europe and the modern-day Middle East familiar with Greek. This familiarity would have been even more likely among educated groups, and is highly unlikely that uneducated people would have had the ability to read or write. While there was some early suggestion that Hebrews was originally written in a language other than Greek, it seems highly unlikely that that was the case:

That the Letter to the Hebrews was originally written in Greek is suggested by the fact that the vast majority of Old Testament quotations in the work are taken from the Septuagint (LXX) even when the LXX differs from the Hebrew text...Of the thirty-eight quotations from twenty-two Old Testament passages, only six do not agree with LXXA or LXXB...To argue that the translator of the alleged original Hebrew or Aramaic text simply used the LXX version of Old Testament when translating the letter into Greek, however, does not seem possible, because, in some cases, the author's argument depends upon the LXX reading, on "peculiarities of the LXX."

It is very important for a reader to understand that the fact that Hebrews was originally written in Greek does not make it a Hellenistic text. Such an assumption was common until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However:

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has necessitated a fundamental shift in the approach to the interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Religious terminology in the letter once thought to express concepts adapted from Hellenistic Judaism were discovered to exist in these Palestinian Jewish texts from the second-Temple period; thus in many cases it was no longer necessary and indeed actually misleading to interpret the author's assertions exclusively against a Hellenistic religious-historical background, and especially Jewish adaptations of Platonism. The strong eschatological thread that runs through is thoroughly consistent with Palestinian Jewish thought, as represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such an interest in salvation-history militates against an interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews in exclusively Platonic terms. This is not so say that the author never made use of Hellenistic Jewish ideas, but only that his basic orientation is not Hellenistic, in spite of writing in Greek... It seems more probable that the Letter to the Hebrews should be interpreted against the conceptual world of Palestinian Judaism, especially as it finds expression in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This means that the intended readers, whose erroneous views on various matters the author attempts to correct, should be understood as Greek-speaking Jewish Christians who were largely non-Hellenistic in their theological outlook.

Furthermore, the fact that Hebrews was most likely originally written in Greece does lend some reliability to modern-day translations. Unlike many Old-Testament books, whose originals are in dead languages, Hebrews was originally written in a language that continues to thrive today. Therefore, it is possible for a modern person to read Hebrews in the original language in which it was written. Furthermore, the fact that the original was written in a living language seems to have minimized the problems with incorrect and inaccurate translations. Of course, as in any translation, there are times in Hebrews were a translator has been forced to choice between multiple possible translations for a word. It does not appear that any of these translations have compromised the integrity or meaning of the original text. As a result, one can come to the conclusion that one's understanding of Hebrews would not be dramatically impacted by reading a translation instead of the original text. Such a statement could not be made if the original language of Hebrews was something other than Greek:

The argument about the necessary connection between the ratification of a covenant and death in Heb 9:16-17 depends upon the dual meaning of the Greek diath k: "covenant" and "last will." The fact that the author's argument only works in Greek, insofar as he depends on the dual meaning of diath k (covenant and last will), which is not possible if he were writing in Hebrew or Aramaic, confirms that the original language of composition was Greek.

Furthermore, this duality reinforces the idea that God's new covenant was realized by Jesus' sacrifice, and was the same as Jesus' will.

In fact, the equality between Jesus and God, as signified by the duality of the covenant and a will, may be the most important element of Hebrews. Throughout the Bible, different men are referred to as the sons of God, but in a different manner than references to Jesus as the Son. "God has many sons, but only one Son...This term, as used by our Lord, and as understood by the Jews, not only signified divine relationship, but divine equality." In fact, Jesus is referred to as "son" frequently in Hebrews, and "it may be said that this concept colors all the others, for again and again it is precisely because Jesus is Son that the other titles and functions have special meaning." It is important to keep in mind that Jesus was not only the Son of God, but also the son of man:

As in relation to God, so here in relation to men and women, the Semitic expression "son of..." is designed to establish Jesus' character and definitive quality. What makes a human being to be a human being is characteristic of Jesus (2:10-17). What this means is that, on the one hand, Jesus is not merely a good man pretending to be deity; he is Immanuel, "God with us" (Matt. 1:23); on the other hand, it means Jesus is not God pretending to be human; he is a real human being.

The dual nature of Jesus is important when trying to understand why Hebrews states that He alone can attain perfection. This reference to perfection does not suggest that Jesus is the only person capable of adhering to all of the Levitical laws or of behaving in a manner that is pleasing to God. On the contrary, the word "perfection" as used in Hebrews:

Does not relate to morals but to functional completeness. Jesus is completely equipped to function as mediator between God and humanity. The certification of Jesus' "perfection" (teleiosis) is the reality and fulness of his sonship: he is not merely like God, for as "Son" he is creator, sustainer, and heir of all things (1:2, 10); also he is not merely like human beings for as "Son" he authenticates and completes his humanity in real suffering (2:10; 5:8, 9; 7:27, 28). The practical meaning in all of this is that to lose either of these two vital truths is to destroy Jesus' functional completeness as our effective intermediary.

While Jesus' dual nature as the Son of God and the Son of Man is an important element of Hebrews, it only hints at the true emphasis of Hebrews, which is that Jesus is the Messiah. While the book does not open with Messianic statements, those statements are essential to an understanding of Hebrews. It is difficult for a modern reader to understand how controversial and revolutionary it was for a person to be named the Messiah. However, given that Messianic prophecies formed a cornerstone of ancient Judaism, it should be clear that Messianic statements were important to establish the central tenet of modern Christianity. It is equally important to realize that not all early Christian writings contained references to Jesus as the Messiah. In fact, some early Christians followed Jesus because of his abilities as a priest and teacher, rather than because of any belief that he was the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel. Therefore, Hebrew's examination of how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies can be considered its greatest contribution to the establishment of modern Christianity:

Nowhere else in the New Testament is the doctrine of "the Christ" so fully elaborated as in Hebrews. Each aspect of Jesus' messiahship is connected with its preparatory signs in the Old Testament, Hebrews being eager to show that Jesus took as his inheritance and fulfilled all that was typified in those signs. The implicit belief that what is everywhere latent in the Old Testament becomes patent in the Christ provides the rationale for the Old Testament quotations used messianically in Hebrews. The writer saw not merely this or that Old Testament text as prophetic, but the whole Book as one vast prophecy. It is assumed that a divine counsel was given to, and is discernible in, the course of the life of Israel; that we can see in "the people of God" signs of the purpose of God for humanity. In this way the whole history is prophetic.

In addition to referring to Jesus as Christ, the author of Hebrews bestows two other important titles upon him. The author of Hebrews refers to Jesus most frequently as "High Priest" and "priest." While Jesus is repeatedly referred to as a teacher or preacher, "nowhere else in the New Testament is Jesus called our High Priest. This, however, is the distinctive feature of Hebrews and the main point of the book (8:1)." With this title, Hebrews establishes Jesus' humanity. "This is so because it is the essence of priesthood to form a link between humanity and God: they are selected from among human beings to function on their behalf in God-ward matters (Heb. 5:1)." Hebrews' designation of Jesus as High Priest is not simply a recognition of Him as a religious leader. Instead, it is a recognition of Jesus as "God's ideal for humankind, the ideal union between God and humanity (2:10ff)."

In addition, Hebrews refers to Jesus consistently as "Lord." In the original Greek the term "Lord" or Kurios, had several substantial meanings, which were based upon both the connotation and the denotation of the term:

The title has a Jewish as well as a Greek background, both of which are significant for its meaning in the New Testament. To Greek-speaking Jews in New Testament times the title kurios was familiar as the name of Jehovah in their Greek Old Testament. This is particularly relevant to the Book of Hebrews since all of its quotations are taken from the Greek version (the Septuagint), indicating familiarity with this translation on the part of both author and readers. When Hebrews refers to Jesus as "the Lord," it is identifying him with the God of the Old Testament. And that is to say that, for a first-century Jewish-Christian reader, Jesus inherited a name than which none could be more excellent (1:4). The title "Lord" was also very important in the ancient non-Jewish world. It is the special title for the Roman emperor. Indeed, its use by the votaries of the emperor cults may well have provoked the early Christian community to the counterformulation KURIOS IESOUS, "Jesus is Lord" (for example, Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3). Here the name "Jesus" has been deliberately substituted for the name of the emperor, and signifies the early Christians' conscious allegiance to none but the King of kings and Lord of lords.

Therefore, the use of the term "Lord" was extremely important: it identified Jesus as God and also revealed that for Christians religion would take priority over secular allegiance.

Of course, Jesus' various titles in Hebrews only provide a background for the message of Hebrews, which is the supremacy of Jesus. The author gives several reasons to support his assertion that Jesus is supreme. First, the author states that God has spoken through Jesus. Next, the author asserts that Jesus is superior to the angels. The author goes on to describe how Jesus was exalted through abasement. Fourth, the author differentiates between Jesus and the prophets and elders found in the Old Testament. Fifth, the author speaks of Jesus as the High Priest. Next, the author describes Jesus as the mediator of a better covenant. Then the author differentiates between Levitical sacrifices and Jesus' sacrifice.

First, the author refers to Jesus as the voice of God. He reminds his audience that God used to speak through the prophets. The author then reminds the audience that God no longer uses prophets to convey his messages. On the contrary, God has chosen to speak to His people through Jesus. Combined with other New Testament references that suggest that Jesus' is the pentacle of the Jewish faith, this statement supports the notion that no prophets will come after Jesus, because God no longer has a reason to use any mere human as a means to convey his message.

Hebrews describes Jesus as "the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being." In this way, Jesus is superior to the angels. After all, God never offered to be a father to the angels. In fact, God says that the angels are to worship Jesus. Jesus is "anointed beyond his companions," and His throne is forever. God has asked Jesus to sit at his right hand, so that God can make Jesus' enemies a footstool for his feet. In addition, when choosing to send His Son as salvation, God did not choose to send Jesus to save the angels, but instead sent him to save mankind.

The author points out that Jesus did not attain his supremacy by being treated in an elevated manner. On the contrary, Jesus was exalted through abasement. Jesus "for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." God chose to use suffering as his means of perfecting Jesus. Jesus' considered mankind his siblings, therefore, he chose to share flesh and blood with them, "so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death."

Although Jesus became "like his brothers and sister in every respect," it is important to note that Hebrews differentiates Jesus from the rest of the mankind, at the same time that it attempts to stress Jesus' humanity and duality. Jesus' supremacy is made clear by the author's comparisons of Jesus with other Biblical figures. The author boldly proclaims that "Jesus is worthy of more glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself." Such a statement was incredibly bold, since Moses was probably the most influential and respected of the Old Testament prophets. In fact, while Jesus may have been the last of God's prophets, the fact that Moses was the first of the prophets may have left some question as to which of the two deserved more respect and admiration. According to the author of Hebrews, this confusion would have been misplaced because Jesus the builder of the nation of Israel. Moses is not the only Old Testament figure to be compared to Jesus; he is also compared to Abraham, Abel, Enoch, and Noah. What is most interesting about the comparison to Abraham is that Jesus and Abraham have few similarities. On the contrary, the fact that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac is reminiscent of God's sacrifice of Jesus for the sake of mankind, and might actually tempt on to compare Jesus and Isaac. Furthermore, the fact that God spared Isaac serves as a reminder of God's mercy. Juxtaposed in a book that celebrates Jesus and his inevitable death, one comes to a greater appreciation of God's mercy and tenderness when he spared Isaac's life. The fact that Abraham's son lived, while God's son died, was extremely important in establishing the importance of His people to God. Furthermore, the author highlights the differences between the blessings received by the elders and the blessings of Jesus. While Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Abel, and Moses all received blessings from God, those blessings were the result of faith. However, Jesus relationship with God was even more spectacular than the relationship these elders had to go. "Yet all these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect."