Showing posts with label Hebrews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hebrews. Show all posts

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Christological of Hebrews


In Hebrews the use of the O.T. is mainly Christological. Christ is the crucial figure in the fulfillment of the O.T. text. The preacher does not refer to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Covenant and priestly institutions as revealed in the Pentateuch.Christ stands in continuity with this system by fulfilling it.”[1] Christ is the goal of the Old Testament revelation. It appears that the readers had an insufficient view of Christ and His work, grace, and the Abrahamic promise. Cockerill observes: “To practice the old before Christ was to anticipate his fulfillment, to practice it after, however, is to deny his sufficiency.”[2] The theme is Christ being superior to the Old Testament ritualism— ritualism that is coming to an end. Christ’s superiority is brought out by the continued use of the word “better,” indicating Christ is better than the angels, Moses, and Abraham. One of the most significant Christological statements in Scripture is Hebrews 1:3-4, which centers upon His person. Christ is the Son of God, the Savior, and exalted Lord. The preacher presents one of the strongest theologies of Christ of the New Testament. The theology sections include:
  • He is the revelation of God (1:1-4).
  • He is superior to the angels (1:5-2:18)
  • He is superior to Moses (3:1-4:13).
  • He is the Sympathetic High Priest (4:14-5:10).
  • He is the Priest like Melchizedek (7:1-28).
  • High Priest is made perfect by Sacrifice (8:1-28)
  • Christ the Perfect Sacrifice (10:18)

The sermon centers upon Christ as High Priest (8:1, 13:10), which is the author’s most distinctive contribution to Christology. Only He deals with this subject. The doctrine of Christ’s High Priesthood is the theological center of the epistle.[3]


[1]  Gareth Lee Cockerill, NICNT: HEBREWS, 21.
[2]  Ibid, 40.
[3]  David MacLeod, “The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews,” BIBLIOTHECA-SACRA, July 1989, 293.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

COMMENTS ON HEBREWS 2:2

"For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty" Heb. 2:2



For it” is a conditional conjunction, many translations render it “since.” It is assumed to be true. “The speaker draws his audience to just such a connection, basing his argument on what both speaker and audience already embrace as true.[1]

The steadfastness of the revelation by angels. “The word spoken through angels proved unalterable” (2:2) is a statement of fact. There is some question about what the angels indicate in this text. There are two main views: (1) this view holds that the Greek word translated angel means messenger and refers to men, not spiritual beings.[2] Thus, the word relates to the Lord’s earthly ministry whose words were recorded. There is some credit to this view in the text which refers to a message that they heard (2:1). However, it seems to me not to be consistent with the context of chapters 1-2 of Christ being better than the angels. (2) It is more likely referring to the angels revealing the word of God. This is especially true of the role they played in the giving of the Law (Exodus 19 cf. Deut. 33:2, Acts 7:38). The text of verse 2 has a strong accumulation of judicial jargon.[3] First, we have the word unalterable (bebaios) meaning firm, stable, sure, steadfast, or established. Schlier says it indicates a legal valid confirmation that is actual, effective and forceful[4] The word carries the idea of a legal guarantee. Second, is the phrase “every transgression and disobedience.” The Greek word for transgression (parabasis) means a stepping by the side, a transgression, and a violation of law. It is a legal term for breaking the law. The word disobedience is the Greek word parokoe, found only three times in the New Testament (Heb. 2:2, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 10:6). It means a deviation from obedience; disobedience. It is a deviation from the legal standard. Third, is the result of transgression and disobedience is “a just penalty.” The word penalty (misthapodosia) means the discharge of wages, or getting what is due. The penalty is described as just (endios) indicating fair and just. These terms and phrases confirm or reinforce the word spoken by the angels at Sinai. It is the language of the Law which they delivered to Moses. It was not just a religious document, but a legal one with its provisions of blessings and judgments. It was steadfast legally. Newell gives an excellent summary: “The argument of the verse is: If the Law ordained through angels, who were creatures, brought just recompense, how much rather when the Lord Himself comes and speaks, and men rejected or neglect His word!”[5]           



[1]  Daniel Wallace, BEYOND THE BASICS, 694
[2]  Robert C. Brock, HEBREWS: A VERSE BY VERSE COMMENTARY,  16.
[3]  William Lane, WBC: HEBREWS 1-8, 37.
[4]  Schlier, “bebaios,” (Kittle) TDNT,  1:602.
[5]  William R. Newell, HEBREWS: VERSE OR VERSE, 37. 

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Ages or world?

Hebrews 1:2




The Son is the agent of creation—“through whom also he made the world” (1:2). The idea of agent is clearly indicated by the prepositional phrase: “through whom.” There is some debate, however, as to the meaning of the Greek word aionas, translated world in all the major translations. This is not the normal Greek word for world (kosmos). The word used here primarily means a period of time, an area, duration, or age. It is clear that time is an element of the word. Sasse notes it is “a long but limited stretch of time...signifies the time of duration of the world, i.e. limited by creation and conclusion.”[1] However, he also points out that the word “can pass over into that of the ‘world’ itself, so that aiwn approximates closely to kosmos” (Matt. 13:22; Mark 4:19; 1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6; 3:19).[2] Many identify the word strictly as synonymous with the material universe, i.e. the physical world.[3] I believe such a narrow view is a mistake, and that it should be translated “through whom he made the ages.” I hold this view based on the following:

(1) Making it synonymous fails to take into account the full meaning of the Greek word by dismissing or doing away with the time element of the word. The common meaning is age. While it is said that its meaning here and in Hebrews 11:3 cannot be restricted to “ages,”[4] neither can the restricted view of the material universe be upheld.
(2) This does not dismiss the material universe, but suggests the plan or course of ages through which the material universe must past. Just as the physical material world must follow its set course in the universe, so it must follow the set course of the ages or dispensations in the plan and purpose of God.
 (3) The text is plural in the Greek it is not limited to the material world. The singular would have been used if it were speaking simple of the material world.
(4) Both the ages and world were created at the same time (Gen. 1). Time is clearly an element of creation, seen clearly by the dividing of evening and morning. Also it is indicate by the word days in Genesis 1. Time is a clear element of creation.

I agree with Newell, aionasrefer(s) to those processes in each age by which God is bringing to pass His great purpose.[5] God has ordered and arranged the ages through Christ. 




[1] H. Sasses, aiwn,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, [Eerdmans, Grand Rapids], 1:202.
[2] Ibid, 204. 
[3] Hughes, HEBREWS, [Eerdmans, Grand Rapids], 39-49; Ellingworth, NIGTC; HEBREWS, [Eerdmans, Grand Rapids],96
[4] F.F. Bruce, NINTC; HEBREWS, [Eerdmans, Grand Rapids], 4.
[5]  William R. Newell, HEBREWS: VERSE BY VERSE, [Moody Press, Chicago, 1947], 10.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Chart on Hebrews - Son

Chart 1: THE “SON” IN HEBREWS


Hebrews
Text
Doctrine
1:2
Spoken to us in His Son
Revelation
1:5
You are my Son
He shall be a Son to Me
Deity / Sonship
1:8
But of the Son He says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever
Deity / Eternalness / Kingship
2:6
Son of Man
Incarnation
3:6
Christ [was faithful] as a Son over His house
Faithfulness / Messiahship
4:14
We have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God
Great high priest / Ascension / Deity
5:5
You are my Son, Today I have begotten you
Sonship / Incarnation / Deity
5:8
He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered
Incarnation / Faithful / Humility / Suffering One
6:6
Since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame
Work of Christ
7:3
Make like the Son of God
Type of Melchizedek priesthood / Eternalness 
7:28
[Appoints] a Son, made perfect forever
Deity / Perfection / Superiority of Christ
10:29
How much severer punishment…who has trampled under foot the Son of God
Judgment

Sunday, May 11, 2014

REVIEW: INTERPRETING THE GENERAL LETTERS by Bateman

INTERPRETING THE GENERAL LETTERS: AN EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK by Herbert W. Bateman IV, Kregel, Grand Rapids, 2013


This is another volume of the “Handbooks for New Testament Exegesis” series. Like the earlier work of Paul’s Letters the same helpful layout is found. It has the same basic features:
  1. Each chapter begins with an overview and ends with a summary of the chapter.  This aids the reader in knowing where the chapter is going.
  2. There are very usable charts within the chapters that are understandable.
  3. A selected bibliography at the end.
  4. He also has a glossary at the end for terms an average reader may not understand.

This volume on the General Letters is surprisingly over 100 pages larger than the one on Paul’s letters. This gives an indication of Bateman’s quality and quantity of his work. Of course, these general letters are Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, and Jude. This classification implies that Hebrews is not a Pauline letter.  

He opens his work on the “Genre of the General Letters” (Chapter 1). In this he gives the parts of the letters and shows that these writers follow the normal form of Ancient letters of the time. He shows how each letter follows the form. He also has an excellent section on professional writers which was greatly needed because of the low literary rates at the time, and pseudonymity. He notes that using professional amanuenses (writers) was normal at the time.

He then moves on to the “Background of the General Letters” (Chapter 2). In this chapter, he takes a look at the Greco-Roman world with special interest in the Judean-Roman relationship. He points out some of the implications for interpretation because of the relationship, which he says will vary from book to book. He does center upon wisdom (James), household codes (1 Peter), and rebellion (Jude), all of which speak to human experience rooted in the Greco-Roman world.

He now takes a look at the “Theology of the General Letters” (Chapter 3). He first presents the overview of the theology of the Bible is built on the strategic plan of Promise and Fulfillment. He sees the Old Testament presenting the Promise. The New Testament is the era of fulfillment of the promise. “The church period is a time in which God relates with all people through Jesus because God inaugurates His kingdom-redemption promises through him” (page 104). These letters indicate the kingdom portion of his program has been activated through Jews. It is fair to say he views the promise activated redemptively in the church, but complete promise fulfillment is in the millennial period. He is correct that the kingdom theme is evident in these letters representing it in the already/not yet viewpoint. He presents somewhat a dispensational view of eschatology. On a more practical aspect of theology he shows these letters center around a perseverance and conduct of the believer. He points to a strong ethic emphasis in these letters. He then moves to a Biblical theology of each letter to identify the main theme of each letter. To sum up it up, he sees the emphasis as:
  • Hebrews—Apostasy verses perseverance
  • Petrine Letters—Godliness in suffering
  • Johannine Letter—Relationship with God is determined by believing the truth.
  • James and Jude—Living wisely and impartially with other people.

Since this is a handbook on interpreting the text, Chapter 4 deals with “Preparing to Interpret the General Letters.” The first three important steps out of the seven he gives overall. They are:
  • Step 1: Initiate a Translation
  • Step 2: Identify Interpretive Issues
  • Step 3: Isolate Major Textual Problems
At this point he becomes more directed and detailed on Exegesis. He gives a step by step process and examples on how to do the process. This chapter would be of interest to those who are interested in the history of translation and manuscripts. He also spends time on how to use the Greek text. He points out some key reference works and programs to aid in this task.

Chapter 5 is on “Interpreting Passages in the General Letters.” Here he continues his points of interpretation started in the last chapter:
  • Step 4: Interpreting Structures
  • Step 5: Interpreting Style, Syntax, and Semantics
  • Step 6: Interpreting Greek Words
He talks and gives examples of finding structure, and points to main verbs of independent clauses and important connectors along with the how verbs or verbals of a dependent clause are vital to determine structure. He shows importance of style by using Hebrews 1:1-4; syntax by looking at 1 John; and semantics looking at 1 Peter. On interpreting Greek words he deals with some of the difficult words in Jude. He clearly shows that exegesis must be done with the Greek text.  

Chapter 6 takes up the subject “Communicating the General Letters.” He completes the step format in this chapter: His last three steps are:
  • Step 7: Communicating Exegetically
  • Step 8: Communicating the Central Idea
  • Step 9: Communicating Homiletically
He shows these steps by using 3 John. He clearly shows that proper communication of the text is built one step at a time. The process (preparation; interpretation; communication) is hard work, but it pays off in the transmission of the truth of each letter. Communication of the text must be built on the exegetical structure of the letter.

Chapter 7 is entitled “From Exegesis to Exposition of the General Letters.” In it he gives an exposition of Jude vv.5-7 and Hebrews 10:19-25. In each he works through the steps he has just given. In each passage he gives the Greek text; the critical issues of the text; the exegetical outline; and the exposition of the text.

Overall, this is an excellent handbook for the exegesis of the General Letters. I am disappointed in one aspect; he does not fully capture the important Jewish aspect of these letters.  However, I found it insightful and helpful guide. Anyone doing work on the General Letters must have this book. It is designed for Bible students, Pastors, and teachers. It would make a good textbook for the academic study of the General Letters or on the subject of exegesis.


I received this book free from Kregel Academic in exchange for the review. I was not required to write a positive review, and the opinions are my own.  

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF HEBREWS

INTRODUCTION

The book of Hebrews is one of the most difficult, debated, misunderstood, letters of the New Testament. It is one of the most profound theological works in the New Testament. It is full of Old Testament quotes and allusions concerning Christ and Israel. It speaks not of the Gentiles. It is a letter to the Hebrew people. Because of the nature of the epistles, the early church was reluctant to accept the epistle. This was in spite of early evidences and use by those in the church. The evidence of use is one of the earliest of the letters referred to by Clement of Rome around 95 AD. We find quotes and references in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others of the second century. The biggest problem was apostolic authorship. It became part of the canon in 393 AD. It was included because apostolic authorship was not necessary to be included, only apostolic association (such as Mark). Many early fathers believed Paul wrote the epistle, in early canons it was include in the grouping of Paul’s epistles.[1]

AUTHORSHIP

The authorship is unknown. The writer does not give his name. This has led to much debate and speculation in the history of the church as to who actually wrote the letter. Included candidates are: Paul,[2] Luke[3], Barnabas,[4] Priscilla,[5] Silvanus, Apollos[6], Peter,[7] Jude, Mary the mother of Jesus,[8] and even Clement of Rome. However, there is no clear answer. As early as Origen, the Alexandrian church father who died about A.D. 255, says no one knew who the writer was for sure.

The internal evidence consists of the following:[9]
·         He was a Hellenistic Jewish believer.
·         He was not an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus (Heb. 2:3)
·         He knew Paul, if not in person, by his companions.
·         He had a good knowledge of the Old Testament.
·         He had knowledge of Paul’s writings (13:22-25 cf. with ending Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians).
·         He knew Timothy (13:23).

Evidence seems to point to someone from the Pauline circle, if not Paul. Brock gives the following evidences for Paul.[10] They fall in with what we know of Paul and implications from the text.

·         Hebrews 13:5 is common to Paul’s closing in his epistles.
·         The mention of Timothy, his companion.
·         Paul knew the Law and the Old Testament.
·         Peter confirms that Paul wrote to his people (2 Peter 3:15-16).
·         Paul had a ministry to Israel (Acts 9:15).
·         The fact that the Law [Old Covenant] was passing (Heb. 8:13) is in line with Paul (2 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:15, Col. 2:14).
·         There are 92 unique Pauline expressions in Hebrews.[11]

While I lean toward a Pauline authorship, or at least someone from the Pauline circle as the writer. I, nor another else, can state dogmatically who wrote the book. A consensus against Paul has developed in the last 100 years or so. However, the view is not completely dead. Some do not so easily dismiss the patristic evidence, which may be inconclusive, but is present all the same. There are still scholar’s willing to argue for the Pauline authorship (W. Leonard; E. Linnemann; D.A. Black). Cockerill observes: “It is clear that Pauline authorship was defended in order to sustain Hebrews’ canonical status. In the end, however, the greatest biblical scholars of the ancient church (Origen, Jerome) affirmed Hebrews’ worth and canonical status despite doubts over Pauline authorship.[12] It is best not to speculate, or at least not to be dogmatic on whom the human author may have been—the true author is God (2 Tim 3:16). In referring to Origen’s statement that only God knows who wrote Hebrews, Kistemaker makes a wise observation: “If scholars at the dawn of the Christian era did not know who wrote Hebrews, we certainly will not rise above them.”[13]

TO WHOM WRITTEN.

There is no question that the letter was written to Hebrews who had accepted Christ (Heb. 3:1). While the nationality of the readers is known, the location of the readers is just as mysterious as the authorship. Although, it has been argued in the last century that the book of Hebrews was for a Gentile audience,[14] it has generally not been accepted. It seems to be clear that the author of the Hebrews believed his readers to be Jews, acquainted with the Old Testament, and the rituals of Judaism, as well as Moses and the Law.[15] Yet, they were immature in the knowledge of the Word (Heb. 5:11-14). Gentiles where unlikely to have the Old Testament knowledge that this letter demands. The only geographical reference is the book is to Italy (13:24). However, it is hard to determine if it used in the sense of location of the writer or the destination of the letter. There are three major debated positions as to the location of the readers:

First, Alexandria in Egypt. This is mainly based upon the fact that the earliest manuscript we have comes from there and it was where there was a large Jewish population. Alexandria did have the largest population of Jews of any city outside the land of Israel.

Second, Rome had a strong Jewish population and the presence of a reference to Italy in the letter. However, it is argued that there were many of Rome who lived outside the city of Rome. The writer is in an area were there is a Roman population and he is sending their greetings back to Rome. Likewise, Timothy was known by the Roman churches. It seems that Hebrews 12:4 presents a problem, since the book was probably written during or after Nero’s persecution of believers in Rome. Hughes points out that the suggestion “that these particular Christians in Rome had avoided martyrdom in the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64 by associating themselves closely with the Jews and their synagogue worship” is unlikely. By this time Jews would not have been “antipathetic to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[16]  Another factor in favor of the Rome destination is Hebrews connection with the book of 1 Clement, which contains the earliest reference to the book of Hebrews. 1 Clement was written from Rome.  In the final analysis, “apart from the reference to “those from Italy” (13:24), there is not much to suggest a Roman destination.[17] However, it has arisen as the main view for the destination of Hebrews.

Third, is Palestine or possibly Antioch. These seems the most natural destinations and should not be overlooked. Bruce sees the readers as Jewish believers who never knew or heard Jesus, and leaned of Him secondhand (cf. 2:3f).[18] In support, the author attempts to convince his readers not to revert back to participate in the Levitical sacrificial system subject in or near the Temple. I hold this view and that it was most likely written to the believing priest of Acts 6:7. It reports that “a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” During this time, there were some 20,000 priests in the land of which it is reported that 7,200 were connected with the temple[19]. If only a small minority believed it would still be a goodly number. For example if the believing priests were:
                                    1%       = 200 priests
                                    2.5%    = 500 priests
                                    5%       = 1,000 priests
                                    10%     = 2,000 priests

The text in Acts is in the imperfect tense which expresses continuing growth and multiplication.[20] This means that whatever number the term great many indicate, it also indicates that it was a growing number. That this was written to these priests may be indicated by the following:
  • "Hebrew" in the New Testament has the meaning of a Palestinian Jew or a Jew with Palestinian roots, as opposed to a Hellenistic Jew (Acts 6:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5).
  • The priestly subjects in this epistle especially that of the High Priesthood of Christ supports this idea.
  • O’Brien notes the book’s “argument presupposes considerable familiarly with the Levitical ritual and interest in it.”[21] Who would know the Levitical ritual better than a priest?
  • Hebrews 5:12 could indicate a section within the assembly, not the whole assembly are addressed. Could this be a group of the priests, who had not fully comprehended the new truths of the gospel?
  • Hebrews 6:10 indicates some type of ministry by the readers.
  • If the book were written in the late 60’s, the hostile environment of coming war  would indicate the reason why the recipients are never identified. “The Jewish-Roman relations were strained to the point of war; [this] would be ample reason to protect former priests likely to be viewed by the Roman government as potential leaders in the Jewish cause.”[22]
  • Hebrews 10:32-34 indicates a former persecution; however details of the persecution are not given in the text. Hebrews 12:3-13 indicates they are presently undergoing some sort of persecution. The former persecution may well be the one as a result of Stephen’s stoning, and the present as that of the Romans leading up to the destruction of 70 AD. It fits well within this scope. They had not yet resisted unto the shedding of blood (Heb. 12:4).

Of the three proposals, the last seems most natural. I agree with Hughes that this is the “best theory yet advanced to explain the occasion and purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews.”[23] Allen agues that by now these priests had fled persecution to Antioch[24] and it was the destination of the book. If Palestine is not the destination, Antioch is the next best place. One indicator that the Palestine over Antioch is the location the subject of the Sabbath rest, a practice which was banned in Antioch in 67-69 AD[25] (cf. Heb. 4:1-10). In addition, Hebrews 13:12-13 indicates that they are still in the land, and they are to now leave the land and the city and go outside the camp. Palestine is the best view.

DATE.

No scholar denies that Hebrews was not written during the first century. There is no question that 1 Clement refers to the book of Hebrews. 1 Clement traditionally has been dated around 96 AD; however some recent studies suggest that it may have been written as early as 70-80 AD.[26] This means that Hebrews had to be written some time before the writing of 1 Clement. The best suggested date of Hebrews is before 70 AD, when Titus destroyed the city and the temple. There is no indication in Hebrews that the event had not yet taken place. If the destruction had taken place the preacher would have been strong argument for the end of the old covenant. In fact, Heb 8:4; 10:24 indicates the sacrificial system was still being practiced. It is also clear that the time references (5:12, 10:32) indicate a date that must allow some time between conversion and their present situation. It was written during the lifetime of Timothy (13:23). He became active in the work of the Lord around 49 AD, which indicates it was written sometime afterward. Hebrews 12:4, if it is a Palestine or Antioch destination, likely applies to the coming destruction of the city by Titus. If the Temple were destroyed by the time this was written, would it not be a strong argument for the passing away of the Old Covenant. Yet, this is not used, indicating the destruction had not taken place at the time of writing. The preponderance of evidence of the present tense when speaking of the sacrifices, the insistence of the passing away of the old order, and the failure to mention the destruction of Jerusalem favors a pre-70 AD date. It was written sometime between 49 and 70 AD; most prefer a date during the mid to late 60’s.

PURPOSE

The purpose of Hebrews is both theological and dispensational. Stam observes correctly, that it was “to provide the solution to the believing Hebrews’ dilemma.”[27] The book of Hebrews offers a powerful argument for the transition in God’s plan from the old to the new dispensation. The dilemma was difficult. They had accepted Christ as their Messiah, yet the message of God was becoming more Gentile oriented. The big problem was change from a messianic kingdom message to a heavenly message of the church, which Paul identifies as a mystery (Eph. 3:1-10). Change causes a dilemma. Tenney points out that these readers belonged to a period of religious and social upheaval, being compelled to reorient themselves to a rapidly changing situation.[28] This was especially true of these Hebrews who are in or connected still to the synagogue and the temple. The letter was to reorient a community that has been disoriented by the chasm between the hope of the earthly fulfillment of the kingdom, the reality of suffering (both in the past and in the present), and the present ministry of Christ from heaven. To reorient these Hebrews from the former truth or old dispensation, the letter was to present truth of better things of the present dispensation. It was a warning not to turn backward, but press on and embrace the better truths in relation to Christ. The author writes to these readers to confirm that the dispensation of the Law had changed to the dispensation of Grace. To show them that the dispensational change had taken effect and they could not return to the old dispensation of shadows of the law. They failed to see the full significance of the incarnation; of the Abrahamic promise; and the importance of Grace. They are to go on to better things in Christ. To prepare them for the downfall and destruction of the old as indicated by coming events that would happen shortly in 70 AD.

CHARACTERISTICS

The characteristic of Hebrews is not that so much as an epistle, but a sermon. Allen notes that the book of Hebrews “begins like a sermon, reads like a sermon, but concludes like an epistle.”[29] Note the following indicators of sermonic characteristics:
  • It is a word of exhortation (3:13; 10:25; 12:5; 13:13, 22). The same expression, “word of exhortation” is the same term to describe Paul’s sermon at Antioch (Acts 13:15). Exhortation is an appeal to faithfulness in spite of circumstances, problems, trials, and temptations. One of the key words used in the exhortations of Hebrews is “Let us” (4:1,11,14,16; 6:1-2; 10:22-24; 12:1,24; 13:15).
  • It is a word of instruction or exposition. It is a weaving together of exposition and exegesis. Its instruction centers on Christ Jesus as the Apostle and High Priest (3:1). It presents a majestic Christology and His present ministry from heaven.
  • It is a word of admonition. This is done by words of warning (2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:20; 10:26-39; 12:14-29).

Stylistically Hebrews shows strong oral characteristics, even though it is written. This is seen by three major elements present in the book:[30]
·         The speaker identifies with the listeners using the first person (we, us, our) while authoritatively speaking to his audience.
·         The references are found to speaking and hearing thoughout the book (Heb. 2:5; 5:11; 11:32).
·         The strong balance between exposition and exhortation rotating throughout the book.

Constable shows how the preaching in the book is an alternation from exposition to exhortation. He gives the following chart to note the major changes: [31]

EXPOSITION
EXHORTATION
Ch 1
2:1-4
2:5-18
3:1-4:14
4:15-5:10
5:11-6:12
6:13-10:18
10:19-39
Ch 11
Chs. 12-13

Another major characteristic of Hebrews is its use of the Old Testament. Ellingworth says there can be little doubt that the Old Testament is the primary literary influence on the author.[32] It is said that it quotes, alludes to, and uses the O.T. more than any other book of the New Testament.[33] Cockerill calls the O.T., “the bone and marrow of Hebrews.”[34] It appears he uses or refers to a wide variety of the books of the O.T.[35] This is of no surprise since its readership is Jewish. There are 28 Old Testament quotations in Hebrews.[36] When quoted it is the LXX that is quoted, not the original Hebrew text. The vast influence of Hellenism during the first century seems to have made the LXX the translation of choice. Even Jesus and the Apostles quoted it. The opening (Heb. 1:1-4) immediately confronts the reader with Old Testament revelation, stating that it is how God “spoke” to his people. The author in use of the Old Testament prefers passages that are in the form of direct speech, speaking, rather than “it is written.”[37] The author emphasis is on the action of  God speaking and His speech. He always quotes the direct form (spoke, said, say, speaking, etc) when using the Old Testament. He uses the word wrote or written in reference to the Old Testament only once (Heb. 10:7), and uses it mostly of other writings (Heb. 12:23; 13:22). The author views the Old Testament as alive and the very voice of God. In its use “the author normally prefers to quote a passage in extenso, rather than to omit parts merely because they are not directly relevant to his theme.[38] His use of the O.T. is mainly Christological in nature. He does not refer to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Covenant and priestly institutions as revealed in the Pentateuch. “Christ stands in continuity with this system by fulfilling it.”[39]

There is a strong emphasis on theological instruction, especially on Christology. It appears that the readers had an insufficient view of Christ and His work, grace, and the Abrahamic promise. Cockerill observes: “To practice the old before Christ was to anticipate his fulfillment, to practice it after, however, is to deny his sufficiency.”[40] The theme is on Christ being superior to the Old Testament ritualism—a ritualism that is coming to an end. Christ’s superiority is brought out by the continued use of the word “better,” indicating Christ is better than the angels, Moses, and Abraham. One of the greatest Christological statements in Scripture is Hebrews 1:3-4, which centers upon His person. Christ is the Son of God, the Savior, and exalted Lord. The letter also centers upon Christ as High Priest (8:1, 13:10), and is the author’s most distinctive contribution to Christology. The doctrine of Christ’s High Priesthood is the theological center of the epistle.[41] It is the main point (Heb 8:1). This High Priest is the Son (the title is used 12 times). MacLeod is right when he says, “The expository sections of Hebrews center on the doctrine of the high priesthood of Christ. The paraenetic [exhortation] sections, on the other hand, are dominated by the pilgrimage motif.”[42] Noticeably absent is the idea or doctrine of Christ as Head of the Church. A significant absence if Paul is the writer. He is writing or preaching to the nation of believing Jews, not the Gentiles. The epistle gives no indication that these are other than Hebrew believers.

Like their forefathers in leaving Egypt and who wanted to go back to Egypt, they expressed the same attitude and desires in relation to their ritual system and roots. Hebrews speak of dangers like those that their forefathers faced in the wilderness. These dangers have a three-fold expression:[43]
  • First, there are passive expressions denoting weariness in pursuing the devotion and progress in the faith (2:1; 4:1; 6:12; 10:19).  
  • Second, there are also in contrast expression that indicate possibility of active mutiny against God (Heb. 3:12; 6:6; 10:16).
  • Third, is outward pressure of trials (2:18; 4:15; 10:32). The writing thus warns them against disobedience like their forefathers that came out of Egypt (4:11) and refusing to listen to the voice of God (12:25).
These conditions expressed themselves because of their situation and being intimidated and the marginalization suffered because of the name of Christ (10:32-34). These admonitions help give the letter a strongly pastoral tone. A note of urgency and pastoral concern infuses the whole letter. Its design is to get them through the upheaval of the coming judgment on the nation Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the temple. To move them from the weakness of ritualism to the maturity in Christ. They are to keep the faith.

IMPORTANCE

Charles Savelle says there are five important contributions of Hebrews.
  • First, it offers high Christology.
  • Second, it marks an important argument for the transition from the old to the new dispensation.
  • Third, it reveals the challenges Jewish believers were facing during this time.
  • Fourth, it provides insight to the hermeneutical method of early believers.
  • Fifth, Hebrews shows what the early preaching was like.[44]

WHY STUDY HEBREWS?

There are those who think that the study of Hebrews is not important. That dispensationally it has to do with Israel, not he Church, the body of Christ. However, there are important reasons to do so.

  • It tells how believing Jews are to leave the Jewish system and why, especially in the light of the coming end of the transition and the destruction of the Temple. It is given to the Hebrews to help them understand that the dispensation had changed.
  • It helps us understand the relationship of the Old Testament and the New Testament connecting the dots between the two.
  • Hebrews challenges us to live by faith and gives us practical examples from the past of those who did so.
  • It expands our understanding of Christology showing Christ as the true High Priest.
  • It exalts the person and work of Christ and prompts us to draw near to Him.




[1]  See Kistemaker, Simon J., NTC: HEBREWS, 13-14; Ellingworth, Paul, NIGTC: HEBREWS, 34-36; O’Brien, Peter T., PNTC: HEBREWS, 2-4, for more information.
[2]  Held by C.R. Stam, Henry Hudson, Robert C. Brock, J.A. Seiss, and William R. Newell.
[3]  Held by F. Delitzsch, David Allen.
[4]  Held by J.A.T. Robinson, Zane Hodges, Homer A. Kent, Jr.
[5]  Held by Harnack.
[6]  Held by Donald Guthrie, Luke Timothy Johnson, Paul Ellingworth, and Ray Stedman.
[7]  Held by William Hallman.
[8]  Held by J.M. Ford.
[9]  Marshall, I. Howard, Stephen Travis, Ian Paul, EXPLORING THE NEW TESTAMENT: A GUIDE TO THE LETTERS & REVELATION, 245.
[10]  Brock, Robert C., HEBREWS: VERSE BY VERSE, 2-3e
[11]  Brock, 209-212. Appendix 1 is a list of the 92. However, others like Ellingworth have just as impressive a list of terms that differ from Paul, 7ff.
[12]  Cockerill, Gareth Lee, TNCNT: HEBREWS, 6.
[13]  Kistemaker, 6.
[14]  Moffatt, J., ICC: THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, xxiv-xxvi.
[15]  Ellingworth, Paul,  NTGTC: HEBREWS, 23.
[16]  Philip Edgeumbe Hughes, A COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 17.
[17]  Hodges, Zane C., “Hebrews,” BIBLE KNOWLEDGE COMMENTARY, 778.
[18]  F.F. Bruce, ICNT: HEBREWS, xxx.
[19]   Allen, David, NAC: HEBREWS, B&H, 66.
[20]   Paterson, David G., PNTC: THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, fn. 34, 236.
[21]   Peter O’Brien, PNTC: THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS, 10.
[22]   Allen, 66.
[23]   Hughes, 14.
[24]   Allen, 70-74.
[25]   Ibid, 71-72.
[26]   Cockerill, 34, fn 142.
[27]   Stam, C.R., THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 29.
[28]   Tenney, Merrill, “A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews,” BIB-SAC, July 1966, 232.
[29]  Allen, 25. For a detailed presentation of Hebrews as a sermon, see Cockerill, 11-15.
[30]  O’Brien, 23.
[31]  Constable, Thomas, NOTES ON HEBREWS, 6. Although in the footnote he says there are short expositions (12:3-11; 12:18:24), however as a whole the genre is exhortation.
[32]  Ellingworth, 37.
[33]  Kistemaker, 10. He list 31 direct quotations on page 9-10.
[34]  Cockerill, 41.
[35]  Ellingworth, 38, points out that there is no evidence of Ruth, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and some of the minor prophets
[36]  Cockerill, 41.
[37]  Ibid, 44.
[38]  Ellingworth, 40.
[39]  Cockerill, 21.
[40]  Ibid, 40.
[41]   MacLeod, David, “The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews,” BIBLOTHECA SACRA, July 1989, 293. This journal will be footnoted as BIB SAC from now on.
[42]  Ibid, 300.
[43]  Ellingworth, 78-79
[44]  Charles Savelle, “Five Contributions of the book of Hebrews,” http://www.bibleexposition.net/ November 1, 2010.