As Christians, we believe in a powerful God. “In the past, God spoke to us through the prophets, but in these last days has spoken to us by his Son.” It is wonderful to consider how our sacred texts have been preserved through the ages -- a process that certainly involved humans, but in which the eyes of faith can discern divine agency as well. We do not claim that our texts are word perfect copies of the originals; rather, we say that our scriptures bear true witness to the One of whom they speak.

It is clear that in order for us to get Hebrews, someone had to write it. In another lecture we will look more closely at the question of the writer's identity. Today, we will look at the process by which Hebrews was handed down to us.

Before the invention of mechanized printing, written works had to be reproduced by hand. A hand copy is called a manuscript, often abbreviated as MS, with MSS used for the plural. There were costs associated with making a copy -- writing materials and the scribe's hire, unless you made your own copy. Consequently, only those writings considered to be worthy were consistently copied. This tended to make the survival of a particular writing dependent on its popularity.

Certain fundamental aspects of the process through which the Greek New Testament arrived in our hands are unknown: How many copies were made? How many have survived? How many generations of manuscripts stand between the original compositions (i.e., the autographs) and the surviving MSS which form the basis of today's Greek text?

Other aspects are better known: What were the MSS like? Is the text we have the same as the original? If variations occurred, how did they happen? If there are variations, how do we restore the original?

The population of the Roman Empire was about fifty million during the first three centuries CE. The Christian community began small. According to Acts there were about five thousand individuals after Pentecost, around 33 CE. By 300 CE, the Christian population was much larger, despite various attempts at suppression (e.g. the great persecution (303-312) and the persecutions of Decius (250-251) and Valerian (257-260)). No one knows what proportion of the Empire's population was Christian by the time that Galerius issued the edict of toleration (311). The burgeoning Christian population may well have been what provoked the politicians to firstly instigate the persecutions and finally to adopt a conciliatory approach once they realised that resistance was useless.

A sociologist or political scientist might know at what point a formerly illegal movement becomes officially tolerated through its adherents' force of numbers; to some extent the answer depends on whether the movement is peaceful or violent. If we guess conservatively at a proportion of about one tenth of the entire population, then there would have been about five million Christians in the Empire when Galerius decided he had better make his peace with them.

Christians prized their scriptures, and no self-respecting church would be without its own copy of the Gospels, a copy of Paul's letters, the Apostolos (i.e. Acts plus the Catholic letters), and a few other books as well. The word "book" is used advisedly -- if Christians were not the inventors of the codex, they were certainly the first to use it on a large scale. It allowed a whole collection of writings to be contained in a single, portable unit that was far superior to the roll when it came to finding a particular place in the text.

Given that every church would like to have its own copy of Paul's letters, we can make a rough estimate of how many copies existed at any one time in this early phase of Christian history. Using the logistic growth equation, a growth rate of five percent per annum, and applying bounds of five thousand individuals in 33 CE and five million in 300 CE, the Christian population would have increased as shown here:

Figure 1.1. Christian population vs date

The number of MSS can be estimated if we know the size of the Christian population, the average number of members per church and the average number of MSS per church. Assuming that every church had, on average, one copy of Paul's letters and one hundred members, the number of MSS in use at various times would be roughly as given here:

There are approximately five thousand Greek MSS and more in such languages as Latin, Coptic and Syriac. Most are late copies, with only a few hundred Greek MSS dating from the first millenium. If the estimate above is roughly correct then only a very small proportion of the earliest copies has survived.

A great deal of information concerning the surviving MSS is found in Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece (1993, appendix 1). This shows that approximately thirty copies of Hebrews, in various states of repair, survive from the first millenium. In general, these early copies are the most valuable when it comes to determining the ancient text.

It is very important to know how many generations of MSS intervene between the original, also called the autograph, and our earliest MSS. It is hard to say what the answer might be, and almost no one has tried. I wrote a copying simulation program in an attempt to gain some insight into the question. Whether or not it goes anywhere near reflecting the realities of the actual process remains a big question. There are all kinds of variables involved. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that there is a good chance that some of our surviving MSS are within five generations of their respective originals. Unfortunately, we can't tell which ones they are.

It is easy to tell what the MSS were like because we have survivors. Some are extremely ancient. For example, P52 is dated to the first half of the second century.

Two major forms existed: the roll and the codex. The roll placed an upper limit on the size of a written discourse. Some think that Luke and Acts had to be published separately because of this practical limit. Happily, the barrier fell once Christians adopted the codex.

The capacity of codices seems to have grown gradually. At first, a single gospel might fill a codex. Shortly afterwards, collections began to be bound together -- perhaps two gospels or Paul's letters would fill a typical codex at the end of the first century CE. For Irenaeus (c. 180 CE), it was as natural to have four gospels as it was to have four winds. By the time Athanasius wrote down his New Testament canon (367 CE), there were codices that contained the entire New Testament. Interestingly, the progression of codex capacity as outlined here is roughly linear with time.

Figure 1.2. Codex capacity vs date

No one knows what made the early Christians adopt the codex. Perhaps Mark thought he would try using a codex for his gospel? That might explain the abrupt ending: the last page of the original could have been torn off! Whatever the reason for its adoption, the codex provided a means of binding together collections of related writings. One of the first collections of this kind was Paul's letters.

Some think that Paul's writings were circulating as a collection by the end of the first century. There is a direct reference to such a collection in the account of the martyrs of Scilli (Stevenson, 1987, 44) in 180 CE. We don't know who gathered Paul's letters or how. Perhaps it was an individual -- Luke, Mark or another one of Paul's companions. Then again, a number of churches may have compiled their own collections. In Col 4.16, Paul himself encourages such a practice.

Whether Hebrews was included in this collection (or these collections) is yet another unknown. Its inclusion in a very early version of Paul's letters would help to account for the survival of this unique writing. Whatever happened, the earliest Greek MS of Paul's letters includes Hebrews. The MS is designated P46, and is dated c. 200 CE. You can see an image of one page of this codex here.

Yes and no. For my PhD dissertation, I transcribed the text of the papyrus and uncial MSS of Hebrews, which range in date from c. 200 CE to the tenth century. It was wonderful to hold P13 in my hands -- a roll that is about 1700 years old. After completing the transcriptions, I wrote collation programs that listed every difference. Hebrews has about five thousand words, and it turns out that variations occur in about two thousand. In effect, virtually every word that can vary, does vary. There is not much that a scribe can do to simple words like "and", "the" and "but". However, more complex words are prone to every manner of alteration.

That said, the very great majority of variations are insignificant. Dictionaries did not exist, so scribes spelled as they were taught. Spelling and other orthographical differences account for many of the variations. Most lexical variations -- those where the words actually differ -- are of minor significance. Apart from changes of word order, there might be a missing article here and added conjunction there; nothing earth shattering. There are, however, some interesting variants -- ones that have a significant effect on the meaning. A good example is found in Heb 2.9.

As a consequence of textual variation, we cannot be certain what the original text was. It is very likely that in all but a few cases the original text is preserved among the variations. The problem then becomes one of trying to discern the original text at each point of variation.

Variants occurred as copies were made for no other reason than the human fallibility of the scribes. I suppose that God could have preserved the exact text of the originals by taking control of every copyist. However the manifest fact is that he did not. It is actually quite difficult to make a copy of any sizable text without introducing errors. In fact, the presence of variants in the New Testament manuscript tradition is a sure sign of its authenticity.

When a copy was commissioned, the scribe would take an exemplar and a blank codex or roll then sit down and copy away. Sometimes he or she would make transcription errors. Users of the resultant MS would correct these errors as they thought best. In some cases, this process resulted in the reading of the exemplar being restored. In other cases, it resulted in the reading of another MS being inserted, as when a dilligent corrector consulted another MS to see what the text should be. In yet other cases, it resulted in the creation of novel readings.

When the texts of the MSS of Hebrews are compared, it is apparent that some have similar texts. They are never identical, but they can be very close. It is possible to produce a "map" of MSS where similar texts are located closer to each other than dissimilar ones.

Similarity can be due to common ancestry but can also be caused by common locality. There was no reason why a MS could not be imported from another region of the Empire, but the easiest way would be to get an exemplar from nearby. It follows that MSS from a particular region would tend to be similar because they were likely to be copied from and corrected against the same exemplars. If textual and spelling variations are mapped, the distribution of MSS in the textual map tends to recur in the spelling map. Other things being equal, this fact can be interpreted to mean that MSS with similar texts have a shared ancestral home.

Figure 1.3. Textual map

Figure 1.4. Spelling map

With the exception of a few words here and there, the original text (but not the original spelling) is likely to be preserved somewhere among the MSS. Recovery of the original text is then a matter of going through the places where variation occurs and attempting to discern the original reading at each one. This is done by applying various tests:

One of the correctors of Codex Vaticanus knew the first of these. Another scribe had crossed out an ancient reading at Heb 1.3 and substituted the more common one. The corrector then reinstated the old reading, and added in the margin "Bad and ignorant scribe; leave the old reading alone!"

These are not the only tests, and none is a sure guide. In the end, it may be best to stick with the text of an early MS that seems to have consistently primitive readings. Codex Vaticanus was regarded by Westcott and Hort as the best MS. The United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament text is quite close to that of Codex Vaticanus. Unfortunately, the last part of Hebrews is missing from this codex, so we must turn to other MSS such as P46 or Codex Sinaiticus to fill in the gaps. Where it is difficult to discern which reading is original, we can do no more than ackowledge that any of the alternatives may be what the author wrote, and accept that only God knows.

The word “canon” means rule. In relation to the New Testament, it is the rule that states which writings are to be accepted as scripture and which are not. Souter (1954, 143) gives this definition:

The first use of the word in this sense is in Athanasius' Decrees of the Synod of Nicaea (c. 350 CE), when he describes the Shepherd of Hermas as not belonging to the canon.

Before the concept of a list of approved books emerged, canonicity was more a matter of the authority that leading lights ascribed to a book. Some of the New Testament books had it easy -- their authority was never questioned. Hebrews, on the other hand, struggled for acceptance.

These rules can be applied to decide what should be in and what should be out. What rules would you come up with?

One might add to this “opinions of influential figures”.

Why isn't inspiration a criterion? Metzger (1987, 254-7) gives an explanation.

Hebrews has been quoted since the earliest days of the church. Clement of Rome makes use of Hebrews in 1 Clement (c. 95 CE). Polycarp (early 100s) almost certainly knew Hebrews. Whoever wrote the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 120-140) seems to have known Hebrews (Lane 1991, clii), and the unknown author of 2 Clement (c. 150) may have known Hebrews too. Marcion (c. 145) may have known Hebrews, but, not surprisingly, did not include it in his Apostolicon. Justin Martyr (c. 150) knew and Hebrews and used it.

Pantaenus (c. 180) was the first head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. vi. xiv. 4), Pantaenus ascribed Hebrews to Paul, who wished to remain anonymous in this instance:

Clement of Alexandria (c. 190), a learned man, followed Pantaenus as head of the catechetical school. He accepted Pantaenus' view on Hebrews, adding that it might have been translated into Greek translator by Luke.

Origen (c. 185-254), a real prodigy, succeded Clement when still young. He quoted Hebrews more than two hundred times, but had doubts whether it was Paul's own work:

Eusebius (c. 260-340) sought a canon. The best he could do was to list books that were generally received, those that were generally rejected, and those that were accepted by some and rejected by others. He included Paul's letters, and, by implication, Hebrews, in the first category. He noted that Hebrews was “disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul”. (Metzger 1987, 203)

We have two great uncials from this era -- codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Both have Hebrews, although the last part of the ancient text is missing in Vaticanus.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-86) included the fourteen Epistles of Paul in his list, which means that he accepted Hebrews.

Athanasius (c. 296-373), as bishop of Alexandria, wrote a Festal Letter to the Egyptian churches every year setting down the dates of Easter and other Christian festivals. In 367 he included a canon list comprised of the same 27 books of the New Testament as used today.

The Western Church accepted the possibility of post-baptismal repentance, in line with the Shepherd of Hermas. This doctrinal stance may account for the Western Church's reluctance to accept Hebrews as authoritative.

Irenaeus (c. 180), the presbyter Gaius (c. 200), and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235) knew and used Hebrews but did not regard it as apostolic. The Muratonian Canon, from about the same time, does not include Hebrews among the list of documents regarded authoritative in the church of Rome.

Tertullian from Carthage in Africa, became a Christian in Rome around 195. After returning to Africa, he joined the Montanists. Tertullian wrote in Latin. He spoke of the "rule of faith", the Christian fundamentals transmitted by the baptismal formula now known as the Apostles' Creed. Tertullian cites Hebrews, which he thought was written by Barnabas, “a man sufficiently accredited by God as being one whom Paul had stationed next to himself”. (Metzger 1987, 159)

Cyprian (c. 200-258), also of Carthage, was converted about 246 at which point he gave away his wealth and became an ascetic. Only two years later, by popular choice, he was made bishop of Carthage, and there remained until martyred. Cyprian quoted extensively from the New Testament, but not from Hebrews. He was perhaps influenced by numbers, seeing correspondence between the four rivers of Eden and the four Gospels, the seven churches and the seven letters of Paul. Hebrews would have made eight. This kind of logic was popular at the time.

Cyprian's apparent omission of Hebrews from the canon represents a low point in its fortunes in the West. Soon afterwards, Hilary (d. 368) ascribes Hebrews to Paul and treats it as scripture. Hilary defended the orthodox line against Arianism at the Council of Seleucia (359); the exalted view of the Son painted by the author of Hebrews provided powerful ammunition in this fight.

Others in the West such as Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 370), Philaster (d. 397), and Rufinus (b. 345) accepted Hebrews.

This brings us to the time of Jerome (346-420), editor of the Vulgate. In 414 he wrote (Epist. cxxix):

Augustine (354-430) at first thought that Hebrews was by Paul. Later he varied between it being by Paul or someone unknown. Finally, he always referred to it as anonymous. If uncertain about its authorship, he had no doubts about its authority, and included Hebrews in his canon (Metzger 1987, 237). Synods at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) endorsed Augustine's list of twenty seven, including Hebrews.

Westcott (1899, lxvi) summarized the early situation:

After the fifth century, Hebrews enjoyed rest from its struggles for a long time. There was a brief review of its status during the reformation; Luther and others relegated Hebrews along with some other books to a secondary rank within the canon, but did not exclude it.

What made the church accept Hebrews but not, say, the Epistle of Barnabas?

And so it is with Hebrews.

Although Hebrews concludes like other New Testament letters, it does not begin like one. As a result, we do not have the author's name.

The letter itself tells us that the author:

All kinds of people have been suggested as author. The list below gives the most popular alternatives, with our source of each suggestion in parentheses:

In the end, the best answer is Origen's: “God knows.” It may well have been someone who is not even mentioned here.

[Bruce 1990, 14-20] [Manson 1951, 167-172] [Moore 1994, 332-3]

Lacking any reliable early tradition, we turn to the letter for clues about the people to whom it was addressed. We can create a profile by reading between the lines. Accordingly, the audience may be characterised as:

[Bruce 1990, 3-9] [Lane 1991, liii-lviii] [Moore 1994, 331-2]

Clement of Rome apparently referred to Hebrews when composing 1 Clement, which is dated about 96 AD. Also, Heb 2.3 (“which at the first having been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard”) indicates that the author was a second-generation Christian. These give a terminus ante quem (literally “limit before which [it was written]”, meaning “latest possible date”) of about 95 AD.

In searching for a terminus post quem (i.e. “earliest possible date”), if the audience was in Rome then Heb 12.4 (“you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood”) would indicate that the letter was written before Nero attacked the Roman Christians in 65.

Lack of any mention of the demise of the temple would seem to indicate a date before 70. However, Hebrews does not mention the temple; rather, it refers to the tabernacle. It is therefore conceivable that the author wrote after the destruction of the temple but did not mention it. However, the repeated use of the present tense in Heb 9.6-9, which relates to the work of the Levite priests, indicates otherwise. Also, Heb 8.13 says, in reference to the Old Covenant and its priesthood, “that which is becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away.” These words would be particularly appropriate if the author wrote between 66, when the Jewish uprising against Rome began, and 70, when the temple was destroyed.

Heb 10.1-2 says, “For the law, having a shadow of the good to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. Or else wouldn't they have ceased to be offered, because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins?” This would be somewhat out of place if the author knew the sacrifices had actually ceased.

Finally, the quotation of Ps 95 at Heb 3.7-11, with its mention of the forty years of testing, may be another indication that the author is writing just before 70 AD -- almost forty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

All things considered, a date just before 65 AD seems reasonable enough for the composition of Hebrews. This is only tentative -- any date between 60 and 100 AD is consistent with the evidence we have.

[Bruce 1990, 20-22] [Moore 1994, 332-3]

Just about every imaginable destination has been suggested, from Judaea to Spain:

Even though Rome seems plausible, there is no certainty concerning the destination of Hebrews.

[Bruce 1990, 10-14] [Lane 1991, lviii]

Hebrews has long been regarded as a letter -- a natural conclusion given that it has always circulated with Paul's letters. In our Bibles, it occurs at the end of Paul's letters. In P46, it comes after Romans. (Whoever copied P46 arranged the letters in order of length.) Later codices (Sinaitics A B C H I K P) place it after the letter addressed to churches but before those addressed to individuals (i.e. between 2 Thess and 1 Tim). That makes sense, doesn't it?

Hebrews ends like a letter but does not begin like one. (Neither does 1 John.) Instead, it begins like a sermon. Heb 13.22 says, “Brothers, I urge you to pay close attention to this word of exhortation, for I only wrote briefly.” Even though the author has written the letter or sermon, he regards it as a spoken piece: “about which we are speaking” (2.5), “the things that will be spoken about later” (3.5), “even though we speak this way” (6.9).

The phrase "word of exhortation" is used to preface the message given by Paul at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13.15-13.41). Do the two match? There are common elements: formal introduction, authoritative examples (typically scriptural quotations), conclusions taken from the examples and applied to the audience, and a final exhortation. In Hebrews, this structure recurs.

Whoever wrote Hebrews was a creative genius. It is clear that he had command of the spoken medium, and could convert something meant to be spoken into the written medium for the purpose of easy transport. Whatever its genre, a remarkable thing about Hebrews is the way the author makes it sound as if he is present, delivering the speech. He doesn't say “about which we are writing” but “about which we are speaking.” The audience members are treated as hearers, not readers.

The art of rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Those who listen carefully are well-acquainted with the force of the author's persuasive powers. Hebrews is a rhetorical tour de force. As an exercise, look up A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices and see how many of the rhetorical devices mentioned there are used in Hebrews.

Rhetoric was originally developed to help people win legal disputes, but soon became popular for political purposes. It is the art of making people act the way you want. This, in many cases, is ethically questionable. None however can question the motives of the author of Hebrews.

Aristotle identified three major genres for public speeches: deliberative, epideictic, and forensic. “Each genre is defined by the role of the audience, the subject matter, the ends, and the time.” [Smith, n.d.] These three may be defined as follows:

Which types are used in Hebrews?

The world in which the author of Hebrews lived did not have TV. The people there were just as interested in what was going on, but had to get their news a different way. Back then, the medium was the spoken word. Audiences developed the art of listening and orators developed the art of speaking. If a speaker was no good at it then no one would listen.

Orators would include cues to alert the audience to the structure of what they were saying. They did not say, “full stop”, “new paragraph” etc. Instead, they used a range of techniques to let the audience know how what was being said was meant to hang together. Hebrews is rich in these features.

There have been many attempts to discover the structure of Hebrews. Many succeed in part, but none completely. Thien (1902) noticed that the author announces themes then develops them in reverse order. For example, Heb 2.17 has “our merciful and faithful high priest.” The “faithful” theme is developed first (3.1-4.13), followed by the “merciful” theme (4.14-5.10). Other examples are 5.9-5.10: author of eternal salvation (8.1-10.18) and a priest like Melchizedek (7.1-7.28), and 10.36-10.39: endurance (12.1-12.29) and faith (11.1-11.40).

Buchsel (1928) observed the alternation between exposition and exhortation -- the pattern according to which I have divided up the text for this lecture series.

Vaganay identified “hook words”: a rhetorical device used to tie together adjacent units of discourse; a word occurs near the end of one section and at the beginning of the next.

Descamps (1954) wrote about “characteristic terms” used within thematic units. For example, “angels” occurs 11 times in Heb 1.5-2.16 but only twice thereafter.

Albert Vanhoye (1963) building on the work of the others, listed an array of literary devices:

More recently, Guthrie (1991) has used discourse analysis, an approach based on the science of linguistics. He identified no less than nine ways that the author of Hebrews uses to move from one section to another including: “hook words”, “distant hook words”, “hooked key words”, “overlapping constituents”, “parallel introductions”, “direct intermediary transition” and “woven intermediary transition”.

After all this work, there is no consensus concerning the structure of Hebrews. We can see the author using an impressive range of techniques. But as with authorship and audience, we have to say with respect to the pattern that the author had in his mind, “God knows.”

Hebrews is written in polished, literary Greek. It is nearer to the classical style than other writings of the New Testament.

Hebrews is filled with quotations from the Greek version of the Old Testament scriptures, that is, the Septuagint (LXX). The author assumes the audience knows its scriptures well. The author treats scripture as the speech of God. He uses it as a source of archetypes for the fulfillment seen in Christ.

OT quotations may be the essential clue to the arrangement of Hebrews. This is not a new theory -- in the 1700s, Bengel recognized the importance of Psalms 2, 8 and 110 in understanding why Hebrews procedes as it does. More recently, Caird and others have come up with a set of OT quotations that they regard as the backbone of Hebrews: Ps 8 (Heb 2.5-2.18), Ps 95 (Heb 3.1-4.13), Ps 110 (Heb 4.14-7.28), Jer 31 (Heb 8.1-10.31), Hab 2 (Heb 10.32-12.2), Prov 3 (Heb 12.3-13.19). [Lane 1991, cxiv]

The author of Hebrews thinks like other New Testament writers. He has an apocalyptic outlook and looks forward to the end of the old order of things. The speech by Stephen in Acts has many points of contact. Parallels may exist with other New Testament writings as well (e.g. Heb 6 and 1 Cor 3). The idea of the priesthood of Christ is uniquely developed in Hebrews. However, it shows up in other places, even Revelation!

There is some evidence of reliance on an oral midrash on the Pentateuch (cf. 7.5, 7.27, 9.4, 9.19, 9.21, 12.21). [Bruce 1990, 27]

Fifty years ago, C. Spicq made everyone think that the author of Hebrews was influenced by Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher. More recently, others such as L. D. Hurst have pointed out that the apparent similarities between Hebrews and Philo could be due to common reliance on other forms of Judaism. According to Lane [1991, cviii]:

When the Dead Sea Scrolls came to light, some people got the idea that Hebrews could now be understood as being addressed to a group from Qumran. Reasons in support include common points such as a Messiah-priest and fascination with Melchizedek. However, this theory is not so popular now. Reasons against include the context (Hebrews is hellenistic while the DSS material is semitic) and differences in the respective OT texts.

Kasemann thought that pre-Christian gnosticism was an influence. He “detected behind Hebrews the gnostic motif of the heavenly pilgrimage of the self from the enslaving world of matter to the heavenly world of spirit” and “identified the motif of pilgrimage as central to the development of Hebrews.” [Lane 1991, cix] There are problems with this theory too, among which is the lateness relative to Hebrews of the documentary sources Kasemann uses to establish his theory (e.g. Acts of Thomas).

Platonism had the idea that earthly things are mere shadows of heavenly realities. There are places in Hebrews where this kind of thinking seems to be operating. We cannot say it is Platonic thinking though -- not everyone who thought that way was influenced by Plato.

What if we did not have Hebrews? What would be lost? According to Richard Moore [1994, 333]:

What if Hebrews was the only book we had? What kind of theology could we construct?

Not bad for one book.

Hebrews chapters 1 to 10 is a splendid portrait of the heavenly king. The aspects that the author portrays are not merely theoretical musings, but practical truths that are directly relevant to the situation in which the audience finds itself. Jesus is champion, and, more centrally, sustaining advocate. [Lane 1991, cxliii]

Hebrews is unique among the New Testament writings in its exposition on Jesus Christ our high priest, although we see hints of Christ performing that function elsewhere (e.g. praying for Peter in Luke and for his followers in John). Stephen testifies that Jesus is at God's right (Acts 7.56), Paul states that Christ intercedes for us (Rom 8.34), and John writes that Jesus Christ is our advocate and that he atones for our sins (1 John 2.1f).

As a priest, it is necessary for Christ to present an offering. His is the offering par excellence, a perfect sacrifice that has achieved what the former sacrifices were powerless to do -- remission of sins and a cleansed conscience. [Bruce 1990, 29-34.]

Hebrews dwells on two covenants: the first one instituted in Moses' time and the new one mediated by Christ. The author states clearly that the first is ineffective for dealing with sin and is superseded by the new one which is effective.

Under the first covenant, priests from the line of Levi were ordained to make offerings and sacrifices for sin. These priests performed these services over and over. The author of Hebrews points out that this repetition is proof that the blood of goats and bulls is ineffective for dealing with the problem of sin -- a blighted conscience and an offended God.

Nevertheless, the Levitical priesthood was necessary while the first covenant was the only covenant. If nothing else, the sacrifices were to demonstrate that breaking the Law has drastic consequences.

The new covenant, foretold by Jeremiah but made a reality through Jesus Christ, only requires one sacrifice. Is there any need for a human mediator? Yes, the one human, Jesus Christ. He is the mediator of the new covenant and there is none other.

If this is true, there is no longer any need of the offerings and sacrifices for sin performed by the Levitical priesthood. Should this priesthood then be disolved?

The author of Hebrews argues that the first covenant has been superseded. One could say that the Levitical priesthood was instituted to make offerings and sacrifices on account of offences committed under the Law of Moses. Once this Law is replaced by a new law written on hearts, and there is no need for one person to say to another "Know God", what need is there of priests?

Peter speaks of the priesthood of all believers. What is the role of priests under the new covenant? The author of Hebrews makes one thing certain -- it is not to make offerings and sacrifices for sin. This has already been done, once and for all, by Jesus Christ. He certainly is a priest -- the great high priest.

Exegesis seeks to analyse and investigate a text, to draw out its meaning, to seek its true sense. This is what we will attempt to do with the Letter to the Hebrews.

My approach will be to start with the text. Scripture quotations are taken from the World English Bible (http://ebible.org/), a public domain adaption of the American Standard Version. This is used because of its copyright-free status, not because it is better or worse than other versions. I apologise for the spelling.

After reading the text, we will look at the following aspects:

I am indebted to Dr Richard K. Moore, who has allowed me to use a set of his slides developed for a short course on Hebrews. The summary of each exegesis session is adapted from Dr Moore's slides.

Exegesis seeks to analyse and investigate a text, to draw out its meaning, to seek its true sense. This is what we will attempt to do with the Letter to the Hebrews.

My approach will be to start with the text. Scripture quotations are taken from the World English Bible (http://ebible.org/), a public domain adaption of the American Standard Version. This is used because of its copyright-free status, not because it is better or worse than other versions. I apologise for the spelling.

After reading the text, we will look at the following aspects:

I am indebted to Dr Richard K. Moore, who has allowed me to use a set of his slides developed for a short course on Hebrews. The summary of each exegesis session is adapted from Dr Moore's slides.

An inclusio marks verses 5 to 16 as a unit.

Another expository section begins after the admonition of 2.1-4. Verses 5 to 16 complete the author's teaching on the superiority of the Son to angels. Verses 17 and 18 explicitly introduce the theme of high priest, which recurs at the beginning and end of the next section of exhortation (3.1-4.16) and again at the beginning and end of the following section of exposition (5.1-10).

Those who the Son is proud to call family need not fear death.

Starts and ends with high priest -- another unit.

Heb 3.1-4.16 is an exhortation sandwiched between the expositions of 2.5-18 and 5.1-10

Seeing that Jesus is who he is, consider him -- the one we declare to be apostle and high priest. Just as Moses was faithful in his dealings with God's household, Jesus is also faithful. However, Jesus' faithfulness is better than that of Moses because Moses was a mere servant whereas Jesus is God's Son. He is the one through whom God built the house, and is more than just a caretaker. We are Christ's household, if we hold on to our open assurance and proud hope.

As the Holy Spirit says [in Ps 95], don't ignore God when he speaks, like your ancestors did in the wilderness. Because of their rebellion, God would not let them enter the promised land. With this in mind, make sure that you do not desert the living God through not believing his promises. Instead, encourage each other while you can so that you do not become like those stubborn people, deceived by sin.

Who was it that rebelled against God in those days? Wasn't it the same ones who came out of Egypt? And who tried God's patience for forty years? The same ones who sinned, whose bodies littered the desert! To whom did God swear, “You will not enter my rest?” Wasn't it those who disobeyed? We can see by this that they could not enter because they did not believe God.

We are afraid that some of you will miss out on God's promised rest. We have heard the good news just like our ancestors. It did them no good because they didn't believe it. We who believe do enter God's rest.

The fact that God said “They will not enter my rest” means that such a rest must still remain open for entry. Anyone who enters this rest -- God's rest -- takes a rest from his or her own works. For this reason, we should try our hardest to enter that rest.

God's message is alive, able to throw things into stark relief, even our true motivations. Nothing is hidden from God -- the One to whom we are ultimately accountable sees everything. Since we have Jesus -- God's Son -- as our great high priest, we should maintain our confidence. Our high priest is sympathetic to our plight, having gone through the same trials as us, except for sin. We should therefore approach God's throne with open confidence so that we can receive mercy and grace, so that we can find timely help.

Believe what God says! Make trusting God and his promises your first priority. We can confidently approach Jesus -- our great high priest -- for help in the trials of life, the things that deceive us into not trusting God.

Christ is a high priest of the order of Melchizedek.

The prerequisites for a high priest (Heb 5.1-4, 2.17):

Christ has been appointed by God as a high priest of the order of Melchizedek -- both king and priest. He is merciful, having learned by hard experience what it means for a human to obey God.

Christ is the source of unending salvation to those who obey him. He knows what it is to be human and to suffer for the sake of what is right. He can help us in our struggle.

"Melchizedek" occurs at the end of the preceding expository section (5.10) at the beginning and end of this section of exhortation (5.11 and 6.20) and at the beginning of the following expository section (7.1). Coincidence? I don't think so.

The section from 5.11 to 6.12 is an inclusio, marked by the Greek word νωθροί.

The author takes up again the subject that he announced at 5.10, just before the admonishment that runs from 5.11 to 6.20: “a high priest like Melchizedek.” At 5.11 he warned us that he has much to say on this subject, and now he begins the development.

Melchizedek is an archetype of Jesus, our great high priest. The account in Gen 14 implies that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical one. The Levitical priesthood is subject to weakness whereas Jesus, high priest in the order of Melchizedek, is able to save completely those who come to God through him. He is the guarantor of a better covenant.

The old law is replaced by a new one, based on an oath from God. The new covenant is better than the old, and Jesus guarantees it. We can be completely saved by Jesus, the perfect priest, who lives to plead on our behalf.

This begins a new section that continues until 9.28. (An inclusio is formed by the statement concerning the need for an offering at 8.3 and the offering of Christ himself in 9.28.) It flows smoothly from the exposition on Melchizedek in 7.1-7.28.

The author is probably doing more than just summarizing the preceding section when he says at 8.1, “The main point of what we are saying is this...” In a section entitled “Summary View of a Masterpiece”, Albert Vanhoye [1989, 32f.] sets out a symmetrical arrangement for Hebrews:

The five parts are marked by five announcements of subject. According to Vanhoye, the resulting outline is symmetrical: the first and fifth parts have only one section, the second and fourth have two, while the central one has three. The lengths of texts in the corresponding parts are comparable. Vanhoye also notes correspondences in subject matter (e.g. II A: “Jesus ... worthy of faith” and IV A: “the faith of the people of old”).

This is not the only example of symmetry in Hebrews. Vanhoye and others have identified many other instances.

The main point is that we have such a high priest: appointed to sit at God's right and to serve in the sanctuary made by God himself.

Every high priest is appointed to make an offering. Therefore, this high priest must have something to offer.

Those who serve in the earthly sanctuary serve in a mere model of the heavenly one. By contrast, our high priest serves in the real sanctuary. Just as the sanctuary is better, so is his ministry. He is the mediator of a better covenant that is set up with better promises.

If the first covenant had been alright, there would have been no place for a new one. However, there is a new one, the one spoken of in Jeremiah:

The first system is superseded by the new, which allows direct access to God's sanctuary through our mediator, Jesus Christ. Under this system, God deals directly with us and we stand to benefit accordingly.

Verse 8.12 is a good summary of the gracious attitude that the high priest tells us to have.

The author here picks up the thread of sacrifice announced at 8.3.

The first covenant had regulations concerning ministry and a worldly sanctuary. The sanctuary has two parts. Priests perform services in the first part on a regular basis. However, only the high priest is allowed into the second part -- the Holy of Holies. He is only permitted to enter once a year and not without sacrificial blood. This arrangement can be interpreted to mean that the way into the holiest place was not yet revealed.

Now Christ has come as high priest and has made a way. He has entered the true sanctuary with his own blood offered for purification. Unlike the sacrifices of the first covenant, his sacrifice is sufficient to cleanse our conscience, thus freeing us to serve God. His sacrifice is effective and need not be repeated as the ineffective earthly sacrifices are.

Here, the author concludes his exposition on Christ's offering, a topic announced at Heb 8.3.

The Law of Moses cannot make perfect those who seek to approach God. If it did, the sacrifices would have stopped because no worshiper would have a guilty conscience. Instead, the sacrifices made under the Law are a constant reminder of sin.

By saying “Sacrifice and offering you didn't desire” and “You had no pleasure in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin”, Christ annuls the first in order to establish the second. We are sanctified by the second, through the one-off offering of Christ's body. (The Holy Spirit says as much when he speaks of the new covenant.)

Under the Law, priests stand to make daily sacrifices and offerings that can never take away sins. By contrast, Christ sat down at God's right after offering a single sacrifice that is perpetually effective.

This one offering perfects forever those who have been sanctified. Once sins are forgiven, there is no longer a need for sacrifice.

Don't rely on the Law of Moses as an effective way of dealing with the problem of sin.

This section reads like a summary. It pulls together a number of threads previously met. (Compare, for example, Heb 10.19-25 with 6.17-20.) It also announces themes that will be amplified in following chapters (e.g. approach, perseverance, Christian community, encouragement, patience and faith).

There are a number of parallels between 10.19-25 and 10.32-39, which bracket the warning of 10.26-31. E.g approach : do not draw back (10.22 : 10.39), maintain hope and patience while waiting for God's promises to be fulfilled (10.23 : 10.36), maintain community (10.24 : 10.34).

Therefore, seeing that Jesus is our great high priest and has made a new and living way into God's presence with his own body and blood, let us approach God with confidence, maintain our hope, care for one another, and practice Christian community.

The author picks up the theme of faith announced in 10.38-39, and in many other places before (2.13, 2.17, 3.2, 3.5-6, 3.14, 4.3, 6.12, 10.22).

Verses 1-2 have connections with verses 39-40, indicating an inclusio: “Faith is the realization of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen (βλεπομένων). Βy this the ancients were commended (ἐμαρτυρήθησαν).” “And all these who faith commends (μαρτυρηθέντες) did not receive the promise, God having something better in store (προβλεψαμένου) concerning us -- that they should not be perfected without us.” The word translated here as “commends” has the same root as “witnesses” (μαρτύρων) in 12.1.

Faith is what makes things hoped for real; it is what demonstrates the reality of what is not [yet] seen [Heb 11.1]. Without faith it is impossible to please God because it is essential for the one approaching God to to believe that he is, and for those seeking him out that he is a rewarder [Heb 11.6]. Those who have faith obey God [Heb 11.7, 8, 17]. They are persuaded of what they hope for even if they do not receive it during their earthly existence, for they seek the City of God, built by God himself [Heb 11.13-16]. They believe in resurrection [Heb 11.19, 35], value the reproach of Christ more than mundane treasures [Heb 11.25-26], endure because they see the invisible [Heb 11.27]. They do amazing things [Heb 11.33-35] and suffer terrible things [Heb 11.36-37]. The world is not worthy of them; they wander in deserts, mountains, caves and dens [Heb 11.38].

Since we have so many forerunners cheering us on, let us drop every weight and distracting sin to run the marathon before us. We must keep our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer who has already finished the race. He pressed on to the prize beyond even though it meant going through the disgrace of the cross and the hostility of sinners. Keep Jesus before your eyes; this will stop you giving up.

You haven't suffered like him, to the point of bloodshed. Don't forget that God disciplines his children. The hardships you face are God's discipline. The fact that you encounter such hardship proves that you are his children. Our fathers disciplined us and we respect them for it; if we submit to God's discipline we will gain much more -- life. No discipline is enjoyable, but God's discipline brings a share of his holiness and a harvest of good.

So pick yourself up and walk straight. Be peacemakers and seek the purity of heart without which you will not see God. Watch out for the community, and weed out those who promote bitterness and immorality. Don't be like Esau, who gave up his inheritance for short-term gain. What he lost could not be regained. It was gone for good.

You are not approaching something like Mount Sinai, awesome as it was. Instead, you are approaching the City of God, with its myriads of angels, the firstborn whose names are written in heaven, the righteous who have been made perfect, to God -- the judge of all -- and to Jesus -- the mediator of the New Covenant -- and to his blood, which says something better than Abel's.

Don't ignore the one who speaks from there! Those who ignored the voice at Mount Sinai did not escape; it is even worse for those who ignore the voice from heaven. Then he shook the earth; in the future he will shake heaven and earth. Only unshakeable things will be left. The kingdom that we will receive is unshakeable. We should therefore thank God and worship him in awe and reverence. For God is a consuming fire.

Keep your eyes on Jesus. Don't be discouraged by hardship. Don't ignore what God says.