New Testament BIBLE STORY
The Epistle to the Hebrews #1
HEBREWS - Introduction #1 The book of Hebrews has caused much debate as to the author, where and when written, and to specifically whom was it written to. I believe Albert Barnes in his "Notes on the New Testament" has perhaps given the probable truth of the matter. I shall therefore quote extensively from his notes. This INTRODUCTION is lengthy and somewhat in-depth, hence I will break it up into three or four parts (Keith Hunt). PRELIMARY REMARKS It need not be said, that this epistle bas given rise to much discussion among writers on the New Testament. Indeed there is probably no part of the Bible in regard to which so many conflicting views have been entertained. The name of the author; the time and place where the epistle was written; the character of the book; its canonical authority; the language in which it was composed; and the persons to whom it was addressed, all have given rise to great difference of opinion. Among the causes of this are the following; The name of the author is not mentioned. The church to which it was sent, if sent to any particular church, is not designated. There are no certain marks of time in the epistle, as there often are in the writings of Paul, by which we can determine the time when it was written. It is not the design of the Notes to go into an extended examination of these questions. Those who are disposed to pursue these inquiries, and to examine the questions which have been started in regard to the epistle, can find ample means in the larger work, that have treated of it; and especially in Lardner; in Michaelis' Introduction; in the Prolegomena of Kuinoel; in Hug's Introduction; and PARTICULARLY in Professor Stuart', invaluable Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. No other work, on this portion of the New Testament, is so complete as his; and, in the Introduction, he has left nothing to be desired in regard to the literature of the epistle. Controversies early arose in the church, in regard to a great variety of questions pertaining to this epistle, which are not yet fully settled. Most of those questions, however, pertain to the literature of the epistle; and, however they may be decided, are not such as to affect the respect which a Christian ought to have for it as a part of the word of God. They pertain to the inquiries, to whom it was written; in what language, and at what time it was composed: questions which, in whatever way they may be settled, do not affect its canonical authority, and should not shake the confidence of Christians in it as a part of Divine revelation. The only inquiry on these points which it is proper to institute in these Notes is, whether the claims of the epistle to a place in the canon of Scripture are of such a kind, an to allow Christians to read it as a part of the oracles of God? May we sit down to it, feeling that we me perusing that which has been given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, a part of revealed truth? ..... 2. TO WHOM IS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN? It purports to have been written to "the Hebrews." This is not found, indeed, in the body of the epistle, though it occurs to the subscription at the end. It differs from all the other epistles of Paul in this respect, and from most of the others in the New Testament. In all of the other epistles of Paul, the church or person to whom the letter was sent is specified in the commencement. This, however, commences in the form of an essay or homily; or is there anywhere, in the epistle, any direct intimation to what church it was sent. The subscription at the end is of no authority, as it cannot be supposed that the author himself would affix it to the epistle, and as it is know, that many of those subscriptions are false. See the remarks at the close of the Notes on Romans, and 1 Corinthians. Several questions present themselves here, which we may briefly investigate. What is the evidence that it was written to the Hebrews? In reply to this we may observe, (1) That the inscription at the commencement, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews" though not affixed by the author, may be allowed to express the current sense of the church in ancient times, in reference to a question on which they had the best means of judging..... This inscription is found in all our present Greek manuscripts, and in nearly all the ancient versions. It is found in the Peshito, the old Syria, version, which was made in the first, or in the early part of the second century. It is the title give to the epistle by the Fathers of the second century, and onward. Stuart. (2) The testimony of the Fathers. Their testimony is unbroken and uniform. With one accord they declare this, and this should be regarded as testimony of great value. Unless there is some good reason to depart from each evidence, it should be regarded as decisive. In this case there is no good reason, for calling it in question, but every reason to suppose it to be correct; nor, so far as I have found, is there any who has doubted it. (3) The internal evidence is of the highest character, that it was written to Hebrew converts. It treats of Hebrew institutions. It explains their nature. It makes no allusion to Gentile customs or law,. It all along supposes that those to whom it was sent were familiar with the Jewish history; with the nature of the temple service; with the functions of the priestly office; and with the whole structure of their religion. No other person than those who had been Jews are addressed throughout the epistle. There is no attempt to explain the nature or design of any customs, except those with which they were familiar. At the same time, it is equally clear that they were Jewish converts - converts from Judaism to Christianity - who are addressed. The writer addresses, them as Christians, not as those who were to be converted to Christianity; he explains to them the Jewish customs as one would do to those who had been converted from Judaism; he endeavour, to guard them from apostasy, as if there were danger that they would relapse again into the system from which they were converted. These considerations seem to be decisive; and, in the view of all who have written on the epistle, as well an of the Christian world at large, they settle the question. It has never been held that the epistle was directed to Gentiles; and, in all the opinions and questions which have been started on the subject, it has been admitted, that, wherever they resided, the persons to whom the epistle was addressed were originally Hebrews, who had never been converted to the Christian religion. To what particular church of the Hebrews was it written? Very different opinion, have been held on this question. The celebrated Storr held that it was written to the Hebrew part of the churches in Galatia; and that the epistle to the Galatians was addressed to the Gentile part of those churches. Selmer and Noesset maintained that it was written to the churches in Macedonia, and particularly to the church of Thessalonica. Bolten maintain, that it was addressed to the Jewish Christian who fled from Palestine in a time of persecution, about the year 60, and who were scattered through Asia Minor. Michael Weber supposed that it was addressed to the church at Corinth. Ludwig conjectured that it was addressed to a church in Spain. Wetstein supposes that it was written to the church of Rome. Most of these opinions are mere conjectures; and all of them depend on circumstance, which furnish only light evidence of probability. Those who an disposed to examine these, and to we them confuted, may consult Stuart's Commentary on the Hebrews, Intro. 6-9. The common, and the almost universally received opinion is, that the epistle was addressed to the Hebrew Christian, in Palestine. The reasons for this opinion, briefly, are the following: (1) The testimony of the ancient church was uniform on this point - that the epistle, was not only written to the Hebrew Christens, but to those who were Palestine. Lardner affirms this to be the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Euthalius, Chrysostom, Theodore, and Theophylact; and adds, that this was the general opinion of the ancient. Works, vol. vi., pp.80,81, ed. Lond. 1829. (2) The inscription at the commencement of the epistle leads, to this supposition; that inscription, though not appended by the hand of the author, was early affixed to it. It is found, not only in the Greek manuscripts, but in all the early versions, as the Syria, and the Itala; and was doubtless affixed at a very early period, and, by whomsoever affixed, expressed the current sense at t he time. It is hardly possible that a mistake would be made an this point; and unless there is good evidence to the contrary, this ought to be allowed to determine the question. The inscription is, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." But who are the Hebrews - the (Barnes gives the Greek)? Professor Stuart has endeavoured to show, that this was a term that was employed exclusively to denote the Jews in Palestine, in contradistinction from foreign Jews, who were called Hellenists. Bertholdt declares that there is not a single example, which can be found in early times, of Jewish Christians out of Palestine being called Hebrews. See a Dissertation on the Greek Language in Palestine, and on the meaning of the word Hellenists, by Hug, in the Bib. Repository, vol. i. 547,548. Comp. also Robinson's Lex. on the word (Greek is given). If this be so, and if the inscription be of any authority, then it goes far to settle the question..... (3) There are some passages, in the epistle itself, which Lardner supposes indicate that this epistle was written to the Hebrew in Palestine, or to those who had been converted from Judaism to Christianity. As those passages are not conclusive, and as their force has been called in question, and with much propriety, by Professor Stuart, (pp. 32,34,) I shall merely refer to them. They can be examined at leisure by those who am disposed; and though they do not prove that the epistle was addressed to the Hebrew Christian in Palestine, yet they can be best interpreted as that supposition ..... (4) The internal evidence of the epistle corresponds with the supposition, that it was written to the Hebrew Christians of Palestine ... There might be such strong internal proof that an epistle was not addressed to a supposed people, as completely to neutralize all the evidence derived from an inscription like that prefixed to this epistle, and all the evidence delved from tradition. But it is not so here. All the circumstances referred to in the epistle - the general strain of remark - the argument - the allusions - are just such as would be likely to be found in an epistle addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine, and such as would not be likely to occur in an epistle addressed to any other place or people. They are such as the following: a) The familiar acquaintance with the Jewish institutions supposed, by the writer, to exist among those to whom it was sent is familiarity hardly to be expected even of Jews who lived in other countries. (b) The danger, so frequently adverted to, of their relapsing into their former state, of apostatizing from Christianity, and of embracing again the Jewish rites and ceremonies - a danger that would exist nowhere else in so great a degree as in Judea. Comp. ch. ii. 1-3; iii. 7-11,15; iv. l; vi. 1-8; x. 26-35. (c) The nature of the discussion in the epistle - not turning upon the obligation of circumcision, and the distinction of meats and drinks, which occupied much of the attention of the apostles and early Christians in other places - but a discussion relating to the whole structure of the Mosaic economy, the pre-eminence of Moses or Christ, the meaning of the rites of the temple, etc. These great questions would be more likely to arise in Judea than elsewhere; and it was important to discuss them fully, as it is done in this epistle. In other places they would be of less interest, and would excite less difficulty. (d) The allusion to local places and events; to facts in their history; and to the circumstances of public worship, which would be better understood there than elsewhere. There are no allusions - or, if there are, they are very brief and infrequent - to heathen customs, games, races, and philosophical opinions, as there are often in the other epistles of the New Testament. Those to whom the epistle was sent, are presumed to have an intimate and minute knowledge of the Hebrew history, and such a knowledge as could be hardly supposed elsewhere. Comp. ch.xi; particulary vers. 32-39. Thus, it is implied that they well understood the subjects referred to, relating to the Jewish rites, that it was not necessary that the writer should specify them particularly. See ch.ix.5. Of what other persons could this be an appropriately said, as of the dwellers in Palestine? (e) The circumstances of trial and persecution so often referred to in the epistle, agree well with the known condition of the church m Palestine. That it was subjected to great trials, we know; and though this was extensively true of other churches, yet it is probable that there were more vexatious and grievous exactions - that there was more spite and malice - that there were more of the trial, arising from the separation of families and the losses of property attending a profession of Christianity in Palestine, than a elsewhere in the early Christian church. These considerations - though not conclusive as to furnish absolute demonstration - go far to settle the question. They seem to me so strong, as to preclude any reasonable doubt; and are such as the mind can repose on with a great degree of confidence, in regard to the original destination of the epistle. Was it addressed to a particular church in Palestine, or to the Hebrew Christians there in general? Whether it was addressed to the churches in general in Palestine, or to a particular church there, it is now impossible to determine. Professor Stuart inclines to the opinion, that it was addressed to the church in Caesarea. The ancients in general supposed it was addressed to the church in Jerusalem. There are some local references in the epistle, which look as though it was directed to some particular church. But the means of determining this question are put beyond our reach, and it is of little importance to settle the question. From the allusion to the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifice, and the whole train of peculiar institutions there, it would seem probable that it was directed to the church in Jerusalem. As that was the capital of the nation, and the centre of religious influence, and as there was a large and flourishing church there, this opinion would seem to have great probability; but it is impossible now to determine it. If we suppose that the author sent the epistle, in the first instance, to some local church, near the central seat of the great influence which he intended to reach by it - addressing to that church the particular communications in the last verses - we shall make a supposition which, so far as can now be ascertained, will accord with the truth in the case. 3. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE ................ We shall continue with Barnes' comments on the author of Hebrews in part two of this Introduction. November 2006 |
No comments:
Post a Comment