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
  Chapter Ninety-five:The Epistle to Hebrews - Introduction #2
Epistle of Hebrews - Introduction #2
The following is taken from Albert Barnes' "Notes On The New
Testament"
THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE
To those who are familiar with the investigation which have
taken place in regard to this epistle, it need not be said that
the question of its authorship has given rise to much discussion.
The design of these Notes does not permit me to go at length into
this inquiry. Those who are disposed to see the investigation
pursued at length, and to see the objections to the Pauline
origin examined in a most satisfactory manner, can find it done
in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Professor
Stuart, pp.77-200. All that my purpose requires is to state, in a
very brief manner, the evidence on which it is ascribed to the
apostle Paul. That evidence is, briefly, the following:
(1) That derived from the church at Alexandria. Clement of
Alexandria says, that Paul wrote to the Hebrews; and that this
was the opinion of Pantaenus, who was at the head of the
celebrated Christian school at Alexandria, and who flourished
about A.D.180. Pantaenus lived near Palestine. He must have been
acquainted with the prevailing opinions on the subject, and his
testimony must be regarded as proof, that the epistle was
regarded as Paul's by the churches in that region. Origen, also,
of Alexandria, ascribes the epistle to Paul: though he say, that
the sentiments are those of Paul, but that the words and phrases
belong to some one relating the apostle's sentiments, end, as it
were, commenting on the words of his master. The testimony of the
church at Alexandria was uniform, after the time of Origen, that
it was the production of Paul. Indeed, there seem, never to have
been any doubt in regard to it there; and from the commencement
it was admitted as his production. The testimony of that church
and school is particularly valuable, because (a) it was. near to
Palestine, where the epistle was probably sent; (b) Clement
particularly had travelled much, and would be likely to
understand the prevailing sentiments of the East; (c) Alexandria
was the seat of the of the celebrated theological school of the
early Christian ages, and those who were at the head of the
school would be likely to have correct information on a point
like this; and (d) Origen is admitted to have been the most
learned of the Greek Fathers, and his testimony, that the
"sentiments" were those of Paul, may be regarded an of peculiar
value.
(2) It was inserted in the translation into the Syriac, made very
early in the second century, and in the old Italic version; and
was hence believed to be of apostolic origin, and is, by the
inscription, ascribed to Paul. This may be allowed to express the
general sense of the churches at that time, as this would not
have been done unless there had been a general impression that
the epistle was written by him. The fact, that it was early
regarded as an inspired book, is also conclusively shown by the
fact that the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third
epistles of John are not found in that version. They came later
into circulation than the other epistles, and were not possessed,
or regarded as genuine, by the author of that version. The
epistle to the Hebrews IS found in these versions, and was,
therefore, regarded as one of the inspired books. In those
versions it bears the inscription, "To the Hebrews."
(3) This epistle was received as the production of Paul by the
Eastern churches. Justin Martyr, who was born at Samaria, quotes
it, about the year 140. It was found, as has been already
remarked, in the Peshito - the old Syriac version, made in the
early part of the second century. Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, also,
(about A.D.325,) repeatedly quotes it as the production of an
apostle.
Ephrem Syrus, or the Syrian, abundantly ascribes this
epistle to Paul. He was the disciple of Jacob of Nisibis, and no
was better qualified to inform himself on this point than Ephrem.
No man stands deservedly higher in the memory of the Eastern
churches. After him, all the Syrian churches acknowledged the
canonical authority of the epistle to the Hebrews. But the most
important testimony of the Eastern church is that of Eusebius,
bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine. He is the well-known historian
of the church, and he took pains, from all quarters to recollect
testimony in regard to the Books of Scripture. He says, "There
are fourteen epistles of Paul, manifest and well known: but yet
them are some who reject that to the Hebrews, alleging, in behalf
of their opinion, that it was not received by the church of Rome
and a writing of Paul."
The testimony of Eusebius is particularly important.
He had heard all the objection to its canonical authority. He
had weighed that objection. Yet, in view of the testimony in the
case, he regarded it as the undoubted production of Paul. As such
is was received in the churches in the East; and the fact which
he mention, that its genuineness bad been disputed by the church
of Rome, and that be specifies no other church, proves that it
had NOT been called in question in the East. This seem
sufficient testimony, to settle this inquiry. The writers
here referred to lived in the very country which the epistle was
evidently written, and their testimony is uniform. Justin Martyr
was born in Samaria; Ephrem passed his life in Syria; Eusebius
lived in Caesarea; and Origen passed the last twenty years of his
life in Palestine. The churches there were unanimous in the
opinion, that this epistle was written by Paul, and their united
testimony should settle the question. Indeed, when their
testimony is considered, it seems remarkable that the subject
should have been regarded as doubtful by critics, or that it
should have give rise to much protracted investigation. I might
add to the testimonies above referred to the feet, that the
epistle was declared to be Paul's by the following persons:
Archeleus, bishop of Mesopotamia, about A.D.300; Adamantius,
about 330; Cyril, of Jerusalem, about 348; the Council of
Laodicea, about 363: Epiphanies, about 368; Basil, 370; Gregory
Nazianzen, 370; Cheysostom, 398, etc, etc. Why should not the
testimony of such men and churches be admitted? What more clear
or decided evidence could we wish, in regard to any act of
ancient history? Would not such testimony be ample in regard to
an anonymous oration of Cicero, or poem of Virgil or Homer? Are
we not constantly acting on far feebler evidence in regard to the
authorship of many productions of celebrated English writers?
(4) In regard to the Western churches, it is to be admitted,
that, like the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third
epistles of John, the canonical authority was for some time
doubted, or was even called in question. But this may be
accounted for. The epistle had not the name of the author. All
the other epistles of Paul had. As the epistle was addressed to
the Hebrews in Palestine, it may not have been soon known to the
Western churches. As there were spurious epistles and gospels, at
an early age, much caution would be used in admitting any
anonymous production to a place in the sacred canon. Yet it was
not long before all these doubts were removed, and the epistle to
the Hebrews was allowed to take its place among the
other acknowledged writing, of Paul. It was received as the
epistle of Paul by Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, about A.D.354; by
Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, 354; by Victorinus, 360; by Ambrose,
bishop of Milan, 360; by Rufinus, 387, etc., etc. Jerome, the
well-known Latin Father, uses in regard to it the following
language: "This is to be maintained, that this epistle, which is
inscribed to the Hebrews, is not only received by the churches at
the East as the apostle Paul's, but has been in past times by all
ecclesiastical writers in the Greek language; although most
[Latins] think that Barnabas or Clement was the author."
Still, it was not rejected by the Latins. Some received
it in the time of Jerome as the production or Paul. See
Stuart, pp.114,115, for the full testimony of Jerome. Augustine
admitted that the epistle was written by Paul. He mentions that
Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and specifies particularly the
epistle to the Hebrews. He often cites it an a part of Scripture,
and quotes it as the production, of an apostle. Stuart, p.115.
From the time of Augustine it was undisputed. By the council of
Hippo, A.D. 393, the third council of Carthage 397, and the fifth
council of Carthage, 419, it was declared to be the epistle of
Paul, and was, as such, commended to the churches.
(5) As another proof that it is the writing of Paul, we may
appeal to the internal evidence.
(a) The author of the epistle was the companion and friend of
Timothy. "Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty" -
or is sent away - (The Greek is given) "with whom, if he come
speedily, I will make you a visit," ch, xiii.23. Sent away,
perhaps, on a journey to visit some of the churches, and
expected soon to return. In, Phil.ii.19, Paul speaks of sending
Timothy to them "so soon as he should see how it would go with
him," at the same time expressing a hope that he should himself
see them shortly. What is more natural than to suppose that he
had now sent Timothy to Philippi; that during his absence he
wrote this epistle; that he was waiting for his return; and that
he proposed, if Timothy should return soon, to visit Palestine
with him? And who would more naturally say this than the apostle
Paul - the companion and friend of Timothy - by whom he had been
accompanied in his travels, and by whom he was regarded with
special interest as a minister of the gospel?
(b) In ch.xiii.18,19, he asks their prayers, that he might be
restored to them; and in ver.23, he expresses a confident
expectation of being able soon to come and see them. From this it
is evident that he was then imprisoned, but had hope of speedy
release - a state of things in exact accordance with what existed
at Rome. Phil ii.17-24.
(c) He was in bonds when he wrote this epistle. Heb.x.34, "Ye had
compassion of me in my bonds" - an expression that will exactly
apply to the case of Paul. He was in "bonds" in Palestine - he
was two whole years in Caesarea a prisoner, (Acts xxiv.27 ;) and
what was more natural than that the Christians in Palestine
should have had compassion on him, and ministered to his wants?
To what other person would these circumstances so certainly be
applicable?
(d) The salutation, (ch.xiii.24,) "they of Italy salute you;"
agrees with the supposition that it was written by Paul when a
prisoner at Rome. Paul writing from Rome, and acquainted with
Christians from other parts of Italy, would be likely to send
such a salutation. In regard to the objection which maybe made to
this use of the passage, the reader may consult Stuart's Intro.
to the Hebrews, p.127, seq.
(e) The doctrines of the epistle are the same as those which are
taught by Paul in his undisputed writings. It is true that this
consideration is not conclusive, but the want of it would be con-
clusive evidence AGAINST the position that Paul wrote it. But the
resemblance is not general. It is not such as any man would
exhibit who held to the same general system of truth. It relates,
to peculiarities of doctrine, and is such as would be manifested
by a man who had been reared and trained as Paul had. No one can
doubt that the author was formerly a Jew - and a Jew who had been
familiar, to an uncommon degree, with the institutions of the
Jewish religion. Every rite and ceremony - very form of opinion -
every fact in their history - is perfectly familiar to him. And
though the other apostles were Jews, yet we can hardly suppose
that they had the familiarity with the minute rites and
ceremonies so accurately referred to in this epistle, and so
fully illustrated. With Paul all this was perfectly natural.
He had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, he had spent the
early part of his life at Jerusalem, in the careful study of the
Old Testament, in the examination of the prevalent opinions, and
in the attentive observance of the rites of religion. The other
apostles had been born and trained, apparently, on the bank of
Gennesareth, and certainly with few of the opportunities which
Paul had had for becoming acquainted with the institutions of the
temple.
This consideration is fatal, in my view, to the claim which has
been set up for Clement as the author of the epistle. It is
wholly incredible, that a foreigner should be so familiar with
the Jewish opinions, laws, institutions, and history, as the
author of this epistle manifestly was.
There is the same preference for Christianity over Judaism in
this epistle which is shown by Paul in his other epistles, and
exhibited in the same form.
Among these points are the following:
The gospel imparts superior light. Comp. Gal.iv.3,9; I Cor.xiv.
20; Eph.iv.11-13; 2 Cor.iii.18: with Heb.i.l,2; ii.2-4; iii.
9-11; x.1; xi.39,40. The gospel holds out superior motives and
encouragements to piety. Comp. Gal.iii.23; iv.2,3; Rom.viii.
15-17; Gal.iv.4; v.13; 1 Cor.vii.19: Gal.vi.15; with Heb.ix.9,
14; xii.18-24,28; viii.6-13. The gospel is superior in promoting
the real and permanent happiness of mankind. Comp. Gal.iii.10;
2 Cor.iii.7,9; Rom.iii.20; iv.24,25; Eph.i.7; Rom.v.1,2; Gal.ii.
16; and the same views in Rom.ii.18-21; ix.9: x.4,11; vi.18-20;
vii.25; ix.24.
The Jewish dispensation was a type and shadow of the Christian.
See Col.ii.16,17; 1 Cor.x.1-6; Rom.v.14; l Cor.xv.45-47; 2 Cor.
iii.13-18; Gal.iv.22-31; iv.1-5; and, far the same or similar
views, see Hebrews ix.9-14; x.1; vii.1-9; ix.22-24. The Christian
religion was designed to be perpetual, while the Jewish was
intended to be abolished. See 2 Col.iii.10,11,13,18; iv.14-16;
Rom.vii.4-6; Gel.iii.21-25; iv.1-7; v.1; and, for similar views,
compare Heb.viii.6-8,13; vii.17-19; x.1-14.
The person of the Mediator is presented in the same light by the
writer of the epistle to the Hebrews and by Paul. See Phil.ii.6
-11; Col.i.15-20; 2 Cor.viii.9; Eph.iii.9; I Cor.ii.6; xv.25-27;
and, for the same and similar views, see Heb.i.2,3; ii.9,14; xii.
2; ii.8; x.13.
The death of Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for sin. See 1
Tim.i.15; 1 Cor.xv.3; Rom.viii.32; iii.24; Gal.i.4; ii.20; 1 Cor.
v.7; Eph.i.7; Col.i.14; 1 Tim.ii.6; I Cor.vi.20; vii.23; Rom.v.
12-21; iii.20,28; viii.3; 1 Tim.ii.5,6. For similar views, see
Heb.i.3; ii.9; v.8,9; vii., viii., ix., x.
The general method and arrangement of this epistle, and the
acknowledged epistles of Paul, are the same. It resembles
particularly the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, where
we have first a doctrinal, and then a practical part. The same is
true also, to some extent, of the epistles to the Ephesians,
Colossians, and Philippians. The epistle to the Hebrews is
on the same plan.
As far as ch.x.19, it is principally doctrinal; the remainder is
mainly practical. The manner of appealing to, and applying the
Jewish Scriptures, is the same in this epistle as in those of
Paul.
The general structure of the epistle, and the slightest
comparison between them, will show this with sufficient
clearness.
The general remark to be made in view of this comparison is, that
the epistle to the Hebrews is just each an one as Paul might be
expected to write; that it agrees with what we know to have been
his early training, his views, his manner of life, his opinions
and his habit in writing; that it accords better with his views
than with those of any other known writer of antiquity; and that
it falls in with the circumstances in which he was known to be
placed, and the general object which he bad in view.
So satisfactory are these views to my mind, that they seem to
have all the force of demonstration which can be had in regard to
any anonymous publication; and it is a matter of wonder that so
much doubt has been experienced, in reference to the question who
was the author.
(AMEN, to Barnes' comments above. As I have read Paul over and
over again for forty years of my life now, I can only see in
Hebrews the continuation of the very mind and theology and
education of "Jewishness" that is in Paul. As to technical style
and Greek grammar and all that, which some take as this epistle
not being written by paul, my answer it that Paul was a man of
multi-personality, as can be seen by reading the epistles which
do sign his name to them. He adapted his personality and way of
writing to fit the situation and circumstance, the need as to
what needed to be said for that issue, and the way it needed to
be said and taught.
Yes, to me the very context of Hebrews has the personality and
nature and theology of the apostle Paul written all over it -
Keith Hunt)
It is difficult to account for the fact, that the name of the
author was omitted. It is found in every other epistle of Paul,
and, in general, it is appended to the epistles in the New
Testament. It is omitted, however, in the three epistles of John,
for reasons which are no unknown. And there may have been
similar reasons, also unknown, for omitting it in this case. The
simple fact is, that it is anonymous; and, whoever was the
author, the same difficulty will exist in accounting for it. If
this fact will prove that Paul was not the author, it would prove
the same thing in regard to any other person; and would thus be,
ultimately, conclusive evidence that it had no author. What were
the reasons for omitting the name can be only matter of
conjecture. The most probable opinion, as it seems to
me, is this. The name of Paul was odious to the Jews. He was
regarded by the nation as an apostate from their religion, and
everywhere they slowed peculiar malignity against him. See the
Acts of the Apostles. The fact that he was as regarded by them,
might indirectly influence even those who had converted from
Judaism to Christianity. They lived in Palestine. They were near
the temple, and were engaged in its ceremonies and sacrifices -
for there is no evidence that they broke off from those
observances on their conversion to Christianity. Paul was abroad.
It might have been reported that he was preaching against the
temple and its sacrifices, and even the Jewish Christians in
Palestine might have supposed that he was carrying matters too
far. In these circumstances it might have been IMPRUDENT for him
to have announced his name at the outset, for it might be have
aroused prejudices which a wise man would wish to allay.
But if he could present an argument, somewhat in the form of an
essay, showing that he believed that the Jewish institutions were
appointed by God, and that he was not an apostate and an infidel;
if he could conduct a demonstration that would accord in the main
with the prevailing view of the Christians in Palestine, and that
was adapted to strengthen them is the faith of the gospel, and
explain we to them the true nature of the Jewish rites, then the
object could be gained without difficulty, and then they would be
prepare to learn that Paul was the author, without prejudice or
alarm.
Accordingly he thus conducts the argument; and, at the close,
gives them such INTIMATIONS that they would understand
who wrote it without much difficulty.
If this was the motive, it was an instance of tact such as was
certainly characteristic of Paul, and such as was not unworthy
any man.
I have no doubt that this was the true motive. It would be soon
known who wrote it; and, accordingly, we have seen it was never
disputed in the Eastern churches.
(Amen again to Albert Barnes - I do fully believe this epistle
was written by the apostle Paul. Of course we shall await the
return of Jesus and the resurrection of Paul, for him to affirm
or not that he did write this epistle - Keith Hunt)
TIME WHEN WRITTEN
..................
I will continue with the comments of Albert Barnes in number
three of this Introduction to Hebrews
November 2006
  Chapter Ninety-six:The Epistle to Hebrews - Introduction #3
Epistle to Hebrews - Introduction #3
The following is taken from Albert Barnes' "Notes On The New
Testament."
THE TIME WHEN WRITTEN
In regard to the time when this epistle was written, and the
place where, critics have been better agreed than on most of the
questions which have been started in regard to it. Mill was of
opinion, that it was written by Paul in the year 63, in some part
of Italy, soon after he bad been released from imprisonment at
Rome. Wetstein was of the came opinion, Tillemont also places
this epistle in the year 63, and supposed that it war written
while Paul was at Rome, or at least in Italy, and soon after he
was released from imprisonment. Basnage supposes it was written
about the year 61, and during the imprisonment of the apostle.
Lardeer supposes, also, that it was written in the beginning of
the year 63, and soon after the apostle was released from his
confinement. This also is the opinion of Calmet.
The circumstances in the epistle, which will enable to form
an opinion on the question about the time and the place, are the
following:
(1) It was written while the temple was still standing, and
before Jerusalem was destroyed. This is evident from the whole
structure of the epistle. There is no allusion to the destruction
of the temple or the city, which there certainly would have been
if they had been destroyed. Such an event would have contributed
much to the object in view, and would have furnished an
irrefragable argument, that the institutions of the Jews were
intended to be superseded by another and a more perfect system.
Moreover, there are allusions in the epistle which suppose that
the temple-service were then performed. See Heb.ix,9; viii.
4,5. But the city and temple were destroyed in the year 70, and
of course the epistle war written before that year.
(2.) It was evidently written before the civil wars and
commotions in Judea, which terminated in the destruction of the
city and nation. This is clear, because there are no allusions to
any such disorders or troubles in Palestine; and there is no
intimation that they were suffering the evils incident to a state
of war. Comp.ch.xii 4. But those wars commenced A.D.66, and
evidently the epistle was written before that time.
(3) They were not suffering the evils of violent persecution.
They had indeed formerly suffered, (comp.ch.x.32,34 ;) James and
Stephen had been put to death, (Acts vii., xii;) but there was no
violent and bloody persecution then raging, in which they were
called to defend their religion at the expense of blood and life.
Ch.x.32,33. But the persecution under Nero began in the year 64;
and though it began at Rome, and was confined, to a considerable
degree, to Italy, yet it is not improbable that it extended to
other place, and it is to be presumed, that if such a persecution
were raging at the time when the epistle was written, there would
be some allusion to this fact. It may be set down, therefore,
that it was written before the year, 64.
(4) It is equally true, that the epistle was written during the
latter part of the apostolic age. The author speaks of the former
days, in which, after they were illuminated, they had endured a
great fight of afflictions, and when they were made a
gazing-stock, and were plundered by their oppressors, (ch.x.32,
34;) and he speaks of them as having been so long converted, that
they ought to have been qualified to teach others, (ch.v.12;) and
hence it is fairly to be inferred, that they were not RECENT
converts, but that the church there had been established for a
considerable period. It may be added, that it was after the
writer had been imprisoned - as I suppose in Caesarea, (see
§3)- when they had ministered to him, ch.x.34. But this was as
late as the year 60.
(5) At the tine when Paul wrote the epistles to the Ephesians,
Philippines, and Colossians, he had hopes of deliverance.
Timothy was evidently with him. But now he was absent. Ch.xiii
23. In the epistle to the Philippians, (ch.ii.19-23,) he says,
"But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto
you, that I may be also of good comfort, when I know your state."
He expected, therefore, that Timothy would come back to him at
Rome. It is probable that Timothy was sent soon after
this. The apostle had a fair prospect of being set at liberty,
and sent him to them. During his absence at this time, it would
seem probable, this epistle was written. Thus the writer says,
(ch.xiii.23) "Know ye that our brother Timothy is SET AT LIBERTY"
- or rather, SENT AWAY, or SENT ABROAD, (see note in that place;)
"with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you." That is, if he
returns soon, as I expect him, I will pay you a visit. It is
probable that the epistle was written while Timothy was thus
absent at Philippi; and, when he returned, Paul and he went to
Palestine, and thence to Ephesus. If so, it was written somewhere
about the year 63, as this was the time when Paul was set at
liberty.
(6.) The epistle was written evidently in Italy. Thus, in ch.
xiii.24, the writer says, "They of Italy salute you:" This would
be the natural form of salutation, on the supposition that it was
written there. He mentions none by name, as he does in his other
epistle., for it is probable that none of those who were at Rome
would be known by name in Palestine. But there was a GENERAL
salutation, showing the interest which he had in the Christians
in Judea, and expressive of regard to their welfare. This
expression is, to my mind, conclusive evidence that the epistle
was written in Italy; and IN Italy there was no place where this
would be so likely to occur as at Rome.
THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN
......................
We shall continue with the comments of Albert Barnes in the
Introduction to Hebrews, number 4.
November 2006
  Chapter Ninety-seven:Epistle to Hebrews - Introduction #4
The following is taken from Albert Barnes' "Notes On The New
Testament."
THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN
This is a vexed and still unsettled question, and it does
not seem to be possible to determine it with any considerable
degree of certainty. Critics, of the ablest name, have been
divided on it; and, what is remarkable, have appealed to the same
arguments to prove exactly opposite opinions - one class arguing
that the style of the epistle is such as to prove that it was
written in Hebrew, and the other appeal to the same proofs to
demonstrate that it was written in Greek.
Among those who have supposed that it was written in Hebrew
are the following, viz. :- Some of the Fathers - as Clement of
Alexandria, Theodoret, John Damascenes, Theophylact; and among
the moderns, Michaelis has been the most strenuous defender of
this opinion. This opinion was also held by the late Dr.James P.
Wilson, who says, "It was probably written in the vulgar language
of the Jews; that is, in that mixture of Hebrew, Syriac, and
Chaldee, which was usually spoken in the time of the Saviour, and
which was known as the Syro-Chaldaic."
On the other hand, the great body of Critics have supposed
it was written in the Greek language. This was the opinion of
Fabricius, Whitby, Beausobre, Capellus, Basnage, Mill, and
others; and is also the pinion of Lardner, Hug, Stuart, and
perhaps of most modem critics. These opinions may be seen
examined at length in Michaelis' Introduction, Hug, Stuart; and
Lardner.
The arguments in support of the opinion, that it was written
in Hebrew, are briefly the following:
(l) The testimony of the Fathers. Thus, Clement of Alexandria
say., "Paul wrote to the Hebrew, in the Hebrew language, and Luke
carefully translated it into Greek." Jerome Says, "Paul, as a
Hebrew, wrote to the Hebrews in Hebrew - Scrlpserat ut Hebraeus
Hebraeis Hebraice;" and then he adds, "This epistle was
translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was
made diverse in this way from that of Paul's."
(2.) The fact that it was written for the use of the Hebrews, who
spoke the Hebrew, or the Talmudic language, is alleged as a
reason for supposing that it must have been written in that
language.
(3) It is alleged by Michaelis, that the style of the Greek, as
we now have it, is far more pure and classical than Paul
else-where employs, and that hence it is to be inferred, that it
was translated by some man who was master of the Greek language.
On this, however, the most eminent critics disagree.
(4) It is Alleged by Michaelis, that the quotations in the
epistle, as we have it, are made from the Septuagint, and that
they are foreign to the purpose which the writer had in view as
they are now quoted, whereas they are exactly in point as they
stand in the Hebrew. Hence, he infers, that the original Hebrew
was quoted by the author, and that the translator used the common
version at hand, instead of making an exact translation for
himself. Of the fact alleged here, however, there may be good
ground to raise a question and if it were so, it would not prove
that the writer might not have used the common and accredited
translation, though less to his purpose than the original. Of the
fact, moreover, to which Michaelis here refers, Professor Stuart
says, "He has not adduced a single instance, of what he calls a
WRONG translation, which wears the appearance of any considerable
probability." The only instance, urged by Michaelis, which seems
to me to be plausible, is Hob.i.7.
These are the principal arguments which have been urged in
favour of the opinion, that this epistle was written in the
Hebrew language. They are evidently not conclusive. The only
argument, of any considerable weight, is the testimony of some of
the Fathers, and it may be denoted whether they gave this as a
matter of historical fact, or only as a matter of opinion. See
Hug's Introduction, § 144. It is morally certain, that, in
one respect, their statement CANNOT be true. They state, that it
was translated by Luke; but it is capable of the clearest proof,
that it was not translated by Luke, the author of the Gospel and
the Acts of the Apostles, since there is the most remarkable
dissimilarity in the style.
On the other hand, there are alleged in favour of the
opinion, that it was written in Greek, the following
considerations, viz. :-
(1) The fact that we have NO Hebrew original. If it was written
in Hebrew, the original was early lost. None of the Fathers say
that they had seen it; none quote it. ALL the COPIES that we have
are in GREEK. If it was written n Hebrew, and the original was
destroyed, it must have been at every early period; and it is
remarkable that no one should have mentioned the fact, or alluded
to it. Besides, it is scarcely conceivable that the original
should have so soon perished, and that the translation should
have altogether taken its place. If it was addressed to the
Hebrews in Palestine, the same reason which made it proper that
it should have been written in Hebrew, would have led them to
retain it in that language; and we might have supposed, that
Origen, or Eusebius, or Jerome, who lived there, or Ephrem the
Syrian, would have adverted to the fact, that there was there a
Hebrew original. The Jews were remarkable for retaining their
sacred books in the language in which they were written; and, if
this were written in Hebrew, it is difficult to account for the
fact, that it was so soon suffered to perish.
(2) The presumption - a presumption amounting to almost a moral
certainty - is, that an apostle writing to the Christians in
Palestine would write in Greek. This presumption is based on the
following circumstances:
(a) The fact, that all the other books of the New Testament were
written is Greek, unless the gospel by Matthew be an exception.
(b) This occurred is cases where it would seem to have been as
improbable, as it was that one writing to the Hebrews should use
that language. For instance, Paul wrote to the church in Rome in
the Greek language, though the Latin language was that which was
in universal use there.
(c) The Greek was a common language in the East. It seems to have
been familiarly spoken, and to have been and commonly understood.
(d Like the other books of the New Testament, this epistle do not
appear to have been intended to be confined to the Hebrews only.
The writings of the apostles were regarded as the property of
the church at large. Those writings would be copied,
spread abroad. The Greek was a far better language for such a
purpose than the Hebrew. It was polished, and elegant; was
adapted to the purpose of discoursing on moral subjects; was
fitted to express delicate shades of thought; and was the
language which was best understood by the world at large.
(e) It was the language which Paul would naturally use, unless
there was a strong reason for his employing the Hebrew.
Though he was able to speak in Hebrew, (Acts xxi.40,) yet he had
spent his early days in Tarsus, where the Greek was the
vernacular tongue, and it was probably that which he had first
learned. Besides this, when this epistle was written he had been
absent from Palestine about twenty-five years, and in all that
time he bad been there but a few days, He had been where the
Greek language was universally spoken. He bad been among Jews who
spoke that language. It was the language used in their
synagogues, and Paul had addressed them in it. After thus
preaching, conversing, and writing in that language for
twenty-five years, is it any wonder that he should prefer writing
in i t - that he should naturally do it? and is it not to be
presumed that he would do it in this case? These presumptions are
so strong, that they ought to be allowed to settle a question of
this kind, unless there is positive proof to the contrary.
(3) There is internal proof that it was written in the Greek
language. The evidence of this kind consists in the fact, that
the writer bases an argument on the meaning and force of Greek
words, which could not have occurred had he written in Hebrew.
Instances of this kind are such as these.
(a) In ch.ii. he applies a passage from Psa. viii. to prove that
the Son of God must have had a human nature, which was to be
exalted above the angels, and placed at the head of the creation.
The passage is, "Thou bast made him a little while inferior to
the ANGELS," ch.ii.7. margin. In the Hebrew, in Psa. viii.5, the
word rendered angels, is - Elohim - God; and the sense of
angel, attached to that word, though it may sometimes occur, is
so unusual, that an argument would not have been built on the
Hebrew.
(b) In ch.vii.1, the writer has explained the name Melchizedek,
and translated it king of Salem - telling what it is in Greek - a
thing which would not have been done if it had be written in
Hebrew, where the word was well understood. It is possible,
indeed, that a translator might have done this; but the
explanation seems to be interwoven with the discourse itself, and
to constitute a part of the argument.
(c) In ch.ix.16,17, there is an argument on the meaning of the
word COVENANT - which could not have occurred had the epistle
been in Hebrew. It is founded in the DOUBLE meaning of that word
- denoting both a covenant and a testament, or will. The Hebrew
word, - Berith - has NO such DOUBLE signification. It means
COVENANT only, and is never used in the sense of the word WILL,
or TESTAMENT. The proper translation of that word would be -
"syntheke" - but the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek
translation of the Old Testament - Keith Hunt) uniformly used the
former, - "diatheke" - and on this word the argument of the
apostle is based. This could not have been done by a translator;
it must have been by the original author, for it is incorporated
into the argument.
(d) In ch.x.3-9, the author shows that Christ came to make an
atonement for sin, and that in order to this it was necessary
that he should have a human body. This, he shows, was not only
necessary, but was predicted. In doing this, be appeals to
Psa.xl.6 - "A body halt thou prepared form me." But the Hebrew
here is, "Mine EARS hast thou opened." This passage would have
been much less pertinent than the other form - "a body hast thou
prepared me;" and, indeed, it is not easy to see how it would
bear at all on the object in view. Sea ver.10. But in the
Septuagint the phrase stands as he quotes it - "a body hast thou
prepared for me" a fact which demonstrates, whatever difficulties
there may be about the principle on which be makes the quotation,
that the epistle wee written in Greek. It may be added, that it
has nothing of the appearance of a translation. It is not stiff,
forced, or constrained in style, as translations usually are.
It is impassioned, free, flowing, full of animation, life, and
colouring, and has all the appearance of being an original
composition.
So clear have these considerations appeared, that the great body
of critics now concur in the opinion that the epistle was
originally written in Greek.
THE DESIGN AND GENERAL ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE
...................
The use of the Greek Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old
Testament) in the first century Church of God, and in the
writings of the apostle Paul, with other Greek translations and
paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament, may come as a surprise
to many. The use of the Greek was extensive and the reader is
pointed to an indepth study on this Website "Paul's Use of the
Old Testament" to show the truth of the matter - a truth that
will shock and certainly be a surprised education for many.
(Keith Hunt)
We shall continue with comments from Albert Barnes in number 5 of
this Introduction to Hebrews.
November 2006
  Chapter Ninety-eight:The Epistle to Hebrews - Introduction #5
The following is taken from Albert Barnes' "Notes On The New
Testament"
THE DESIGN AND GENERAL ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE
The general purpose of this epistle is, to preserve those to
whom it was sent from the danger of apostasy. Their danger on
this subject did not arise so much from persecution, as from the
circumstances that were fitted to attract them again to the
Jewish religion. The temple, it is supposed, and indeed it is
evident, was still standing. The morning and evening sacrifice
was still offered. The splendid rites of that imposing religion
were still observed. The authority of the law was undisputed.
Moses was a lawgiver, sent from God; and no one doubted that the
Jewish form of religion had been instituted by their forbear,
conformity with the direction of God. Their religion had been
founded amidst remarkable manifestations of the Deity - in
flames, and smoke, and thunder; it had been communicated by the
ministration of angels; it had on its side, and in its favour,
all the venerableness and sanction of a remote antiquity; and it
commended itself by the pomp of its ritual, and by the splendour
of its ceremonies.
On the other hand, the new form of religion had little or
nothing of this to commend it. It was of recent origin. It was
founded by the Man of Nazareth, who had been trained up in their
own land, and who had been a carpenter, and who had had an
extraordinary advantages of education. Its rites were few and
simple. It had no splendid temple-service were none of the pomp
and pageantry, the music and the magnificence, of the ancient
religion. It had no splendid array of priest, in magnificent
vestments, and it had not been imparted by the ministry of
angels.
Fishermen were its ministers; and, by the body of the
nation, it was regarded as a schism, or heresy, that enlisted in
its favour only the most humble and lowly of the people.
In these circumstances, how natural was it for the enemies
of the gospel in Judea to contrast the two forms of religion, and
how keenly would Christians there feel it! All that was said of
the antiquity and the Divine origin of the Jewish religion, they
knew and admitted; all that was said of its splendour and
magnificence, they saw; and all that was said of the humble
origin of their own religion, they were constrained to admit
also.
Their danger was not that arising from persecution. It was
that of being affected by considerations like these, and of
relapsing again into the religion of their fathers, and of
apostatizing from the gospel; and it was a danger which beset
another part of the Christian world.
To meet and counteract this danger was the design of this
epistle. Accordingly, the writer contrasts the two religions in
all the great points on which the mind of Christians in Judea
would be likely to be effected, and show. the superiority of the
Christian religion over the Jewish in every respect, and
especially in the points that had so much attracted their
attention, and affected their hearts.
He begins by showing that the Author of the Christian
religion was superior in rank to any, and all, who had ever
delivered the word of God to man. He was superior to the
prophets, and even to the angels. He was over all things, and all
things were subject to him. There was, therefor, a special reason
why they should listen to him, and obey his commands. Ch.i.,ii.
He was superior to Moses, the great Jewish lawgiver, whom
they venerated so much, and on whom they so much prided
themselves. Ch.iii.
Having shown that the Great Founder of the Christian
religion was superior to the prophets, to Moses, and to the
angels, the writer proceeds to show, that the Christian religion
was characterized by having a High Priest superior to that of the
Jews, and of whom the Jewish high priest was but a type and
emblem.
He shows, that all the rites of the ancient religion,
splendid as they were, were also but types, and were to vanish
away - for they had had their fulfilment in the realities, of the
Christian faith. He shows, that the Christian's High Priest
derived his origin, and his rank, from a more venerable antiquity
than the Jewish high priest did; for he went back to Melchizedek,
who lived long before Aaron; and that he had far superior dignity
from the fact, that he had entered into the most Holy place -
into heaven. The Jewish high priest entered once a year into the
most holy place in the temple; the Great High Priest of the
Christian faith had entered into the most holy place - of which
that was but the type and emblem - into heaven.
In short, whatever there was of dignity and honour in the
Jewish faith, had more than its counterpart in the Christian
religion; and, while the Christian religion was permanent, that
was fading.
The rites of the Jewish system, magnificent as they were,
were designed to be temporary. They were more types and shadows
of things to come. They had their fulfilment in Christianity.
That had an Author more exalted in rank, by far, than the author
of the Jewish system; it bad a High Priest more elevated and
enduring; it had rites, which brought men nearer to God; it was
the substance of what in the temple-service was type and shadow.
By considerations such we these, the author of this epistle
endeavours to preserve them from apostasy. Why should they go
back? Why should they return to a less perfect system? Why go
back from the substance to the shadow? Why turn away from
the true Sacrifice to the type and emblem? Why linger around the
earthly tabernacle, and contemplate the high priest there, while
they had a more perfect and glorious High Priest, who had entered
into the heavens? And why should they turn away from the only
perfect sacrifice - the great offering made for transgression -
and go back to the bloody rites, which were to be renewed every
day? And why forsake the perfect system - the system that was to
endure for ever - for that which was to vanish away?
The author of this epistle is very careful to assure them,
that if they thus apostatized, there could be no hope
for them. If they now rejected the sacrifice of the Son of God,
there was no other sacrifice for sin. That was the last great
sacrifice for the sins of men. It was designed to close all
bloody offerings. It was not to be repeated.
If that was rejected, there was no other. The Jewish rites
were soon to pass away; and even if they were not, they could not
cleanse the conscience from sin. Persecuted, then, though they
might be - reviled, ridiculed, opposed, yet they would not
abandon their Christian hope, for it was their all; they should
not neglect Him who spoke to them from heaven, for, in dignity,
rank, and authority, he far surpassed all who, in former times,
had made known the will of God to men.
This epistle, therefore, occupies a most important place in
the book of revelation, and without it that book would be
incomplete. It is the most full explanation, which we have, of
the meaning of the Jewish institutions. In the epistle to the
Romans we have a system of religious doctrine, end particularly a
defence of the great doctrine of justification by faith.
Important doctrines are discussed the other epistles; but
there was something wanted, that would show the meaning of the
Jewish rites and ceremonies, and their connexion with the
Christian scheme; thing which would show us how the thing was
paratory to the other; and, I may add, something that would
restrain the imagination, in endeavoring to show how the
one was desired to introduce the other. The one was a system of
type, and shadows.
But on nothing is the human mind more prone to wander, then
on the subject of emblems and analogies. This has been shown
in the experience of the Christian church, from the time of
origin to the present. Systems of divinity, commentaries, and
sermons, have shown everywhere how prone men of ardent
imaginations have been, to find types in every thing pertaining
to the ancient economy; to discover hidden meanings in every
ceremony, and to regard every pin, and hook, and instrument of
the tabernacle, as designed to some truth, and to shadow forth
some tale or doctrine of the Christian revelation.
It was desirable to have one book that should tell how that
is; to fetter down the imagination, and bind it by severe rules,
and to restrain the vagaries of honest but credulous devotion.
Such a book we have in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The
ancient system is there explained by one who had been brought up
in the midst of it, and who understood it thoroughly; by one who
had a clear insight into the relation on which it bore to the
Christian economy; by one who was under the influence of Divine
inspiration, and who could not err.
The Bible would have been incomplete without this book: and
when I think of the relation between the Jewish end the Christian
systems - when I look an the splendid rites of the ancient
economy, and ask their meaning - when I wish a full guide to
heaven, and ask for that which gives completeness to the whole -
I turn instinctively to the Epistle to the Hebrew.
When I wish, also, that which shall give me the most
elevated view of the Great Author of Christianity, and of his
work, and the most clear conceptions of the sacrifice which he
made for sin; and when I look for considerations that shall be
most effectual in restraining the soul from apostasy, and for
considerations to enable it to bear trials with patience and with
hope, my mind recurs to this book; and I feel, that the book of
revelation, and the hope of man would be incomplete without it.
......................
In part 6, I will reproduce from the KJV Study Bible, the outline
of the book of Hebrews (Keith Hunt)
November 2006
  Chapter Ninety-nine:The Epistle to Hebrews - Introducation #6
OUTLINE OF THE EPISTLE TO HEBREWS
The following is taken from the NKJV Personal Study Bible; Nelson
Publishers, 1990,1995.
I. The Son is God's final Word 1:1-4:13
A. Christ superior to the angels 1:1-3
B. Christ the eternal Son 1:4-2:18
1. Superior because of His divine Sonship 1:4-14
2. We must obey Him 2:1-4
3. Superior because of His obedient humility 2:5-18
C. Christ superior to Moses 3:1-4:13
1. The Son superior to the faithful servant 3:1-6
2. Christians are not to imitate unfaithful Israel 3:7-4:13
II. The Son is our High Priest 4:14-10:18
A. Christ's priesthood produced 4:14-5:11
1. An appropriate priesthood 4:4-16
2. A superior priesthood 5:1-11
B. The need for maturity 5:12-6:20
1. The danger of immaturity 5:12-6:8
2. God's provision for pressing on 6:9-20
C. Christ's eternal priesthood 7:1-28
1. Melchizedek superior to Levi 7:1-10
2. The Son has replaced Aaron 7:11-28
D. Christ's exalted priestly ministry 8:1-13
1. Exercised at God's right hand 8:1-5
2. Mediating a better covenant 8:6-13
E. Christ's once for all sacrifice 9:1-10:10
1. Not offered in the earthly sanctuary 9:1-10
2. Accomplished by His own blood 9:11-22
3. Completed once for all 9:23-28
4. Made effective by obedience 10:1-10
F. Summary 10:11-18
III. Response to out High Priest 10:9-13:17
A. Enter the Holiest 10:19-31
1. Draw near in faith 10:19-25
2. Do not fall back through disobedience 10:26-31
B. Persevere in faith 10:32-12:17
1. You have endured suffering 10:32-39
2. Old Testament saints endured suffering 11:1-40
3. Christ endured suffering 12:1-4
4. All God's children endure suffering 12:5-17
C. Obey God's voice 12:18-29
1. Access into God's presence 12:18-24
2. The urgency of listening to God 12:25-29
D. Obey in practice 13:1-17
1. Show brotherly love 13:1-6
2. Bear Christ's reproach 13:7-17
IV. Blessing and farewell 13: 18-25
...................
Entered on this Website November 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
