RTS Papers / Hebrews to Revelation / Winter 2019
Who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews? This is the question that dominates the thoughts of many in coming to introductions and commentaries of the book. What is unfortunately lost in the shuffle are the many hermeneutical matters that might illuminate the book’s meaning found right behind that same authorial question. Rather than trying to reconcile the obvious letter-like ending with equally obvious non-letter-like beginning, in the ordinary critical fashion, we would do better to note the “wealth of rhetorical devices” throughout the letter that draw out what appears to have been a Spirit-inspired homily, the transcription of which sent in letter form at some point afterward.
This paper will argue the following thesis: that Hebrews was indeed a sermon to predominantly Jewish Christian community, to hold forth the supremacy of Christ and thus to admonish them from exchanging Christ for a return to Judaism. In other words, the argument is not simply that it was a sermon, but also that it still preaches to the church. This will make sense of both the theology of the book and the fact that its final composition is a letter to a wider Jewish Christian audience.
In pursuit of this thesis, we will observe the following order: (1) what may be known about the author, audience, and genre; (2) a biblical theology of the sermon, or exhortation; then, proceeding through elements of the sermon, the author’s use of (3) Old Testament doctrine, (4) Old Testament illustration, and (5) Old Testament application; all so as to form (6) the ultimate Christ-centered preaching. Lastly we will look at (7) a few problem passages explained in light of the sermonic character of the book.
WHAT MAY BE KNOWN ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND AUDIENCE
Without getting bogged down too much into why Pauline authorship has been abandoned in recent decades, it is worth noting that alternatives have always been proposed. That is because parallel canon lists existed from an early date: some of which contained Hebrews, others that did not. Of those that did, one featured Hebrews second only to Romans, and another after 2 Corinthians. This explains the esteem of some, like Eusebius, who opined that it was “modesty” in Paul that prevented him from identifying himself to the Jews, as he was the apostle to the Gentiles. It is true that many fathers by the fourth century were claiming that only heretics reject Hebrews or that there were fourteen books of Paul, but there was always a tradition that was more reserved.
The book was quoted by Clement of Rome (ca. 96 AD) as if he was quoting Paul; and yet some, like Calvin, theorized that the writer was Clement himself. There was also a “double tradition” theory, where Luke and Clement each contributed. The other Clement (of Alexandria) proposed that Paul wrote it in Hebrew, but that Luke translated it into Greek. Tertullian preferred Barnabas; and Luther held out Apollos. Each has their reasons, but in the final analysis, we cannot say with any certainty.
Against Pauline authorship we must reckon with 2:3, where the author seems to have received the gospel tradition secondhand. He himself was not an apostle, but rather a later member of the “apostolic circle.” Moreover, the usual letter greeting is wholly absent and typical Pauline doctrines and phraseology are conspicuously missing. In spite of these things, “by the third century Pauline authorship was accepted in the East,” and in the West, thanks in large part to the KJV, Paul’s claim was as good as canonical itself during the modern era.
I would cite Origen’s thoughts as a bridge from knowing the author’s identity to knowing the complex genre employed: “the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings.”
It may be that Luke is the most interesting candidate for authorship for two reasons: 1. Luke’s composition rescues an element of Pauline theology without forcing the Apostle’s hand more than the evidence would indicate; 2. Luke is a Gentile and thus we are invited to consider what stake a non-Jew has in such a message as this book: how the same exhortation can apply to a predominantly Gentile audience down through the ages.
Who was this epistle meant for? The title “Hebrews” was added toward the end of the second century. By itself that does not settle the question. The elements often referred to as “Platonic” are thought to perfectly explain the work of Christ to the Alexandrian Jews, as their theological framework had been prepared by thinkers like Philo. The letter gives no explicit indication however. Commentators seem agreed that it would not radically change how we read the letter if its recipients were predominantly, or even entirely, Gentile. 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 and Romans 15:4 give us a good reason for this, as Gentile believers have been brought into the same people of God as Old Testament Israel, and the New Testament authors used the people of Old as examples for the instruction of Jews and Gentiles alike.
A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE SERMON (OR EXHORTATION)
In claiming that the epistle has a “sermonic character” it is important to make clear my meaning. The basic elements of sermon structure are exposition, illustration, and application. Not that a sermon must feature these in a particular order, or each with a equal frequency: only that there is a basic doctrine that is driven toward the real life action of the audience.
What are the most telling qualities of Hebrews that suggests a sermon? There is a constant suggestion of time limitations. “And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell” (11:32; cf. 5:11; 6:3; 9:5). That would be a bit odd in a letter, or any other primarily written form. We would expect instead the author speaking of limited space, instead of time.
There is also 13:22, which speaks of a “word of exhortation” to describe the letter. He actually uses the word in two different forms in the same verse: “I exhort (Παρακαλῶ) you brothers, bear with my word of exhortation (παρακλήσεως).” The latter noun form is used in Acts 13:15 for “a word of encouragement” (ESV) in a preaching context.
Most telling, perhaps, is when the author puts into practice that very exhortation with a constant call to belief in the face of a temptation to fall away (2:1; 3:1, 7-8, 12-13, 15; 4:1, 11, 14, 16; 6:1; 10:22, 23, 24-25; 12:1-2, 12-16, 25; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). Three of those early chapters start with a different form of the same exhortation. In other words, the exhortation makes up the backbone of the letter, at least structurally speaking. Returning to 13:22, he calls it “my” word of exhortation, which does not necessarily mean the final author preached it, but it seems to be an apologia for writing them “briefly” about such deep things.
How different were those public readings of the epistles in the assembly in any event? In other words, what is the line between first century assembly-scripture-reading and what we are saying about his letter? Certainly different New Testament words are used for the different modes of gospel speech: (1) κηρύσσω (2) διδάσκω (3) λαλέω (4) κατηχέω, and finally our (5) παρακαλῶ (1) and (5) are most like preaching, but while (1) focuses more on gospel heralding, (5) brings us the regular purpose of a sermon: exhorting to action, or gospel response.
Old Testament exhortation seems to utilize this general pattern of exposition, illustration, and application. Genres will of course determine how much, and in what way, each is used. Moses gave a sermon on the edge of the Promise Land, Ezra did the same to the people back in the land. The etymology of the verb behind נָבִיא (nabu) includes “to decree, to proclaim, to command, to make known.” Even the short record of Jonah’s sermon clearly expresses the indicative, leaving the imperative implied: Repent. “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jon. 3:4)
Now if Hebrews is a continuation of this tradition, application ought to feature throughout. Can we divide the book neatly into a doctrine (1:1-10:18) then exhortation (10:19-13:25) mold? My conclusion is that there is a relation of doctrine and exhortation throughout. We see an imperative refrain showing up as a kind of heading at 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1--“Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.” The rest are an intensification of the author-preacher’s call to behold Christ so as to not let him go, or so as to not slide into apostasy.
(#Hebrews #sermon #homiletics #epistle #apostolic #covenant #Judaism #Christology)
Comments