Hebrews

Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary

sometimes called Israelites, from their progenitor, Jacob, surnamed Israel, and in modern times Jews, as the descendants of Judah, the name of this leading tribe being given to all. See Jews .

Hebrews, Epistle To The Though the genuineness of this epistle has been disputed both in ancient and modern times, its antiquity has never been questioned. It is generally allowed that there are references to it, although the author is not mentioned, in the remaining works of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr; and that it contains, as was first noticed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, internal evidence of having been written before the destruction of Jerusalem,  Hebrews 8:4;  Hebrews 9:25;  Hebrews 10:11;  Hebrews 10:37;  Hebrews 13:10 . The earliest writer now extant who quotes this epistle as the work of St. Paul is Clement of Alexandria, toward the end of the second century; but, as he ascribes it to St. Paul repeatedly and without hesitation, we may conclude that in his time no doubt had been entertained upon the subject, or, at least, that the common tradition of the church attributed it to St. Paul. Clement is followed by Origen, by Dionysius and Alexander, both bishops of Alexandria, by Ambrose, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerom, Chrysostom, and Cyril, all of whom consider this epistle as written by St. Paul; and it is also ascribed to him in the ancient Syriac version, supposed to have been made at the end of the first century. Eusebius says, "Of St. Paul there are fourteen epistles manifest and well known; but yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, urging for their opinion that it is contradicted by the church of the Romans, as not being St. Paul's." In Dr. Lardner we find the following remark: "It is evident that this epistle was generally received in ancient times by those Christians who used the Greek language, and lived in the eastern parts of the Roman empire." And in another place he says, "It was received as an epistle of St. Paul by many Latin writers in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries." The earlier Latin writers take no notice of this epistle, except Tertullian, who ascribes it to Barnabas. It appears, indeed, from the following expression of Jerom, that this epistle was not generally received as canonical Scripture by the Latin church in his time: "Licet eam Latina consuetudo inter canonicas Scripturas non recipiat." [Although the usage of the Latin church does not receive it among the canonical Scriptures.] The same thing is mentioned in other parts of his works. But many individuals of the Latin church acknowledged it to be written by St. Paul, as Jerom himself, Ambrose, Hilary, and Philaster; and the persons who doubted its genuineness were those the least likely to have been acquainted with the epistle at an early period, from the nature of its contents not being so interesting to the Latin churches, which consisted almost entirely of Gentile Christians, ignorant, probably, of the Mosaic law, and holding but little intercourse with Jews.

2. The moderns, who, upon grounds of internal evidence, contend against the genuineness of this epistle, rest principally upon the two following arguments, the omission of the writer's name, and the superior elegance of the style in which it is written. It is indeed certain that all the acknowledged epistles of St. Paul begin with a salutation in his own name, and that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is nothing of that kind; but this omission can scarcely be considered as conclusive against positive testimony. St. Paul might have reasons for departing, upon this occasion, from his usual mode of salutation, which we at this distant period cannot discover. Some have imagined that he omitted his name, because he knew that it would not have much weight with the Hebrew Christians, to whom he was in general obnoxious, on account of his zeal in converting the Gentiles, and in maintaining that the observance of the Mosaic law was not essential to salvation: it is, however, clear, that the persons to whom this epistle was addressed knew from whom it came, as the writer refers to some acts of kindness which he had received from them, and also expresses a hope of seeing them soon,   Hebrews 10:34;  Hebrews 13:18-19;  Hebrews 13:23 . As to the other argument, it must be owned that there does not appear to be such superiority in the style of this epistle, as should lead to the conclusion that it was not written by St. Paul. Those who have thought differently have mentioned Barnabas, St. Luke, and Clement as authors or translators of this epistle. The opinion of Jerom was, that the sentiments are the Apostle's, but the language and composition that of some one else, who committed to writing the Apostle's sense, and, as it were, reduced into commentaries the things spoken by his master. Dr. Lardner says, "My conjecture is, that St. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the Apostle's sentiments in his own elegant Greek; but who this assistant of the Apostle was, is altogether unknown." But surely the writings of St. Paul, like those of other authors, may not all have the same precise degree of merit: and if, upon a careful perusal and comparison, it should be thought that the Epistle to the Hebrews is written with greater elegance than the acknowledged compositions of this Apostle, it should also be remembered that the apparent design and contents of this epistle suggest the idea of more studied composition, and yet, that there is nothing in it which amounts to a marked difference of style: on the other hand, there is the same concise, abrupt, and elliptical mode of expression, and it contains many phrases and sentiments which are found in no part of Scripture, except in St. Paul's Epistles. We may farther observe, that the manner in which Timothy is mentioned in this epistle makes it probable that it was written by St. Paul. Compare  Hebrews 13:23 , with  2 Corinthians 1:1 , and  Colossians 1:1 . It was certainly written by a person who had suffered imprisonment in the cause of Christianity; and this is known to have been the case of St. Paul, but of no other person to whom this epistle has been attributed. Upon the whole, both the external and internal evidence appear to preponderate so greatly in favour of St. Paul's being the author of this epistle, that it cannot but be considered as written by that Apostle.

3. "They of Italy salute you," is the only expression in the epistle which can assist us in determining from whence it was written. The Greek words are, οι απο της ‘Ιταλιας , which should have been translated, "Those from Italy salute you;" and the only inference to be drawn from them seems to be, that St. Paul, when he wrote this epistle, was at a place where some Italian converts were. This inference is not incompatible with the common opinion, that this epistle was written from Rome, and therefore we consider it as written from that city. It is supposed to have been written toward the end of St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, or immediately after it, because the Apostle expresses an intention of visiting the Hebrews shortly; we therefore place the date of this epistle in the year 63.

4. Clement, of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Jerom, thought that this epistle was originally written in the Hebrew language; but all the other ancient fathers who have mentioned this subject speak of the Greek as the original work; and as no one pretends to have seen this epistle in Hebrew, as there are no internal marks of the Greek being a translation, and as we know that the Greek language was at this time very generally understood at Jerusalem, we may accede to the more common opinion, both among the ancients and moderns, and consider the present Greek as the original text. It is no small satisfaction to reflect, that those who have denied either the genuineness or the originality of this epistle have always supposed it to have been written or translated by some fellow labourer or assistant of St. Paul, and that almost every one admits that it carries with it the sanction and authority of the inspired Apostle.

5. There has been some little doubt concerning the persons to whom this epistle was addressed; but by far the most general and most probable opinion is, that it was written to those Christians of Judea who had been converted to the Gospel from Judaism. That it was written, notwithstanding its general title, to the Christians of one certain place or country, is evident from the following passages: "I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner,"   Hebrews 13:19 .

"Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you,"  Hebrews 13:23 . And it appears from the following passage in the Acts, "When the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews,"  Acts 6:1 , that certain persons were at this time known at Jerusalem by the name of Hebrews. They seem to have been native Jews, inhabitants of Judea, the language of which country was Hebrew, and therefore they were called Hebrews, in contradistinction to those Jews who, residing commonly in other countries, although they occasionally came to Jerusalem, used the Greek language, and were therefore called Grecians.

6. The general design of this epistle was to confirm the Jewish Christians in the faith and practice of the Gospel, which they might be in danger of deserting, either through the persuasion or persecution of the unbelieving Jews, who were very numerous and powerful in Judea. We may naturally suppose, that the zealous adherents to the law would insist upon the majesty and glory which attended its first promulgation, upon the distinguished character of their legislator, Moses, and upon the divine authority of the ancient Scriptures; and they might likewise urge the humiliation and death of Christ as an argument against the truth of his religion. To obviate the impression which any reasoning of this sort might make upon the converts to Christianity, the writer of this epistle begins with declaring to the Hebrews, that the same God who had formerly, upon a variety of occasions, spoken to their fathers by means of his prophets, had now sent his only Son for the purpose of revealing his will; he then describes, in most sublime language, the dignity of the person of Christ, Hebrews 1; and thence refers the duty of obeying his commands, the divine authority of which was established by the performance of miracles, and by the gifts of the Holy Ghost; he points out the necessity of Christ's incarnation and passion, Hebrews 2; he shows the superiority of Christ to Moses, and warns the Hebrews against the sin of unbelief, Hebrews 3; he exhorts to steadfastness in the profession of the Gospel, and gives an animated description of Christ as our high priest, Hebrews 4-7; he shows that the Levitical priesthood and the old covenant were abolished by the priesthood of Christ, and by the new covenant, Hebrews 8; he points out the efficacy of the ceremonies and sacrifices of the law, and the sufficiency of the atonement made by the sacrifice of Christ, Hebrews 9, 10; he fully explains the nature, merit, and effects of faith, Hebrews 11; and in the last two chapters he gives a variety of exhortations and admonitions, all calculated to encourage the Hebrews to bear with patience and constancy any trials to which they might be exposed. He concludes with the valedictory benediction usual in St. Paul's Epistles: "Grace be with you all. Amen." The most important articles of our faith are explained, and the most material objections to the Gospel are answered with great force, in this celebrated epistle. The arguments used in it, as being addressed to persons who had been educated in the Jewish religion, are principally taken from the ancient Scriptures; and the connection between former revelations and the Gospel of Christ, is pointed out in the most perspicuous and satisfactory manner.

7. In addition, it may be observed, that Mr. Stuart, an American critic, has published an ample investigation of several of the points referred to in the above remarks, and the following are the results:—

(1.) As to the place in which the persons lived to whom the epistle is addressed, I have now examined all the objections against the opinion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Palestine, which I have met with, and which seem to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve attention. I am unable to perceive that they are very weighty; and surely they come quite short of being conclusive. On the other hand, the positive proof, I acknowledge, is only of a circumstantial nature, and falls short of the weight which direct and unequivocal testimony in the epistle itself would possess. But uniting the whole of it together; considering the intimate knowledge of Jewish rites, the wrong attachment to their ritual, and the special danger of defection from Christianity in consequence of it, which the whole texture of the epistle necessarily supposes, and combining these things with the other circumstances above discussed, I cannot resist the impression, that the universal opinion of the ancient church respecting the persons to whom this epistle was addressed, was well founded, being built upon early tradition and the contents of the epistle; and that the doubts and difficulties thrown in the way by modern and recent critics, are not of sufficient importance to justify us in relinquishing the belief that Palestine Christians were addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews. Thousands of facts, pertaining to criticism and to history, are believed and treated as realities, which have less support than the opinion that has now been examined.

(2.) As to the author, we now come to the result of this investigation. In the Egyptian and eastern churches, there were, it is probable, at a pretty early period, some who had doubts whether St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews; but no considerable person or party is definitely known to us, who entertained these doubts; and it is manifest, from Origen and Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter, any important opposition to the general and constant tradition of the church, that Paul did write it. Not a single witness of any considerable respectability is named, who has given his voice, in this part of the church, for the negative of the question which we are considering. What Jerom avers, appears to be strictly true, namely, Ab ecclesiis orientis et ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Apostoli Pauli suscipi. In the western churches a diversity of opinion prevailed; although the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can be adduced, is not great. Yet the concessions of Jerom and Augustine leave no room to doubt the fact, that the predominant opinion of the western churches, in their times, was in the negative. In early times, we have seen that the case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his epistle, and when the old Latin version was brought into circulation. What produced a change of opinion in the west we are left to conjecture. The scanty critical and literary records of those times afford us no means for tracing the history of it. But this is far from being a singular case. Many other changes in the opinions of the churches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as little able to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. Storr has endeavoured to show, that Marcion occasioned this revolution, when he came from the east to Rome, and brought with him a collection of the sacred books, in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was omitted. But it is very improbable, that an extravagant man, excommunicated by the Roman church itself, should have produced such a revolution there in sentiment. Others have with more probability, attributed it to the zealous disputes at Rome against the Montanist party, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was supposed particularly to favour. The Montanists strenuously opposed the reception again into the bosom of the church of those persons who had so lapsed as to make defection from the Christian faith. The passages in   Hebrews 6:4-8;  Hebrews 10:26-31 , at least seem strongly to favour the views which they maintained. The church at Rome carried the dispute against the Montanists very high; and Ernesti and many other critics have been led to believe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected by them, because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. As a matter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical evidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this subject, it must be allowed as not improbable, that the Epistle to the Hebrews may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Roman church. Many such instances might be produced from the history of the church. The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it stood opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many of the oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the Chiliasts, who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that Luther himself rejected the Epistle of James, because he viewed it as thwarting his favourite notions of justification; yea, that he went so far as to give it the appellation of epistola straminea! [an epistle of straw.] It cannot be at all strange, then, that the Romish church, exceedingly imbittered by the dispute with the Montanists, should have gradually come to call in question the apostolic origin of the epistle; because it was to their adversaries a favourite source of appeal, and because, unlike St. Paul's other epistles, it was anonymous. That all, even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin of our epistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a very active part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of such an origin, or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. But whatever might have been the cause that the epistle in question was pretty generally rejected by the churches of the west, the fact that it was so cannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, from the latter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, seem to have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as St. Paul's; although there were some among them who did receive it. It remains, then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and compared. The early testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most important. And there seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as general and as uniform for the first century after the apostolic age as in respect to many other books of the New Testament; and more so, than in respect to several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that the weight of evidence from tradition is altogether preponderant in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was the author of our epistle.

(3.) As to the language in which the epistle was originally written, there has been a difference of opinion among critics, both in ancient and modern times. Clement of Alexandria says that St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that St. Luke carefully translated it into Greek. Eusebius in the same manner says, that Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and that, according to report, either Luke or Clement translated it. So Jerom, also, scripserat ut Hebraeus Hebraeis Hebraice; [as a Hebrew he had written to the Hebrews in Hebrew;] and then he adds that this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from that of St. Paul's. Of the same opinion, in respect to this, was Clement, of Alexandria; and Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that the thoughts contained in the epistle were St. Paul's, while the diction or costume of it must be attributed to the person who wrote down the sentiments of the Apostle. By the Hebrew language, no one can reasonably doubt, that these fathers meant the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken in the days of the Apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, which had long ceased to be a vernacular language. It is quite plain also, that these fathers were led to the conclusion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in the dialect of Palestine, from their belief, so universal in ancient times, of its having been addressed to some church, or to the churches, in that country. It was very natural to draw such a conclusion; for would not an epistle addressed to Hebrews in all probability be more acceptable, if written in their own vernacular language? Moreover, St. Paul was well acquainted with that language, for he was brought up at Jerusalem, and "at the feet of Gamaliel;" and when he had visited that city, he had addressed the Jewish multitude, who were excited against him, in their native tongue,   Acts 22:1-2 . Why should it not be supposed, that if, as is probable, this epistle was originally directed to Palestine, it was written in the dialect of that country? So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned; although other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not appear to have coincided in opinion with those to whom I have just referred. Among the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to defend the same opinion; and particularly Michaelis, who has discussed the subject quite at length, in his introduction to this epistle. I do not think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. To my own mind they appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are built on an exegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, if admitted, would deduce a very strange meaning from the words of the epistle. Yet, assuming such a meaning, he thence concludes, that the original writer must have expressed a different idea, and that the translator mistook his meaning. He then undertakes to conjecture what the original Hebrew must have been. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from considerations wholly a priori; as if these were admissible in a question of mere fact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls wrong translation, which wears the appearance of any considerable probability. On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well acquainted with the Aramean language, who has gone through with the New Testament, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of translation from Aramean documents, confesses, that, in respect to this epistle, he finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an Aramean original, and no marks that there ever was such an original. This testimony is of considerable importance in respect to the question before us, as it comes from a critic who spent many years on the study of that which is most intimately connected with the very subject under consideration, namely, the detection of the Aramean originals of the various parts of the New Testament.

(4.) The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original are deduced from two sources: That Hebrews are addressed in our epistle, to whom the Hebrew language would have been more acceptable and intelligible, and many of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, certainly could not read it: That the diversity of style in the Epistle to the Hebrews is so great, when compared to that of St. Paul's epistles, that, unless we suppose the Greek costume did in fact come from another hand, we must be led to the conclusion that St. Paul did not write it. Both of these topics have been already discussed. I merely add here, therefore, that in case the writer of the epistle designed it should have a wide circulation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogether the most feasible method of accomplishing this. Beside, if St. Paul did address it to the church at Caesarea, it is altogether probable that he wrote in Greek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even if he did not, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew; for in every considerable place in Palestine, there were more or less who understood the Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last position established beyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug's "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. ii, pp. 32-50. When St. Paul wrote to the Romans, he did not write in Latin; yet there was no difficulty in making his epistle understood, for the knowledge of Greek was very common in Rome. If St. Paul understood the Latin language, which is no where affirmed, and he had not resided, when he wrote this epistle, in any of the countries where it was commonly used, still he understood Greek so much better that he would of course prefer writing in it. For a similar reason, if no other could he given, one may regard it as more probable, that he would write the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Greek language. At the time of writing it, he had been abroad twenty-five years at least, in Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during all that period, only a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every where saw, spoke Greek, not Hebrew. In Greek he preached and conversed. Is it any wonder, then, that, after twenty-five years' incessant labour or preaching, conversing, and writing, in this language, he should have preferred writing in it? Indeed, can it be probable, that, under circumstances like these, he still possessed an equal facility of writing in his native dialect of Palestine? I cannot think it strange, therefore, that although the Epistle to the Hebrews was in all probability directed to some part of Palestine, yet it was written by St. Paul in Greek, and not in Hebrew. But, whatever may be the estimation put upon arguments of this nature, there are internal marks of its having been originally composed in Greek, which cannot well be overlooked.

Holman Bible Dictionary

Authorship Although Paul has traditionally been seen as the author of Hebrews, this is not a view commonly held by modern scholars. The style, vocabulary, form, content, and theology are unlike anything found in the letters of Paul. Besides this, the author describes himself as belonging to the second generation of Christians who were dependent on the eyewitnesses of the apostles ( Hebrews 2:3 ). Paul, who considered himself an eyewitness of the resurrection of Jesus ( 1 Corinthians 15:8-11 ), would not describe himself in this way. Paul felt his experience with the risen Lord put him on a par with the other apostles.

Since the author is not named in the book itself, many have speculated as to who the author was. Luke, Clement of Rome, Priscilla, Barnabas, Apollos, or a Hellenist like Stephen have all been suggested. The early Church Father, Origen, was probably more correct when he said that only God knew who wrote Hebrews. Hebrews was not accepted as part of the New Testament canon in the Western church until after A.D. 367 when the Western church finally accepted the Eastern church's theory of Pauline authorship.

The Form of Hebrews Hebrews does not have the normal opening that the letters of Paul have. (Compare, for example,  Romans 1:1-7;  1 Corinthians 1:1-3;  2 Corinthians 1:1-2 .) It does conclude like a normal letter ( Hebrews 13:20-25; see Letters in the Bible). Many have speculated that Hebrews was originally a sermon preached to a church in Rome (notice the reference to “hearing” and “teaching” in  Hebrews 5:11 ) and later sent to a church outside of Rome ( Hebrews 13:24 ), perhaps experiencing similar circumstances. In this case,  Hebrews 1-12 would represent the original sermon, and   Hebrews 13:1 would represent the brief note (  Hebrews 13:22 ) attached for the second congregation.

Date Many have pointed to the description of the Jewish sacrificial system in  Hebrews 8-10 as evidence that Hebrews was written before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. In actuality, the description of the sacrificial system describes the tabernacle—not the Temple—and comes from the pages of the Old Testament—not through observance of the Temple service.

Other evidence, however, does point to a time of writing before the destruction of the Temple.  Hebrews 10:32-34 describes a time of persecution endured by the original recipients. The persecution seems to have only included the loss of property. These circumstances would fit the edict of Claudius in A.D. 49 banning Christians from the city of Rome. Many believers lost their property as a result. The author then warned of greater tests ahead, probably referring to the persecutions underway during the reign of Nero in A.D. 64. If this is true, the writing of Hebrews would be sometime during or just after A.D. 64.

Others see  Hebrews 10:32-34 as a reference to the persecution of Nero and place the writing during a persecution assumed to have taken place during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). This seems less likely, as the severity of Nero's persecutions does not seem to be reflected in Hebrews.   Hebrews 12:4 says that the readers had not experienced bloodshed. This confirms the experience of a milder form of persecution in the past (such as the one of Claudius in 49) but suggests the intensity of the persecution to come (such as the one of Nero in 64).

The Historical Situation Early Christians were often the objects of persecution. In the beginning Christians were persecuted by Jews as can be seen in Acts (for example,  Acts 4:17-18;  Acts 5:27-42;  Acts 7:54-8:1 ). Herod Agrippa I executed James and had Peter imprisoned about A.D. 44 ( Acts 12:1-5 ). Such persecution often resulted in the spread of the gospel ( Acts 8:4-25;  Acts 11:19-26 ).

Revelation, 1Peter, and possibly the Gospel of Mark were written in times of such persecution. See Persecution.

The recipients of Hebrews faced the possibility of persecution when the book was written. As was often true when Christians faced persecution, the temptation was to deny being Christians so as to avoid persecution. Some biblical scholars think the recipients of Hebrews had been converted to Christianity from Judaism and were tempted to return to their Jewish faith and the relative safety from persecution that being Jewish brought. Thus, the writer of Hebrews went to great length to demonstrate to the recipients that Jesus and the Christian faith were superior to the Jewish faith. Exactly what form of Judaism is in view in Hebrews is unsure. It included a reverence for angels, Moses, and the Levitical sacrificial system. Some feel that a form of Judaism similar to that found among the Essenes at Qumran is the most likely.

Others feel the recipients were Gentile Christians who were also tempted to deny their Christian faith to avoid persecution. The interest in the Old Testament cult is explained by the fact that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) was the Bible of the early Gentile church. The writer, in this case, was explaining the meaning of the sacrificial elements in the Old Testament for the new people of God. This same interest in the Old Testament elements of worship was strong in the second century Church Fathers, who were also Gentiles.

The Writer's Response Whether the recipients were Jewish or Gentile Christians, the writer saw a clear and present danger. The writer's response was to point to the superiority of Jesus.

Jesus is God's superior revelation ( Hebrews 1:1-4 ); He is superior to the angels ( Hebrews 1:5-2:18 ) and to Moses ( Hebrews 3:1-4:13 ). Jesus is superior to the earthly high priest. He has a superior ministry that establishes a superior covenant that is able to bring to maturity those who have faith ( Hebrews 4:14-10:31 ). As the author and finisher of the faith, Jesus is the superior model of faith ( Hebrews 12:1-2 ).

Because of the superiority of Jesus, the writer exhorted the readers not to neglect such a great salvation ( Hebrews 2:3 ). The readers should enter God's rest while it is still available ( Hebrews 4:1-13 ); they should go on to maturity ( Hebrews 6:1-8 ). Because Jesus' high priesthood is superior and because He has a superior ministry that establishes a superior covenant, the readers should draw near God's throne in confidence ( Hebrews 10:19-25 ).

The writer of Hebrews also confronted directly the recipients' fear of suffering. He thought that God's children suffer because they are His children ( Hebrews 12:7-8 ). Suffering functions as a discipline that leads God's children to maturity or perfection. Jesus was perfected in this way ( Hebrews 2:10;  Hebrews 5:8 ) and was qualified to stand in God's presence in the heavenly sanctuary as High Priest ( Hebrews 2:17-18;  Hebrews 5:9-10 ).

The readers could also be qualified to stand in God's presence by means of the discipline of suffering. God disciplines His children for their good, that they might share his holiness ( Hebrews 12:10 ). Without holiness no one will see God—that is, stand in His presence ( Hebrews 12:14 ). Suffering may seem harsh at the time, but “later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness” to those who have been trained by suffering ( Hebrews 12:11 NRSV). The “peaceful fruit of righteousness” is the peace that comes from having acquired the right and privilege to stand before God in confidence (see   Hebrews 10:19-25 ). Therefore, the writer exhorted the recipients to go to Jesus “outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore” ( Hebrews 13:13 NIV).

The recipients were not alone in their suffering, however. Because Jesus has suffered as they were about to suffer and was tempted as they were being tempted, Jesus was able to help them ( Hebrews 2:18;  Hebrews 4:15 ). Jesus could “sympathize” with the weakness that the recipients experienced when facing the prospects of suffering ( Hebrews 4:15 NAS).

Thus, just as Jesus learned what it meant to be obedient to God through suffering ( Hebrews 5:8 ), the readers were exhorted to exhibit the same kind of obedience in their suffering ( Hebrews 10:36-39 ). “Shrinking back” from God in the face of suffering is a sin that God detests ( Hebrews 3:12-19;  Hebrews 10:26-31 ). Jesus was tempted ( Hebrews 2:18;  Hebrews 5:7 ) but did not sin ( Hebrews 4:15 ). Because Jesus remained faithful and did not sin during the hour of His suffering, He became the “source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” ( Hebrews 5:9 REB).

The writer also encouraged the recipients to remain faithful in the midst of suffering by giving them examples of others who were able to remain faithful ( Hebrews 11:1-39 ). The writer reminded them of their own past faithfulness in suffering ( Hebrews 10:32-39 ) and of the example of their former leaders ( Hebrews 13:7 ). Those who remain obedient to God in the midst of suffering are able to do so by means of their faith, because “to have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see” ( Hebrews 11:1 TEV).

This is not to say, however, that the writer of Hebrews, felt that persons could, on the basis of their own obedience, qualify themselves to stand before God. Entrance before the throne of grace is permitted on the basis of the obedience and offering of Christ. Jesus is the one who sanctifies those who follow Him ( Hebrews 2:11;  Hebrews 10:19-20;  Hebrews 13:12 ). To gain personal access to the throne of grace a person must obey ( Hebrews 5:9 ). Just as Jesus learned what it meant to be obedient in suffering and was thereby brought to maturity, so, too, His brothers and sisters must be willing to demonstrate the same obedience.

Outline

I. Jesus Is God's Ultimate Revelation ( Hebrews 1:1-2:4 ).

A. Jesus, God in person, fulfills and surpasses the prophetic word ( Hebrews 1:1-3 ).

B. Jesus is superior to angels ( Hebrews 1:4-14 ).

C. Jesus provides salvation which we dare not ignore ( Hebrews 2:1-4 ).

II. Jesus Is God's Son and Our Brother ( Hebrews 2:5-18 ).

A. The world is subjected to Jesus, the crucified Lord, who dies for us ( Hebrews 2:5-9 ).

B. Jesus is our brother and the Author of our salvation ( Hebrews 2:10-13 ).

C. Jesus died to conquer Satan and free us from the fear of death ( Hebrews 2:14-15 ).

D. Jesus, our High Priest, atoned for our sins and helps us overcome temptation ( Hebrews 2:16-18 ).

III. Jesus Provides a Way of Faith that Assures and Perseveres ( Hebrews 3:1-4:13 ).

A. Believers must focus on Jesus, the High Priest, who is more faithful than Moses ( Hebrews 3:1-6 ).

B. Believers must be aware of the danger of disbelief ( Hebrews 3:7-19 ).

C. Believers must claim God's promised rest in faith ( Hebrews 4:1-11 ).

D. God, through His Word, is the only Judge ( Hebrews 4:12-13 ).

IV. Jesus, the Sinless High Priest, Is the Only Source of Salvation ( Hebrews 4:14-5:10 ).

A. Through the sinless High Priest we can approach God in confidence ( Hebrews 4:14-16 ).

B. The obedient High Priest met all the qualifications and became the Source of eternal salvation ( Hebrews 5:1-10 ).

V. Jesus, the Eternal High Priest, Calls His Followers to Christian Maturity ( Hebrews 5:11-6:20 ).

A. Believers need to mature in Christ ( Hebrews 5:11-6:3 ).

B. Believers must show their faith is genuine and persevere in Christ ( Hebrews 6:4-12 ).

C. God's faithful promises provide secure hope ( Hebrews 6:13-20 ).

VI. Jesus, the Perfect Sacrifice, Is the Only Priest Believers Need ( Hebrews 7:1-10:39 ).

A. Jesus is the promised, permanent Priest who offers a better covenant and complete salvation ( Hebrews 7:1-25 ).

B. Jesus is the perfect Priest who meets our need ( Hebrews 7:26-28 ).

C. Jesus' ministry in the heavenly worship place is superior to all other priests ( Hebrews 8:1-13 ).

D. Jesus' sacrifice of His own blood provides eternal redemption from sin in a new covenant ( Hebrews 9:1-22 ).

E. Jesus' sacrifice was once for all and pointed to His return to bring eternal salvation ( Hebrews 9:23-28 ).

F. Jesus' sacrifice provided perfect forgiveness and made all other sacrifices unnecessary ( Hebrews 10:1-18 ).

G. Jesus' sacrifice calls for His followers to live faithfully, even under persecution ( Hebrews 10:19-39 ).

VII. Jesus Inspires Us to a Life of Faith ( Hebrews 11:1-40 ).

A. Faith lays claim to the unseen realities of God and His purpose ( Hebrews 11:1-7 ).

B. Faith presses on even when some of God's promises remain unfulfilled ( Hebrews 11:8-22 ).

C. Faith risks everything for God and His purpose ( Hebrews 11:23-31 ).

D. Faith endures even when earthly deliverance does not come ( Hebrews 11:32-40 ).

VIII. Jesus, the Perfect Example of Faith, Inspires Believers to Persevere ( Hebrews 12:1-29 ).

A. Jesus' example of suffering encourages perseverance in the face of difficulties ( Hebrews 12:1-6 ).

B. Suffering should be seen as the Father's discipline ( Hebrews 12:7-13 ).

C. To see Jesus, believers must live holy lives ( Hebrews 12:14-17 ).

D. Believers listen to God's warnings and worship in gratitude before the divine Judge ( Hebrews 12:18-29 ).

IX. Jesus, the Unchanging Savior, Expects His Followers to Live a Life of Love ( Hebrews 13:1-25 ).

A. Christian love includes all people ( Hebrews 13:1-3 ).

B. Christian love leads to pure marriage ( Hebrews 13:4 ).

C. Christian love does not love money ( Hebrews 13:5-6 ).

D. Christian love imitates worthy leaders ( Hebrews 13:7 ).

E. Christian love centers on the unchanging Christ ( Hebrews 13:8 ).

F. Christian love does not follow strange teachings ( Hebrews 13:9-10 ).

G. Christian love endures isolation and persecution ( Hebrews 13:11-14 ).

H. Christian love praises God and shares with others ( Hebrews 13:15-16 ).

I. Christian love obeys and prays for Christian leaders ( Hebrews 13:17-19 ).

J. Christian love does God's will ( Hebrews 13:20-21 ).

X. Conclusion ( Hebrews 13:22-25 )

Phil Logan

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

That branch of the posterity of Abraham whose home was in the land of promise. The name Hebrew is first applied to Abraham in  Genesis 14:13 , and is generally supposed to have been derived for Heber, the last of the long-lived patriarchs. However outlived six generations of his descendants, including Abraham himself, after whose death he was for some years the only surviving ancestor of Isaac and Jacob. Hebrews appears to have been the name by which the Jewish people were known to foreigners, in distinction from their common domestic name, "the children of Israel." The name of Jews, derived from Judah, was afterwards applied to them as inhabitants of Judea,  2 Kings 16:6 . Abraham, the founder of the Jewish nation, was a migratory shepherd, whose property consisted mainly in vast flocks and herds, but who had no fixed residence, and removed from place to place as the convenience of water and pasturage dictated. As such a nomad, he had lived in Ur of the Chaldees, and then in Haran, whence he removed and dwelt in the same manner among the Canaanites, in the country which God promised to give to his posterity. His son and grandson, Isaac and Jacob followed in his steps. By a miraculous arrangement of Providence, Joseph, one of the sons of Jacob, became grand-vizier of Egypt; and in a time of famine invited his family to settle in that land. Here Moses died, and was succeeded by Joshua, who conquered the desired country, and allotted it to the several tribes. From this time they were governed in the name of Jehovah, by chiefs, judges, or patriarchal rulers, until the time of Samuel; when the government was changed to a monarchy, and Saul anointed king. David, a shepherd youth, but the man after God's own heart, was afterwards king, and founded a family which continued to reign in Jerusalem until the entire subjugation of the country by the Chaldeans. Under his grandson Rehoboam, however, ten tribes revolted and formed a separate kingdom, that of Israel, between which the kingdom of Judah there were hostile feelings and frequent wars. The termination of the whole was the carrying away of the greater part of both nations to Babylon, Media, etc. After seventy years of exile, a few small colonies of Hebrews returned, and built another temple at Jerusalem, and attempted to reestablished their nation; but they had to struggle first, under the Maccabees, against the kings of the Seleucian race, (see Jerusalem ,) and then against the Romans; by whom at length, under Titus, Jerusalem was taken and utterly destroyed, A. D. 70-71. Since that time, although Jerusalem has been rebuilt, the Hebrews have ceased to exist as an independent people; but they are scattered among all the nations of the earth, where they retain their characteristic traits, and live as strangers, and, in a great measure, as outcasts.

The government of the Hebrews is, by Josephus, called a theocracy-a form of government which assigns the whole power to God, with the management of all the national affairs-God, in fact, being the proper King of the state. This government, however, underwent several changes under the legislator Moses, his successor Joshua, the judges, the kings, and the high priests. But amid all these revolutions, God was considered as the monarch of Israel, though he did not exercise his jurisdiction always in the same manner. In the time of Moses, he dwelt among his people as a king in his palace, or in the midst of his camp; always ready to be consulted, promulgating all needful laws, and giving specific directions in all emergencies. This was, properly, the time of the theocracy, in the strictest sense of the term. Under Joshua and the judges, it continued nearly the same: the former being filled by the spirit which animated Moses, would undertake nothing without consulting Jehovah; and the latter were leaders, raised up by God himself, to deliver the Hebrews and govern in his name. The demand of the people for a king occasioned to Samuel, the prophet-judge, great disquietude; for he regarded it as a rejection of the theocratic government,  1 Samuel 8:6,7 . God complied with the wishes of the people; but he still asserted his own sovereign authority, and claimed the obedience of all.

The religion of the Hebrews may be considered in different points of view, with respect to the different conditions of their nation. Under the patriarchs, they were instructed in the will of God by direct revelation, worshipped him by prayer and sacrifices, opposed idolatry and atheism, used circumcision as the appointed seal of the covenant made by God with Abraham, and followed the laws which the light of grace and faith discovers to those who honestly and seriously seek God, his righteousness, and truth. They lived in expectation of the Messiah, the Desire of all nations, to complete their hopes and wished, and fully to instruct and bless them. Such was the religion of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Joseph, etc., who maintained the worship of God and the tradition of the true religion. After the time of Moses, the religion of the Hebrews became more fixed, and ceremonies, days, feasts, priest, and sacrifices were determined with great exactness. This whole dispensation only prefigured that more perfect one which should come, and bring life and immortality to light in his gospel, and make a full atonement for the sins of the world. See Type .

The long abode of the Hebrews in Egypt had cherished in them a strong propensity to idolatry; and neither the miracles of Moses, nor his precautions to withdraw them from the worship of idols, nor the rigor of his laws, nor the splendid marks of God's presence in the Israelitish camp, were able to conquer this unhappy perversity. We know with what facility they adopted the adoration of the golden calf, when they had recently been eyewitnesses of such divine wonders. Saul and David, with all their authority, were not able entirely to suppress such inveterate disorders. Superstitions, which the Israelites did not dare to exercise in public, were practiced in private. They sacrificed on the high places, and consulted diviners and magicians. Solomon, whom God had chosen to build his temple, was himself a stone of stumbling to Israel. He erected altars to the false gods of the Phoenicians, Moabites, and Ammonites, and not only permitted his wives to worship the gods of their own country, but he to some extent adored them,  1 Kings 11:5-7 . Most of his successors showed a similar weakness. Jeroboam introduced the worship of the golden calves into Israel, which took such deep root that it was never entirely extirpated. It was for this cause that God gave the Hebrews over into the hands of their enemies, to captivity and dispersion. See Idolatry After the captivity, they appear to have been wholly free from the worship of idols; but they were still corrupt and far from God, and having filled the cup of their guilt by rejecting and crucifying the Lord of glory, they were extirpated as a nation and became strangers and sojourners over all the earth.

For the language of the Hebrews, see Language .

The existence of the Hebrews as a people distinct from all others, to this day, is a miracle of the indisputable king, which may well justify a few remarks.

1. They are spread into all parts of the earth; being found not only in Europe and America, but to the utmost extremity of Asia, even in Thibet and China. They abound in Persia, Northern India, and Tartary, wherever travellers have penetrated. They are, as they assert, descendants of the tribe carried away captive by the Assyrian monarchs. They are also numerous in Arabia, in Egypt, and throughout Africa.

2. In most parts of the world their state is much the same-one of dislike, contempt, and oppression. In past ages innumerable exactions and wrongs have been heaped upon them. Within the last few years they have received more justice at the hands of some of the European states; but they have usually held their possessions by a very precarious tenure.

3. They everywhere maintain observances peculiar to themselves: such as circumcision, performed after the law of their fathers; the great day of expiation; also the observance of a Sabbath or day of rest on Saturday, and not on the Christian Sabbath. They have generally retained the observance of the Passover in some form.

4. They are divided into various sects. Some of them are extremely attached to the traditions of the rabbins, and to the multiplied observances enjoined in the Talmud. Others, as the Caraites, reject these with scorn, and adhere solely to Scripture. The majority of the Jews in Europe, and those with whose works we are mostly conversant, are ribbinists, and may be taken as representative of the ancient Pharisees.

5. They everywhere consider Judea as their proper country and Jerusalem as their metropolitan city. Wherever settled, and for however long, they still cherish a recollection of country, unparalleled among other nations. They have not lost it; they will not loose it; and they transmit it to their posterity. However comfortably they may be settled in any residence, they hope to see Zion and Jerusalem revive from their ashes.

6. The number of the Jewish nation was estimated a few years ago at 3,000,000. This number is probably very far short of the truth. Maltebrun estimates them as from four to five millions.

Hebrews, Epistle To The The object of this epistle, which ranks among the most important of the New Testament books, was to prove to the Jews, from their own Scriptures, the divinity, humanity, atonement, and intercession of Christ, particularly his preeminence over Moses and the angels of God; to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel to the law, and the real object and design of the Mosaic institution; to fortify the minds of the Hebrew converts against apostasy under persecution, and to engage them to a deportment becoming their Christian profession. In this view, the epistle furnishes a key to the Old Testament Scriptures, and is invaluable as a clear elucidation and an inspired, unanswerable demonstration of the doctrine of the great atoning Sacrifice as set forth in Old Testament institutions. The name of the writer of this epistle is nowhere mentioned. The majority of critics, however, refer it to the apostle Paul. It is also believed to have been written in Greek, at Rome and about A. D. 63. See Paul .

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

The name ‘Hebrew’ (Lat. Hebraeus , Gr. Ἑβραῖος) is a transcription of the Aramaic ‘ ebrâyâ , the equivalent of the original word עִבְרִי, the proper Gentile name of the people who were also described as ‘Israelites’ or ‘Children of Israel.’ The people themselves preferred as a rule the designation ‘Israel.’ The latter was the name of privilege and honour given to the race as the descendants of Jacob and the people of God’s choice. Frequently, too, in the OT the term ‘Hebrew’ occurs where foreigners are introduced as speaking or spoken to ( e.g.  Exodus 2:6-7;  Exodus 2:11;  Exodus 3:18,  1 Samuel 4:6;  1 Samuel 4:9;  1 Samuel 13:19;  1 Samuel 14:11;  1 Samuel 29:3,  Genesis 40:15, etc.). These facts have led to the conjecture that the name ‘Hebrews’ was originally given to the race of Abraham by their Canaanite neighbours, and that this name continued to be the designation of the race by outsiders all through their history, just as the Magyars are known as ‘Hungarians’ by other nations of Europe. This conjecture, although it has much to commend it, does not meet all the facts of the case, for the name ‘Israel’ is often found in the OT in the month of foreigners, and it even occurs on the Moabite Stone, while Israelites are found describing themselves as ‘Hebrews’ ( 1 Samuel 13:3,  Jeremiah 34:14). Robertson Smith points out that the whole usus loquendi is explained by the consideration that the regular Gentile name for a member of the race of Israel is ‘Hebrew’ and not ‘Israelite,’ the latter word being rare and apparently of late formation ( Encyclopaedia Britannica 9 xi. 594).

The derivation of the term does not render much help in discovering its original significance. The word presupposes a noun ‘ Eber as the name of the tribe, place, or common ancestor from which the Hebrews are designated. According to one passage in the OT ( Numbers 24:24, Eber figures as a nation along with Asshur or Assyria, while in the genealogical lists of Genesis 10 f. Eber is represented as ancestor of the Hebrews and grandson of Shem. The names in the genealogical tables-Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, etc.-cannot be regarded as names of persons. Some of them are names of places near the upper reaches of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and the whole genealogy may be regarded rather as a geographical account of the wanderings of the Hebrews than as a statement of racial affinities. Eber means ‘the further bank of a river,’ from a root עבר, ‘to cross.’ The Septuagintin  Genesis 14:13 translates the term as ὁ περάτης, ‘the crosser.’ Jewish tradition gives the more accurate form ὁ περαΐτης, ‘the man from the other side,’ i.e. of the Euphrates. This theory, which has generally been accepted by the Rabbis, carries with it the implication that the name was originally given by the original inhabitants of Canaan to the Hebrew immigrants. A modification of this etymology is found in the view which takes Eber in the Arabic sense of a ‘river bank’ and makes the Hebrews ‘dwellers in a land of rivers.’ Ewald ( Gesch . Israels 3, i. 407ff.) discusses fully the meaning and etymology of the term, and rejects the view that the name was given by outsiders to the people on their entry into Canaan. It was, he holds, rather the name commonly in use among the people themselves from the earliest times up to the time of the kings, when it was displaced by ‘Israel’ as the name of national privilege, which again was in turn displaced in common use by the term ‘Jews’ from the time of the Exile. In the period immediately before Christ, an artificial interest in the past and a revival of ancient learning, coupled with the exaggerated reverence for Abraham ‘the Hebrew,’ led to a revival in the use of this term, and to the language of the race being designated thereby, although Philo calls the language of the OT, Chaldee ( de Vita Mosis , ii. 5f.).

In the NT the word ‘Hebrew’ is seldom found applied to members of the ancient race of Israel, ‘Jew’ having become the usual designation of the period. In apostolic times the term became specialized, and was applied not to any member of the ancient race, but to Palestinian Jews of pronounced national sympathies who spoke the Aramaic dialect and retained the national customs, in contrast with the Hellenistic Jews (Authorized Version‘Grecians’ [ q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] ]), who were scattered over the world, spoke Greek, and were interested in the thought and life of Greece and Rome. In  Acts 6:1 we read of a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews where this distinction obtains. In  2 Corinthians 11:22 St. Paul, in contrasting himself with false teachers, calls himself a Hebrew, and in  Philippians 3:5 refers to himself as ‘a Hebrew of Hebrews.’ Probably in both cases the Apostle wishes to emphasize his true Hebrew descent rather than to distinguish between himself as a Hebrew-speaking Jew and the Greek-speaking members of the race. Eusebius at a later date does not adhere to the specialized use of the term as found in the Acts, but designates Philo ( HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).]ii. iv. 2) and Aristobulus ( Praep. Evang. xiii. xi. 2) as ‘Hebrews,’ although both were Greek-speaking Jews with little knowledge of the Hebrew tongue.

The Hebrew language is on several occasions referred to in the NT. What is meant is not the ancient Hebrew of the OT but the Aramaic dialect of Palestine which was understood by the Jews of Jerusalem at the date of the apostles ( Acts 21:40;  Acts 22:2;  Acts 26:14).

Literature.-H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel 3, i. [1864] 407ff.; W. Robertson Smith, article‘Hebrew Language and Literature’ in Encyclopaedia Britannica 9 xi. 594ff.; J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 2, 1869, p. 145; J. H. Bernard, Expositor’s Greek Testament , ‘2 Corinthians,’1903, p. 105; H. A. A. Kennedy, Expositor’s Greek Testament , ‘Philippians,’ 1903, p. 451; articles in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) and Encyclopaedia Biblica .

W. F. Boyd.

People's Dictionary of the Bible

Hebrews, Epistle to the. The aim of this epistle is to prove from the Old Testament the divinity, humanity, atonement and intercession of Christ, and his preeminence over Moses and the angels of God; to demonstrate the superiority of the gospel to the law, and the real object and design of the Mosaic institution. The name of the writer of this epistle is nowhere mentioned. Its authorship is disputed, many ascribing it to the apostle Paul, others to Apollos, Luke, or Barnabas. It is believed to have been written in Italy about a.d. 63.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 Acts 6:1Greeks

Fausset's Bible Dictionary

(See Hebrew .)

Charles Buck Theological Dictionary

See JEWS.