1. Title. The title given this book in the oldest Greek manuscripts is simply Pros Hebraious (“To the Hebrews”). Inasmuch as the book deals largely with the significance, for the Christian, of the sanctuary and its early Hebrew, or Jewish, Christians (see below under “Historical Setting”), the title is particularly appropriate.
2. Authorship. The authorship of Hebrews has been in dispute since early times. While many attributed the book to Paul, others dissented vigorously. Origen, one of the early Fathers, concluded his examination of the book with the declaration, “Who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows” (quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History vi. 25. 14; Loeb ed., vol. 2, p. 79).
Other Fathers thought Barnabas, Apollos, Clement, or Luke to be the author. This uncertainty about the authorship of Hebrews was a major factor in the reluctance of many early Christians in the western part of the Roman Empire to accept the epistle as canonical.
It was, in fact, not until the latter part of the 4th century that Hebrews came to be accepted generally in the West. During the following centuries the discussion regarding the authorship of Hebrews ceased, and most Christians accepted it as the work of Paul. This view was generally held until comparatively modern times, when the question again came under scholarly discussion.
As late as 1885 the RV ascribes Hebrews to Paul, but at the present time few critics hold this view. The evidence against the view that Paul wrote Hebrews have been drawn largely from considerations of the literary style and content of the book. Although it is possible for a writer’s vocabulary and style to vary with subject matter, these variances are largely in the technical terms characteristic of the different subjects about which he writes.
His more general vocabulary and particularly the words that he chooses almost unconsciously in expressing himself, such as prepositions, adverbs, and especially connectives, are considered by most scholars to be much better indications of his style than is his technical terminology.
When compared with the generally accepted epistles of Paul, Hebrews differs markedly, especially in the small, common connective words with which its author binds together his clauses.
Another distinctive difference is found in the handling of quotations from the OT. The accepted epistles employ one group of standard phrases to introduce OT quotations, whereas Hebrews uses another group. Also, the epistles show that the apostle was relatively free in his use of OT materials. Often his quotations follow the LXX, but at times he gives what apparently is his own translation of the Hebrew; at still other times he is content to give only a loose quotation.
By contrast OT quotations in Hebrews are virtually always word for word from the LXX. From a broader standpoint, the general literary style of Hebrews is notably different from that of any of the epistles that bear the name of Paul. The style of the latter is marked indelibly by effervescent yet fervent passages that reveal the surging torrent of the author’s thoughts at the expense of polished literary style. Hebrews, on the other hand, presents a thoroughly organized argument, and maintains the highest rhetorical level of any NT book.
This marked difference in style was noted by writers of the early church, for whom Koine Greek was the native language. Clement of Alexandria (died c. A.D. 215; cited by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History vi. 14.2–3) suggests that Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew, and that Luke translated it into Greek.
Although such an explanation is ruled out by the fact that Hebrews contains several plays on Greek words that could not have been translated from another language, yet Clement’s statement is significant in that it implies the recognition that the Greek of Hebrews does not appear to be the Greek of Paul.
Origen (died c. A.D. 254), one of the prominent scholars of the early church, likewise recognized the difficulty of harmonizing the style of Hebrews with that of Paul. His solution was “that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said” (quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History vi. 25. 13; Loeb ed. vol. 2, pp. 77, 79).
Certain presumptive evidence in favor of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews rather recently came to light in connection with the discovery of the 3d century Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri.
In the codex that consists of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews is found between Romans and 1 Corinthians. Though this fact does not prove the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, it strongly suggests that very early in the history of the church there were those who believed that Hebrews should be included as a part of Paul’s writings.
This commentary holds that though weighty arguments have been presented against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, those arguments are not sufficient to offset the traditional belief that Paul is the author. Much of the difference in tone and style of Hebrews compared with the known Pauline epistles may be reasonably explained by the fact that these other epistles are addressed to church groups, or to individuals, to meet problems.
Granted there are certain differences in literary style that cannot be explained on this basis, these differences may be reasonably explained on the assumption that Paul preached certain sermons on the theme of Christ’s priestly ministry and that these were taken down stenographical. As is sometimes the case with matter thus recorded, the final literary form of the transcribed copy may be strongly colored by the transcriber.
It is easy to see how Paul might never have had opportunity to edit these sermons—he traveled incessantly, with the traveling terminated, erelong, by martyrdom. It is generally agreed that Hebrews was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Now, the number of church leaders was very small in the years before A.D. 70. Which of those leaders might have set forth an argument as profound as that presented in the book of Hebrews? By all odds the most likely person is Paul. To say that the author was an unknown Christian of that early period simply poses a new problem. How was it that a Christian possessing the theological insights and the logical powers necessary to produce a work like Hebrews should have been anonymous at a time when Christian leaders were so few and the record of Christian workers so full?
3. Historical Setting. The issue that produced probably a deeper cleavage in the apostolic church than any other was the question of the ceremonial law and its observance by Christians. The council at Jerusalem had freed Gentile Christians from its obligations, but psychologically the large Jewish-Christian community in Palestine was unprepared to enter the same freedom. They doubtless felt that they themselves, because they were Jews, should keep it.
Thus, they failed to realize that for all men the ceremonial observances had met their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. This situation set up an unhealthy tension in the church, since one large segment followed an elaborate system of religious life disregarded by the other.
Paul and those close to him had the needed insight into the Mosaic ordinances and ceremonies to evaluate them rightly and give them their proper setting in the plan of salvation. Paul knew their transitory nature and that the time was past due for their abrogation (see Col. 2:16, 17).
The Jewish Christian church, centered at Jerusalem, seemed unaware of the calamities soon to befall it. Jewish Christians kept the feasts; they still sacrificed as in former years; they were still zealous for the ceremonial law see (Acts 15).
They had but a faint conception of Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary; they knew little of His ministry; they did not realize that their sacrifices were useless in view of the great sacrifice on Calvary. These thousands of Jewish Christians, “all zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20), would be confronted by a crisis when the city and the Temple should be destroyed.
This occurred apparently only a short time after Hebrews was written. It was high time that the eyes of the Jewish Christians should be opened to heavenly realities. When their Temple should be destroyed, it would be needful for them to have their faith anchored to something sure and steadfast that would not fail. If their minds could be turned to the heavenly High Priest and sanctuary and to a better sacrifice than that of bulls and goats, they would not be dismayed when a mere earthly structure should pass away.
But if they had no such hope, if they had no vision of the sanctuary in heaven, they would be bewildered and perplexed as they should see the destruction of that in which they had trusted. It was important that the Jewish Christians should understand these things, not only for themselves, but also for the sake of the Gentile churches throughout the provinces among whom the Jerusalem believers would be scattered during the coming war with Rome.
It seems to have been in this crisis hour that the book of Hebrews appeared. It contained just the help needed: light on the sanctuary question; on Christ as high priest; on the blood “that speaks of better things than that of Abel” (ch. 12:24); on the rest that remains for the children of God (ch. 4:9; on the blessed hope that is “as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which enters into that within the veil” ch. 6:19).
4. Theme. The book of Hebrews consists of a comparison with, and contrast between, the symbols by which God presented the plan of salvation to His chosen people in OT times and the reality of Christ’s ministry on behalf of sinners since the cross.
The experiences of ancient Israel under the typical system are set forth as a lesson and warning to Christians. Through the typical system and Israel’s experiences under it, Paul seeks to develop a more complete understanding and appreciation of the ministry of Christ in heaven above.