Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews

This will be considered under eight headings: (I) Argument; (II) Doctrinal

Contents; (III) Language and Style; (IV) Distinctive Characteristics; (V) Readers

to Whom it was Addressed; (VI) Author; (VII) Circumstances of the Composition;

(VIII) Importance.

I. ARGUMENT

In the Oldest Greek manuscripts the Epistle to the Hebrews (pros Hebraious)

follows the other letters to the Churches and precedes the pastoral letters. In the

later Greek codices, and in the Syriac and Latin codices as well, it holds the last

place among the Epistles of St. Paul; this usage is also followed by the textus

receptus, the modern Greek and Latin editions of the text, the Douay and

Revised Versions, and the other modern translations.

Omitting the introduction with which the letters of St. Paul usually begin, the

Epistle opens with the solemn announcement of the superiority of the New

Testament Revelation by the Son over Old Testament Revelation by the prophets

(Heb., i, 1-4). It then proves and explains from the Scriptures the superiority of

this New Covenant over the Old by the comparison of the Son with the angels as

mediators of the Old Covenant (i, 5-ii, 18), with Moses and Josue as the founders

of the Old Covenant (iii, 1-iv, 16), and, finally, by opposing the high-priesthood of

Christ after the order of Melchisedech to the Levitical priesthood after the order of

Aaron (v, 1-x, 18). Even in this mainly doctrinal part the dogmatic statements are

repeatedly interrupted by practical exhortations. These are mostly admonitions to

hold fast to the Christian Faith, and warnings against relapse into the Mosaic

worship. In the second, chiefly hortatory, part of the Epistle, the exhortations to

steadfastness in the Faith (x, 19-xii, 13), and to a Christian life according to the

Faith (xii, 14-xiii, 17), are repeated in an elaborated form, and the Epistle closes

with some personal remarks and the Apostolic salutation (xiii, 18-25).

II. DOCTRINAL CONTENTS

The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ

and His Divine mediatorial office. In regard to the Person of the Saviour the author

expresses himself as clearly concerning the true Divine nature of Christ as

concerning Christ's human nature, and his Christology has been justly called

Johannine. Christ, raised above Moses, above the angels, and above all created

beings, is the brightness of the glory of the Father, the express image of His

Divine nature, the eternal and unchangeable, true Son of God, Who upholdeth all

things by the word of His power (i, 1-4). He desired, however, to take on a human

nature and to become in all things like unto us human beings, sin alone

excepted, in order to pay man's debt of sin by His passion and death (ii, 9-18; iv,

15, etc.). By suffering death He gained for Himself the eternal glory which He now

also enjoys in His most holy humanity on His throne at the right hand of the

Father (i, 3; ii, 9; viii, 1; xii, 2, etc.). There He now exercises forever His priestly

office of mediator as our Advocate with the Father (vii, 24 sq.).

This doctrine of the priestly office of Christ forms the chief subject-matter of the

Christological argument and the highest proof of the pre-eminence of the New

Covenant over the Old. The person of the High-priest after the order of

Melchisedech, His sacrifice, and its effects are opposed, in an exhaustive

comparison, to the Old Testament institutions. The Epistle lays special

emphasis on the spiritual power and effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, which

have brought to Israel, as to all mankind, atonement and salvation that are

complete and sufficient for all time, and which have given to us a share in the

eternal inheritance of the Messianic promises (i, 3; ix, 9-15, etc.). In the

admonitory conclusions from these doctrines at the end we find a clear reference

to the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Christian altar, of which those are not permitted

to partake who still wish to serve the Tabernacle and to follow the Mosaic Law

(xiii, 9 sq.).

In the Christological expositions of the letter other doctrines are treated more or

less fully. Special emphasis is laid on the setting aside of the Old Covenant, its

incompleteness and weakness, its typical and preparatory relation to the time of

the Messianic salvation that is realized in the New Covenant (vii, 18 sq.; viii, 15;

x, 1, etc.). In the same manner the letter refers at times to the four last things,

the resurrection, the judgment, eternal punishment, and heavenly bliss (vi, 2, 7

sq.; ix, 27, etc.). If we compare the doctrinal content of this letter with that of the

other epistles of St. Paul, a difference in the manner of treatment, it is true, is

noticeable in some respects. At the same time, there appears a marked

agreement in the views, even in regard to characteristic points of Pauline doctrine

(cf. J. Belser, "Einleitung" 2nd ed., 571-73). The explanation of the differences

lies in the special character of the letter and in the circumstances of its

composition.

III. LANGUAGE AND STYLE

Even in the first centuries commentators noticed the striking purity of language

and elegance of Greek style that characterized the Epistle to the Hebrews

(Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv, n.2-4; Origen, ibid., VI,

xxv, n. 11-14). This observation is confirmed by later authorities. In fact the

author of the Epistle shows great familiarity with the rules of the Greek literary

language of his age. Of all the New Testament authors he has the best style. His

writing may even be included among those examples of artistic Greek prose

whose rhythm recalls the parallelism of Hebrew poetry (cf. Fr. Blass, "[Barnabas]

Brief an die Hebraer". Text with indications of the rhythm, Halle, 1903). As

regards language, the letter is a treasure-house of expressions characteristic of

the individuality of the writer. As many as 168 terms have been counted which

appear in no other part of the New Testament, among them ten words found

neither in Biblical or classical Greek, and forty words also which are not found in

the Septuagint. One noticeable peculiarity is the preference of the author for

compound words (cf. E. Jacquier, "Histoire des livres du N.T.", I, Paris, 1903,

457-71; Idem in Vig., "Dict. de la Bible". III, 530-38). A comparison of the letter

as regards language and style with the other writings of St. Paul confirms in

general the opinion of Origen that every competent judge must recognize a great

difference between them (in Eusebius,"Hist. Eccl.", VI, xxv, n. 11).

IV. DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS

Among other peculiarities we should mention:

The absence of the customary form of the Pauline letters. The usual

opening with the Apostolic greeting and blessing is entirely lacking; nor is

there any clear evidence of the epistolary character of the writing until the

brief conclusion is reached (xiii, 18-25). On this account some have

preferred to regard the letter rather as a homily, but this is plainly

incorrect. According to the statement of the author it is an admonition and

exhortation (logos tes karakleseos, xiii, 22), which, above all,

presupposes a well-defined situation of an actually existing individual

Church.

The method of citing from the Old Testament. The author in his

instruction, demonstration, and exhortation draws largely from the copious

treasures of the Old Testament. All the citations follow the text of the

Septuagint even where this varies from the Masoretic text, unless the

citation is freely rendered according to the sense and without verbal

exactness (examples, i, 6; xii, 20; xiii, 5). In the other Pauline letters, it is

true, quotations from the Old Testament generally follow the Greek

translation even when the text varies, but the Apostle at times corrects

the Septuagint by the Hebrew, and at other times, when the two do not

agree, keeps closer to the Hebrew.

In regard to the formula with which the citations are introduced, it is worthy of

note that the expression "It is written", so commonly used in the New

Testament, occurs only once in the Epistle to the Hebrews (x, 7). In this Epistle

the words of Scripture are generally given as the utterance of God, at times also

of Christ or the Holy Spirit.

V. READERS TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED

According to the superscription, the letter is addressed to "Hebrews". The

contents of the letter define more exactly this general designation. Not all

Israelites are meant, but only those who have accepted the faith in Christ.

Furthermore, the letter could hardly have been addressed to all Jewish Christians

in general. It presupposes a particular community, with which both the writer of

the letter and his companion Timothy have had close relations (xiii, 18-24), which

has preserved its faith in severe persecutions, and has distinguished itself by

works of charity (x, 32-35), which is situated in a definite locality, whither the

author hopes soon to come (xiii, 19, 23).

The place itself may also be inferred from the content with sufficient probability.

For although many modern commentators incline either to Italy (on account of

xiii, 24), or to Alexandria (on account of the reference to a letter of Paul to the

Alexandrians in the Muratorian Canon and for other reasons), or leave the

question undecided, yet the entire letter is best suited to the members of the

Jewish Christian Church of Jerusalem. What is decisive above all for this

question is the fact that the author presupposes in the readers not only an exact

knowledge of the Levitical worship and all its peculiar customs, but, furthermore,

regards the present observance of this worship as the special danger to the

Christian faith of those addressed. His words (cf. particularly x, 1 sq.) may, if

necessary, perhaps permit of another interpretation, but they indicate Jerusalem

with the highest probability as the Church for which the letter is intended. There

alone the Levitical worship was known to all by the daily offering of sacrifices and

the great celebrations of the Day of Atonement and of other feast-days. There

alone this worship was continuously maintained according to the ordinances of

the Law until the destruction of the city in the year 70.

VI. AUTHOR

Even in the earliest centuries the question as to the author of the Epistle to the

Hebrews was much discussed and was variously answered. The most important

points to be considered in answering the inquiry are the following:

(1) External Evidence

(a) In the East the writing was unanimously regarded as a letter of St. Paul.

Eusebius gives the earliest testimonies of the Church of Alexandria in reporting

the words of a "blessed presbyter" (Pantaenus?), as well as those of Clement

and Origen (Hist. Eccl., VI, xiv, n. 2-4; xxv, n. 11-14). Clement explains the

contrast in language and style by saying that the Epistle was written originally in

Hebrew and was then translated by Luke into Greek. Origen, on the other hand,

distinguishes between the thoughts of the letter and the grammatical form; the

former, according to the testimony of "the ancients" (oi archaioi andres), is from

St. Paul; the latter is the work of an unknown writer, Clement of Rome according

to some, Luke, or another pupil of the Apostle, according to others. In like

manner the letter was regarded as Pauline by the various Churches of the East:

Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Mesopotamia, etc. (cf. the different

testimonies in B. F. Westcott, "The Epistle to the Hebrews", London, 1906, pp.

lxii-lxxii). It was not until after the appearance of Arius that the Pauline origin of

the Epistle to the Hebrews was disputed by some Orientals and Greeks.

(b) In Western Europe the First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians shows

acquaintance with the text of the writing (chs. ix, xii, xvii, xxxvi, xlv), apparently

also the "Pastor" of Hermas (Vis. II, iii, n.2; Sim. I, i sq.). Hippolytus and

Irenaeus also knew the letter but they do not seem to have regarded it as a work

of the Apostle (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", xxvi; Photius, Cod. 121, 232; St. Jerome,

"De viris ill.", lix). Eusebius also mentions the Roman presbyter Caius as an

advocate of the opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not the writing of the

Apostle, and he adds that some other Romans, up to his own day, were also of

the same opinion (Hist. Eccl., VI, xx, n.3). In fact the letter is not found in the

Muratorian Canon; St. Cyprian also mentions only seven letters of St. Paul to the

Churches (De exhort. mart., xi), and Tertullian calls Barnabas the author (De

pudic., xx). Up to the fourth century the Pauline origin of the letter was regarded

as doubtful by other Churches of Western Europe. As the reason for this

Philastrius gives the misuse made of the letter by the Novatians (Haer., 89), and

the doubts of the presbyter Caius seem likewise to have arisen from the attitude

assumed towards the letter by the Montanists (Photius, Cod. 48; F. Kaulen,

"Einleitung in die Hl. Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments", 5th ed., Freiburg,

1905, III, 211).

After the fourth century these doubts as to the Apostolic origin of the Epistle to

the Hebrews gradually became less marked in Western Europe. While the

Council of Carthage of the year 397, in the wording of its decree, still made a

distinction between Pauli Apostoli epistoloe tredecim (thirteen epistles of Paul

the Apostle) and eiusdem ad Hebroeos una (one of his to the Hebrews) (H.

Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 92, old n. 49), the Roman

Synod of 382 under Pope Damasus enumerates without distinction epistoloe

Pauli numero quatuordecim (epistles of Paul fourteen in number), including in this

number the Epistle to the Hebrews (Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 84). In this form also

the conviction of the Church later found permanent expression. Cardinal Cajetan

(1529) and Erasmus were the first to revive the old doubts, while at the same

time Luther and the other Reformers denied the Pauline origin of the letter.

(2) Internal Evidences

(a) The content of the letter bears plainly the stamp of genuine Pauline ideas. In

this regard it suffices to refer to the statements above concerning the doctrinal

contents of the Epistle (see II).

(b) The language and style vary in many particulars from the grammatical form of

the other letters of Paul, as in sufficiently shown above (see III).

(c) the distinctive characteristics of the Epistle (IV) favour more the opinion that

the form in which it is cast is not the work of the author of the other Apostolic

letters.

(3) Most Probable Solution

From what has been said it follows that the most probable solution of the

question as to the author is that up to the present time the opinion of Origen has

not been superseded by a better one. It is, consequently, necessary to accept

that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the actual author is to be distinguished from

the writer. No valid reason has been produced against Paul as the originator of

the ideas and the entire contents of the letter; the belief of the early Church held

throughout with entire correctness to this Apostolic origin of the Epistle.

The writer, the one to whom the letter owes its form, had apparently been a pupil

of the Apostle. It is not possible now, however, to settle his personality on

account of the lack of any definite tradition and of any decisive proof in the letter

itself. Ancient and modern writers mention various pupils of the Apostle,

especially Luke, Clement of Rome, Apollo, lately also Priscilla and Aquila.

VII. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPOSITION

An examination both of the letter itself and of the earliest testimonies of tradition,

in reference to the circumstances of its composition, leads to the following

conclusions:

(1) The place of composition was Italy (xiii, 24), and more precisely Rome

(inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first

imprisonment (61-63).

(2) The date of its production should certainly be placed before the destruction of

Jerusalem (70), and previous to the outbreak of the Jewish War (67), but after the

death of James, Bishop of Jerusalem (62). According to ch. xiii, 19, 23, the

Apostle was no longer a prisoner. The most probable date for its composition is,

therefore, the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, as Paul after his

release from imprisonment probably soon undertook the missionary journey "as

far as the boundaries of Western Europe" (St. Clement of Rome, "I Epistle to the

Corinthians", v, n. 7), that is to Spain.

(3) The reason for its composition is probably to be found in the conditions

existing in the Jewish Christian Church at Jerusalem. The faith of the Church

might fall into great danger through continued persecution by the Jews, who had

put James, the head of the community to a violent death. Precisely at this period

the services in the temple were celebrated with great pomp, as under Albinus

(62-64) the magnificent building was completed, while the Christian community

had to struggle with extreme poverty. The national movement which began

shortly before the outbreak of the last Jewish war would increase the danger.

These circumstances might lead the Apostle to write the letter.

(4) The Apostle himself declares the aim of his writing to be the consolation and

encouragement of the faithful (xiii, 22). The argument and context of the letter

show that Paul wished especially to exhort to steadfastness in the Christian

Faith and to warn against the danger of apostasy to the Mosaic worship.

VIII. IMPORTANCE

The chief importance of the Epistle is in its content of theological teaching. It is,

in complete agreement with the other letters of St. Paul, a glorious testimony to

the faith of the Apostolic time; above all it testifies to the true Divinity of Jesus

Christ, to His heavenly priesthood, and the atoning power of His death.

LEOPOLD FONCK

Transcribed by Judy Levandoski

Dedicated to Br. Terance Thielen, T.O.R.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII

Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org