Hebrews: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture

By David L. Allen

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any doubleedged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” –Hebrews 4:12

THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY series is an exceptionally acclaimed resource for ministers and Bible students who want to understand and expound the Scriptures. Notable features in this new Hebrews volume by scholar David Allen include: Commentary based on the New International Version, NIV text printed in the body of the commentary, Sound scholarly methodology reflecting capable research in the original languages, Interpretation emphasizing the theological unity of each book and Scripture as a whole, Readable and applicable exposition.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BH Publishing Group
• Release date: Sep 15, 2010
• ISBN: 9781433673016

David L. Allen

David L. Allen, a United Methodist minister, was a missionary in the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1961 to 1973, where he taught high school, directed a pastoral training center, and served as a community developer. Upon his return to the United States, he was administrator of a large mission and superintendent of mission churches in eastern Kentucky. Allen now lives in a retirement community for ministers and missionaries in north Florida.

Book preview

General Editor

E. RAY CLENDENEN

Associate General Editor, OT

KENNETH A. MATHEWS

Associate General Editor, NT

DAVID S. DOCKERY

Consulting Editors

Old Testament

DUANE A. GARRETT

EUGENE H. MERRILL

LARRY L. WALKER

New Testament

RICHARD R. MELICK, JR.

PAIGE PATTERSON

B. PAUL WOLFE

© Copyright 2010 • B & H Publishing Group

All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-0-8054-0135-6

Dewey Decimal Classification: 227.87

Subject Heading: BIBLE. O.T. Hebrews

Printed in the United States of America

15 14 13 12 11 10 • 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Unless otherwise stated all Scripture citations are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations identified as CEV are taken from the Contemporary English Version Copyright© 1991, 1992, 1995 American Bible Society. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked HCSB have been taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible® Copyright 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked JPSV are from TANAKH: A New Translation of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Copyright © The Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Used by permission.

Scripture citations marked NASB are from the New American Standard Bible. © The Lockman Foundation, 1960, 1962, 1968, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission.

Scripture citations marked NEB are from the New English Bible. Copyright © The Delegates of the Oxford University Press and the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1961, 1970. Reprinted by permission.

Scripture quotations marked NJB are from The New Jerusalem Bible. Copyright © 1990 by Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd. and Doubleday, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group. Used by permission.

Scripture citations marked NKJV are from the New King James Version, copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers.

Scripture citations marked NLT are from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

Scripture citations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture citations marked REB are from the Revised English Bible. Copyright © 1989 by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. Reprinted by permission.

Scripture citations marked RSV are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted 1946, 1952, © 1971, 1973 by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and used by permission.

Scripture citations marked TEV are from Today's English Version, Second Edition Copyright © 1966, 1971, 1976, 1992 American Bible Society. Used by permission.

To

Sherri, my wife of 32 years and my best friend

my four children

Jeremy, Jared, Melody, Kali

my Daughter-in-law

Joelle

and my two precious grandchildren

Judah and Lydia

Editors' Preface

---

God's Word does not change. God's world, however, changes in every generation. These changes, in addition to new findings by scholars and a new variety of challenges to the gospel message, call for the church in each generation to interpret and apply God's Word for God's people. Thus, THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is introduced to bridge the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This new series has been designed primarily to enable pastors, teachers, and students to read the Bible with clarity and proclaim it with power.

In one sense THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is not new, for it represents the continuation of a heritage rich in biblical and theological exposition. The title of this forty-volume set points to the continuity of this series with an important commentary project published at the end of the nineteenth century called AN AMERICAN COMMENTARY, edited by Alvah Hovey. The older series included, among other significant contributions, the outstanding volume on Matthew by John A. Broadus, from whom the publisher of the new series, Broadman Press, partly derives its name. The former series was authored and edited by scholars committed to the infallibility of Scripture, making it a solid foundation for the present project. In line with this heritage, all NAC authors affirm the divine inspiration, inerrancy, complete truthfulness, and full authority of the Bible. The perspective of the NAC is unapologetically confessional and rooted in the evangelical tradition.

Since a commentary is a fundamental tool for the expositor or teacher who seeks to interpret and apply Scripture in the church or classroom, the NAC focuses on communicating the theological structure and content of each biblical book. The writers seek to illuminate both the historical meaning and contemporary significance of Holy Scripture.

In its attempt to make a unique contribution to the Christian community, the NAC focuses on two concerns. First, the commentary emphasizes how each section of a book fits together so that the reader becomes aware of the theological unity of each book and of Scripture as a whole. The writers, however, remain aware of the Bible's inherently rich variety. Second, the NAC is produced with the conviction that the Bible primarily belongs to the church. We believe that scholarship and the academy provide an indispensable foundation for biblical understanding and the service of Christ, but the editors and authors of this series have attempted to communicate the findings of their research in a manner that will build up the whole body of Christ. Thus, the commentary concentrates on theological exegesis while providing practical, applicable exposition.

THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY's theological focus enable the reader to see the parts as well as the whole of Scripture. The biblical books vary in content, context, literary type, and style. In addition to this rich variety, the editors and authors recognize that the doctrinal emphasis and use of the biblical books differs in various places, contexts, and cultures among God's people. These factors, as well as other concerns, have led the editors to give freedom to the writers to wrestle with the issues raised by the scholarly community surrounding each book and to determine the appropriate shape and length of the introductory materials. Moreover, each writer has developed the structure of the commentary in a way best suited for expounding the basic structure and the meaning of the biblical books for our day. Generally, discussions relating to contemporary scholarship and technical points of grammar and syntax appear in the footnotes and not in the text of the commentary. This format allows pastors and interested laypersons, scholars and teachers, and serious college and seminary students to profit from the commentary at various levels. This approach has been employed because we believe that all Christians have the privilege and responsibility to read and seek to understand the Bible for themselves.

Consistent with the desire to produce a readable, up-to-date commentary, the editors selected the New International Version as the standard translation for the commentary series. The selection was made primarily because of the NIV's faithfulness to the original languages and its beautiful and readable style. The authors, however, have been given the liberty to differ at places from the NIV as they develop their own translations from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

The NAC reflects the vision and leadership of those who provide oversight for Broadman Press, who in 1987 called for a new commentary series that would evidence a commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture and a faithfulness to the classic Christian tradition. While the commentary adopts an American name, it should be noted some writers represent countries outside the United States, giving the commentary an international perspective. The diverse group of writers includes scholars, teachers, and administrators from almost twenty different colleges and seminaries, as well as pastors, missionaries, and a layperson.

The editors and writers hope that THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY will be helpful and instructive for pastors and teachers, scholars and students, for men and women in the churches who study and teach God's Word in various settings. We trust that for editors, authors, and readers alike, the commentary will be used to build up the church, encourage obedience, and bring renewal to God's people. Above all, we pray that the NAC will bring glory and honor to our Lord who has graciously redeemed us and faithfully revealed himself to us in his Holy Word.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

The Editors

Author's Preface

---

In the past 35 years, commentaries and monographs on the epistolary sphinx of the New Testament known as Hebrews have mushroomed. After languishing in the canonical attic for years, this treasure has been rediscovered of late, dusted off, and researched with new vigor, all to the benefit of the church. My own love affair with this epistle began in college and has continued unabated to the present time.

Several matters call for explanation regarding the approach taken in this commentary. The reader may be struck by the length and the breadth of the introduction. While it is a far cry from comprehensive, it is somewhat more involved than most volumes in this series. This is made necessary by the plethora of theories concerning matters of authorship, date, recipients, and background. With respect to authorship, I have included more than the usual drive-by survey. Some contemporary scholars continue to advocate Pauline authorship, and their work must be addressed. Many who have dismissed Paul as a possible author have done so with a heavy hand, often with well-worn arguments. Although I think the Pauline theory is incorrect, it has a distinguished history and is not without internal support by comparing Hebrews to the Pauline Epistles. Likewise, Lukan authorship is often rejected as impossible based on borrowed and perhaps unexamined arguments—usually on the grounds that Luke was a Gentile. Such an approach neglects reflection on and interaction with what has been learned about Luke-Acts over the past 60 years, especially in three areas: (1) Luke was a consummate theologian; (2) he was an artful writer; and (3) he may have been Jewish, as many Lukan scholars now argue.¹

Some will question the sparse references in the footnotes to parallels, comparisons, or possible allusions to Philo and Rabbinic Judaism. Three reasons explain why I have chosen not to footnote these comparisons extensively: (1) space constraints; (2) these are well documented in other commentaries;² and (3) Philonic influence on the author has been overblown in the past and criticized significantly since 1970. Where such references impact the interpretation of the epistle or shed significant light on its interpretation, they are cited in the footnotes. It should also be noted that first-century Judaism was not by any stretch of the imagination monolithic. There were various factions within Judaism, all of which did not walk in lock-step in their treatment of the Old Testament. The Judaism from which Christianity sprang was Biblical Judaism. However, in the first century, Judaism was moving from a biblical base to a rabbinical base. Although our author exhibits knowledge of Second Temple Judaism—rabbinic, sectarian, or otherwise—he demonstrates less dependence on it and far more dependence upon Old Testament Judaism.

The New Testament documents indicate that Old Testament exegesis was the primary method of doing theology in the early church. This is no more clearly evidenced than with the author of Hebrews. For him, Psalm 110:1,4 serve as the text which he will, with the help of other Old Testament texts, expound theologically and apply to his hearers. From there the author identifies Jesus as Son, High Priest, and King. As Son, Jesus shares in the identity of God; as High Priest, he atones for sin; as Lord and King, Jesus reigns from the throne of God. The author of Hebrews was first and foremost an exegete and then a biblical theologian. His theology is predicated on his exegesis of Old Testament texts. He brings exegesis into the service of theology as an exegetical theologian, and he brings both into the service of preaching and thus into the service of the church as a preacher par excellence. He reads the Old Testament wearing Christological glasses just as Jesus instructed the disciples on the road to Emmaus to do in Luke 24.

Fairbairn once remarked, He can be no theologian who is not first a philologian. Biblical theology must be the foundation for systematic theology, and exegesis the foundation of biblical theology. I have attempted to do the painstaking exegetical spade work before theological analysis of the epistle's constituent parts. Hebrews' tightly knit argument, the large number of words occurring only once in the Greek New Testament, and the sheer weight of exegetical data require a fair amount of exegesis which at times may seem tedious for the reader. I make every effort to tie all the exegetical data together at the conclusion of each section or the end of each chapter with a discussion of theological implications. Where there are several possible grammatical or syntactical construals of the text, I have generally listed at least most of the options and cited some of those who favor them. At the critical junctures within the epistle (e.g., Heb 1:1-4 and 6:4-6), I have attempted to sift the grammatical, syntactical, and semantic evidence and suggest a particular construal. At other points, I have merely listed the various options, and then presented the view I believe best fits the context.

The sermonic journey known as Hebrews contains what at first appear to be several hortatory digressions and diversions. Hebrews contains five so-called warning passages. These passages are interwoven with the doctrinal sections very tightly. I do not view these hortatory sections as digressions, but as conveying the dominant semantic information with the doctrinal material functioning semantically as the grounds (support material). These hortatory sections are actually the goal of the argument: on the basis of this . . . do this. Hebrews is at heart a pastoral document where the author attempts to persuade his readers to a particular course of action.

I have attempted to pay close attention to conjunctions in the Greek text that link paragraphs and sections together since these are critical to the author's structure and argument. Information in the text that is main line versus that which is supportive or subordinate is signaled primarily by the use of conjunctions. The repetition of echontes oun (lit. having, therefore) in 4:14 and 10:19, a construction found nowhere else in the epistle, signals the beginning of the second and third major discourse units in the epistle. I have understood the conjunction gar at the beginning of a paragraph as always indicating support material, just as it does at the sentence and clause level.

I have also attempted to identify and comment on the author's placement of words and phrases within clauses and sentences for semantic emphasis. This is especially important as a matter of authorial focus and reaps dividends not only in exegesis but also in preaching the epistle.

The reader will notice a disproportionate amount of space is devoted to the explanation of Heb 1:1-4 and Heb 6:1-6. The prologue is programmatic for the entire epistle, and a proper understanding of its puissant theology, purpose, and function is critical. Hebrews 6:1-6, if not the single most debated New Testament passage, certainly falls within the top five. It has proven to be an interpretative nightmare for everyone. It has simultaneously been the biblical headquarters from which flutters the banner of Arminianism and a thorn in the side of most Calvinists. We shall see that each tradition has something valuable to bring to the hermeneutical table of Heb 6:1-6, and each tradition has erred hermeneutically as well in my judgment.

The book of Hebrews is about Jesus the Son who became our High Priest and then became king when he sat upon the throne of God in fulfillment of Ps 110:1,4. This schema is presented in brilliant summary fashion in the prologue and then is developed in each of the three major divisions of the epistle (the Son in 1:5–4:13; the High Priest in 4:14–10:18; and the King in 10:19–13:21). Christology is intertwined with eschatology and applied pastorally to a congregation facing discouragement and spiritual drift due to persecution and failure to press on spiritually by means of obedience to the Word of God.

The value of Hebrews to the church cannot be overestimated. Its theological potency in revelation, christology, and eschatology contribute to the church's theological well-being in an age when doctrinal orthodoxy, especially in the areas of revelation and christology, is assailed. Hermeneutically, the use of the Old Testament by New Testament authors binds the two testaments together christologically in a way that the church today needs to rediscover. No New Testament writer has done this more masterfully than the author of Hebrews. Pastorally, this epistle teaches us that life's internal and external problems can only be met and solved by clear thinking about Christ and his finished work of atonement. Persecution is to be endured by Christians who are grounded in their understanding of the person and work of Christ. Spiritual progress to maturity is grounded in faithfulness to Jesus and in ongoing daily dependence on the living Christ as our intercessor. As T. Olbricht put it so well concerning Hebrews, In depth Christological reflection is therefore the path to spiritual renewal . . . .³ Knowledge of the security of one's salvation and the certainty of our future eternal hope give hope daily amid the stress of internal problems and external persecution.

Hebrews is one of the most important books in the New Testament for its contribution to the nature, theology, and practice of preaching. It is itself a first-century sermon. As an exposition of Ps 110:1,4, it is a biblical, text-driven sermon. Its application to the church is drawn from its exposition of Old Testament texts. Hebrews is an example of doctrinal preaching as well in that its author teases out doctrinal insight from exegesis and application of Old Testament texts. It is also an example of pastoral preaching that addresses the needs of the local church by satisfying exposition, exhortation, and encouragement. The problem with much of contemporary preaching is its aversion to exposition in its focus on application. Application cannot be authoritative unless its foundation on Scripture is clearly laid. The author of Hebrews knew this only too well. We would be wise to pay heed to him and to his approach. He was not only a capable theologian but a creative preacher. His many uses of rhetorical features with the intent of turning the ear into an eye illustrate as much. For example, Heb 2:5-9 demonstrates the author's combination of exegesis and rhetoric in his treatment of Ps 8:7 and his verbal word play on hupotassein, to subject. As Lane says, Here is first-century exegesis in the service of preaching.⁴

My appeal to the preacher of Hebrews is this: preach this great book holistically, giving rightful place to the large semantic units in the text. Avoid an atomistic approach that tends to allow the chapters and verses as they appear in the English Bible to truncate the author's argument. We who preach should learn from this great expositor how to bring exegesis to bear on a text of Scripture and then apply its meaning to the church. In Hebrews we find all the ingredients necessary for solid expositional preaching: careful but creative exegesis, theological reflection and reasoning, a balance of exhortation and encouragement, pungent illustration of truth, and practical application—all creatively constructed into a masterful sermon that makes use of rhetorical techniques for maximum effect on the hearers.

When it comes to Hebrews and my response to it, F. W. Boreham, the great Australian Baptist pastor and wordsmith, said it best: Other people may do as they will; but, for myself, I am going to rest all my insufficiency and inefficiency on His finished and perfect Saviourhood, leaving Him to complete my incompleteness in the world in which He reigns supreme.⁵

A work of this magnitude would never have seen the light of day were it not for so many to whom I owe a debt of immense gratitude. Ray Clendenen, with whom I share a love for linguistics and its impact on biblical studies, afforded me the opportunity to write this commentary. His careful editing hand coupled with his encouragement has been a rich blessing. Lynda McCallum, Administrative Assistant to the pastor at MacArthur Boulevard Baptist Church in Irving, Texas provided invaluable assistance during the research and early draft phases of this work through her remarkable organizational skills. Charles Savelle, Ph.D. student at Dallas Theological Seminary, edited the text and footnotes of early drafts of the first few chapters. Bryan Young, my student grader and assistant, also provided help during my days at The Criswell College. Upon my arrival as Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Jane Fiscus, administrative assistant to the Dean, was invaluable in innumerable ways, ministering to my research and writing needs with her inimitable sweet spirit and her incredible efficiency. Along the way, I have been blessed with graduate assistants Adam Hughes and Lewis Richerson, who assisted me in research and who are both now Ph.D. students in preaching at Southwestern Seminary. My former grader, Bobby McGraw, now in his second pastorate, has also devoted countless hours in editing, and for his labors I am truly grateful. Ted Williams, one of the seminary's finest and brightest M.Div. students, has assisted me beyond measure in copyediting. May the Lord reward him according to his labors. A remarkable Southern Baptist evangelist and also Ph.D. student in preaching at Southwestern Seminary, Vern Charette, has labored diligently to work through over 900 pages of manuscript and almost 3,400 footnotes with a fine-tooth comb to ensure accuracy. To you, sir, I owe more than I can say.

—David L. Allen

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ft. Worth, Texas

1. See my Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, NACSBT (Nashville: B&H, 2010). The arguments I present there can only be briefly discussed in this commentary. For a survey of Lukan research from the middle of the twentieth century through 2005, see F. Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950-2005), 2nd ed. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006).

2. Westcott, Delitzsch, Spicq, Weiss, Grässer, F. F. Bruce, Attridge, Lane, Ellingworth and Koester are among those who have covered this ground thoroughly, so I refer the reader to their excellent commentaries cited in my select bibliography.

3. T. Olbricht, Anticipating and Presenting the Case for Christ as High Priest in Hebrews, in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, ed. A. Eriksson, T. Olbricht, and W. Übelacker (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), 357.

4. W. L. Lane, Preaching and Exegesis in the First Century: Hebrews, in Sharing Heaven's Music—the Heart of Christian Preaching: Essays in Honor of James Earl Massey, ed. B. Callen (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 91.

5. F. W. Boreham, Cliffs of Opal (London: Epworth, 1948), 31.

Abbreviations

---

Bible Books

Commonly Used Sources

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols.

ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. T. C. Oden

ACNT Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament

AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archeology

AJT American Journal of Theology

AnBib Analecta biblica

ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedeergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase

ApOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary

AsTJ Asbury Theological Journal

AThR Anglican Theological Review

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

BDAG W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed.

BDF Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

BECNT Baker's Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BFCT Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie

BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

BHT Beihefte zur historischen Theologie

Bib Biblica

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BNTC Black's New Testament Commentaries

BR Biblical Research

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BZ Biblische Zeitschrift

BzhTh Beiträge zur historischen Theologie

BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CD K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 5 vols., ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance

CGTSC Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges

CivCatt Civiltá cattolica

CJT Canadian Journal of Theology

CNTC Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, trans. W. Johnson, ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance

CNTOT Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson

Cremer H. Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, 4th ed.

CRINT Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum

CTJ Calvin Theological Journal

CTSJ Chafer Theological Seminary Journal

CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies

DLNT Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids

DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin

DTIB Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed., K. Vanhoozer

EBC Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein, 12 vols.

EBib Etudes bibliques

EdF Erträge der Forschung

EDNT Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider, 3 vols.

EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

EvJ Evangelical Journal

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

EvRTh Evangelical Review of Theology

ExpTim Expository Times

FM Faith and Mission

FN Filologia Neotestamentaria

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GAGNT M. Zerwick and M. Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 4th ed.

GGBB D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics

GGNT A. T. Robertson, Greek Grammar of the New Testament

GOTR The Greek Orthodox Theological Review

GTJ Grace Theological Journal

HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, trans. and ed. M. E. J. Richardson

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible

Her Hermeneia

HeyJ Heythrop Journal

HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament

HTR Harvard Theological Review

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, 4 vols.

Int Interpretation

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JOTT Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics

JRH Journal of Religious History

JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

KNT Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

LCC Library of Christian Classics

L&N Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida

LNTS Library of New Testament Studies

LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed.

LW D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 65 vols. Weimar: Vergal Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger. 1883–1966

MHT A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton (vol. 1), W. F. Howard (vol. 2), and N. Turner (vols. 3–4)

MM J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament

NA²⁷ Novum Testamentum Graece. Nestle-Aland. 27th ed.

NAC New American Commentary

NACSBT New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology

NASB New American Standard Bible

Neot Neotestamentica

NIBC New International Biblical Commentary

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. W. A. VanGemeren

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NIVAC NIV Application Commentary

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements

NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. P. Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956). Series one (NPNF¹) or two (NPNF²)

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT New Testament

NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

NTC New Testament Commentary

NTL New Testament Library

NTS New Testament Studies

OPTAT Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics

OT Old Testament

ÖTK Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

OTL Old Testament Library

PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary

PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies

PSTJ Perkins (School of Theology) Journal

RB Revue biblique

REB Revised English Bible

REC Reformed Expository Commentary

ResQ Restoration Quarterly

RevExp Review and Expositor

RevistB Revista biblica

RevQ Revue de Qumran

RThom Revue thomiste

RTP Revue de théologie ancienne et médiévale

RTR Reformed Theological Review

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLSBS SBL Sources for Biblical Study

SBLSCS SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies

SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SE Studia evangelica

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SL Studia liturgia

SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SP Sacra pagina

Str-B H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols.

SubBi Subsidia Biblica

SwJT Southwestern Journal of Theology

TBT The Bible Today

TCGNT A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, ed. B. M. Metzger, 2nd ed.

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, et al., trans. G. W. Bromiley, 9 vols.

TDNTa Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, et al., Abridged (one vol.) by G. W. Bromiley

TEV Today's English Version

THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

TJ Trinity Journal

TJT Toronto Journal of Theology

TLNT C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. and ed. J. D. Ernest

TMSJ The Master's Seminary Journal

TNT Translator's New Testament

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TR Textus Receptus

TS Theological Studies

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., B. K. Waltke, 2 vols.

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

UBS⁴ The Greek New Testament. United Bible Societies, 4th ed.

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WBE Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, ed. C. F. Pfeiffer, 2 vols.

WJA Writings of J. Arminius, trans. J. Nichols and W. R. Bagnall (repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977)

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WP A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols.

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare

ZNW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

Cf. confer, compare, see

Eng. English

esp. especially

fem. feminine

Gk. Greek

Hb. Hebrew

lit. literal(ly)

LXX Septuagint

masc. masculine

ms(s) manuscript(s)

MT Masoretic Text

pers. person (1st, 2nd, or 3rd)

pl. plural

sg. singular

v(v). verse(s)

Contents

---

Introduction

Prologue: God's Final Revelation in the Son (1:1–4)

I. The Superiority of the Son (1:5–4:13)

II. Obligations of Jesus' Priestly Office and Saving Work (4:14–10:18)

III. Exhortations to Draw Near, Hold Fast, and Love One Another (10:19–13:21)

Conclusion and Final Greetings (13:22–25)

Selected Bibliography

Selected Subject Index

Person Index

Selected Scripture Index

Hebrews

---

— INTRODUCTION OUTLINE —

1. The Nature of the Book

2. Historical Circumstances

(1) Authorship

Historical Testimony

The Argument for Paul

The Argument for Barnabas

The Argument for Apollos

The Argument for Luke

(2) Recipients

(3) Location of the Recipients

(4) Date of Hebrews

(5) Conclusion: Summary Proposal of Authorship, Recipients, Destination, and Date

3. The Purpose of Hebrews

4. The Theology of Hebrews

5. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews

6. Hebrews and Textual Criticism

7. The Outline and Structure of Hebrews

— INTRODUCTION —

1. The Nature of the Book¹

From the earliest days of Christian history, the epistle to the Hebrews has been shrouded in obscurity. It is the only truly anonymous letter in the New Testament. With regard to authorship, most modern scholars share the view expressed by Origen's dictum: As to who wrote the epistle, truly only God knows.² Complicating the problem of authorship is the uncertainty regarding other background issues such as date, recipients, and place of writing. There is no clear and unequivocal internal evidence for any of these issues. Consequently, Hebrews is probably the most enigmatic book in the New Testament in terms of provenance.³ The epistle's title To the Hebrews is generally viewed as not originally part of the letter's composition, but was an addition during the second century. Most think the title was deduced from the letter's content. In and of itself, the title is virtually no help in identifying the recipients of the epistle.⁴

Certainly much of the book's content is unique. It does not fit readily into the scheme of the Pauline, Johannine, or Petrine writings, yet it constitutes one of the most majestic presentations of Christology in the entire New Testament.⁵ Its genre is mixed, sometimes being epistolary in nature, while at other times having a sermonic⁶ character. Other terms used to describe its literary character are essay, treatise, oration, biblical exposition, and exhortation.⁷ The latter is especially appropriate because in 13:22 the author himself speaks of his work as a word of exhortation. It is clear from the postscript in 13:22–25 that Hebrews is an epistle, yet it does not have the usual formulaic prescript. In fact, it begins like a sermon, reads like a sermon, but concludes like an epistle. The identical phrase word of exhortation occurs in Acts 13:15 where Paul and Barnabas were invited to speak in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch. Lane rightly concluded that the phrase appears to be an idiomatic, fixed expression for a sermon in Jewish-Hellenistic and early Christian circles.⁸ It is now generally recognized that Hebrews is a written sermon. The frequent and well-placed imperatives and hortatory subjunctives coupled with the interweaving of exposition and exhortation support its sermonic nature.⁹ From a linguistic perspective it is best to describe Hebrews as an example of hortatory discourse with large sections of embedded expository discourse.¹⁰ Laansma described the epistle's exhortation as the goal and the exposition as the means to the goal.¹¹ Lane rightly called the author a gifted preacher and noted,

Hebrews is a sermon prepared to be read aloud to a group of auditors who will receive its message not primarily through reading and leisured reflection but orally. Reading the document aloud entails oral performance, providing oral clues to those who listen to the public reading of the sermon. . . . Hebrews was crafted to communicate its points as much aurally as logically. In point of fact, aural considerations, in the event of communication, often prove to be the decisive ones.¹²

Lane's point is vital to grasp in the interpretation of the epistle. Much of the oral impact is lost in the translation from Greek to English. Lane's use of the word crafted is well chosen. The author is writing for the ear, not the eye. Logos and pathos blend in masterful ways to make Hebrews an extraordinary sermon.

Hebrews is unique in the New Testament in that it possesses no specific salutation but it does have a conclusion. Several suggestions have been offered to explain this. Some claim that the original introduction was lost accidentally. Yet this is not a likely solution since there are thousands of extant letters from the ancient world, many of which are autographs, and not one single autograph lacks the usual introduction. There is no record at all of the prescript alone becoming lost from any papyrus roll.¹³ Some have suggested the prescript was omitted for canonical reasons. If Hebrews were written by someone other than an apostle, such as Barnabas or Apollos, supposedly this would hinder canonical acceptance. However, as Moffatt pointed out, if such had been the case some trace of the original would probably have survived.¹⁴ Zahn and Riggenbach conjecture that the one who delivered the letter orally supplied the missing introduction.¹⁵ Again, this is an unnecessary conjecture.

Others say that the introduction was deliberately omitted by the author. This is also very doubtful, for those who suggest that Paul omitted any reference to his name because he was the apostle to the Gentiles and was now writing a letter to Jewish Christians overlook that the letter itself makes it clear that the readers knew the author's identity.¹⁶ Furthermore, an alteration of the introduction by adding the name of Paul (for purposes of achieving canonicity) would seem more likely than a total excision. The current consensus is that there never was a salutation or introduction. The beautifully balanced and classical sentence with which Hebrews begins has all the earmarks of the original introduction to the work.

Overbeck's elaborate scheme for seeing the ending of the epistle as a part of the later church's effort to legitimate the letter in the canonization process by means of an attribution of Pauline authorship is totally unnecessary.¹⁷ Wrede argued that the author of Hebrews decided midstream in his letter to append a postscript in Pauline style in an attempt to make Hebrews appear to be a Pauline prison letter.¹⁸ Wrede's theory is seldom affirmed today. Another minority view is that the postscript was not penned by the author, but was a later interpolation to provide grounds for the authority of the text. Rothschild argued that the postscript (Heb 13:20–25 in her view) "not only exhibits literary reliance on Paul's undisputed corpus, but also, as an aspect of this reliance, appropriates Paul's identity as the author of Hebrews's own.¹⁹ Rothschild argued that the author of Hebrews composed the postscript as a deliberate forgery in Pauline style with the goal that Hebrews would be seen as Pauline and published as part of an existing corpus Paulinum.²⁰ Amazingly, Rothschild argued that such identity falsification is not only consistent with the personality behind Hebrews, but is its necessary correlative and that Hebrews' reception history attests the overwhelming success of this deception up until the Reformation.²¹ E. J. Goodspeed likewise suggested that Hebrews may have been originally pseudonymously attributed to Paul rather than being anonymous.²² But D. Guthrie countered that had the letter originally borne any ascription to Paul, it is impossible to envisage any situation in which it would lose its ascription and still continue to be regarded with some favor. There are no parallels to this kind of thing among the pseudepigrapha."²³

in Heb 2:8 does not occur in the Hebrew of Ps 8:6[7] that the author quoted, and yet the author's argument is built on this Greek word.

The diverse proposals regarding the literary and conceptual background of Hebrews include Gnosticism,²⁴ Jewish mysticism,²⁵ Qumran,²⁶ Philonism,²⁷ and Christian tradition.²⁸ The overall rhetorical structure of Hebrews is likewise debated.²⁹ Koester is correct in his assessment that we cannot categorize Hebrews as either deliberative (exhortatory) or epideictic (praise or blame) examples of rhetoric since the two forms are so closely related and often occur in the same speech.³⁰ What is not debated is the author's use of several rhetorical devices such as alliteration, assonance, inclusio, and a host of others.³¹ Löhr analyzed the use of rhetorical terminology in Hebrews and concluded, The phrases and expressions . . . can certainly be understood without any reference to the language of rhetoric. But taken together they might provoke—and indeed they did provoke for me—the impression that our author could have used them consciously, being well aware of their rhetorical background.³² As Lane so aptly put it, In Hebrews the voice of the writer is the voice of the speaker.³³ In light of the overall evidence, it seems moot to argue over whether Hebrews is an epistle or a sermon. It is both. The epistolary elements in Heb 13 could well have been original and intentional, for the 'sermon' could well have been delivered (read aloud) as a 'letter.'³⁴

2. Historical Circumstances

(1) Authorship

Many have conjectured, some have conjured, but very few have been convinced in the search for the author of Hebrews. Most commentaries on Hebrews of recent vintage do not spend a great deal of time discussing matters of authorship and recipients. This is understandable in light of the multitude of theories available.³⁵ Three observations emerge. First, it is obvious there have been numerous theories as to the authorship of the book. Second, the suggestions made by the patristic, Medieval, and Reformation scholars almost always involved persons who were well-known apostles or who were associated with the apostles in some close fashion such as Luke, Apollos, Barnabas, and Clement of Rome. Canonicity may have played a role in the theories of authorship among the church fathers,³⁶ but names suggested for possible authorship always involved those of the apostolic band. Third, not only is there no agreement as to authorship, but all other matters of background (such as provenance and recipients) have also been open to speculation from the church fathers until the present.

HISTORICAL TESTIMONY. The historical testimony³⁷ regarding the authorship of Hebrews begins with Clement of Rome's clear use of the epistle in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement). If Clement's epistle to the Corinthians can be successfully dated near the end of the first century, which is the traditional view, then the historical testimony concerning the authorship of Hebrews pre-dates the second century. Clement's silence as to the authorship of Hebrews may indicate that he himself did not consider Paul to be the author. Yet, as always, the argument from silence is weak and too much should not be made of it. Nor should much be made of the view that Clement of Rome could have been the author of Hebrews since chronological, not to mention stylistic, considerations would militate against it.³⁸ Since Hebrews was known early in Rome, as shown by Clement's use, how is one to explain the silence of the Roman church as to Clement's authorship if he were or could have been considered the author?

Pantaenus, head of the Alexandrian school of catechetes, ascribed Hebrews to the apostle Paul. But he observed that, contrary to Paul's custom in his other epistles, there is no salutation identifying him as the author. At the end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria, student of Pantaenus, was quoted by Eusebius as saying that Paul wrote Hebrews originally in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek for a Hellenistic Jewish audience. Clement stated that it was this fact (Luke's translation) that accounted for the stylistic similarities between Hebrews and Luke-Acts. He conjectured that Paul did not prefix his name to the epistle since the Jews were prejudiced and suspicious of him.³⁹

The oldest extant text of Hebrews is found in p⁴⁶ (c. AD 200) where it occurs immediately following Romans (most likely due to its length) in a fourteen-letter Pauline collection.⁴⁰ By the middle of the third century, Origen allowed for Pauline influence on the thoughts of the epistle, but he ascribed the style and actual writing to someone else.

That the verbal style of the epistle entitled 'To the Hebrews', is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself rude in speech,' that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit . . . If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of someone who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote them down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. . . . But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.⁴¹

Bleek interpreted Origen's remarks to mean in its matter it is not inferior to the acknowledged apostolical writings, being in his opinion indebted for its argument to Paul, but for its style and finish to some disciple who jotted down his master's ideas, and then drew them out still further, and wove them together into a sort of commentary.⁴²

That Paul used an amanuensis for most if not all of his letters and that this did not appreciably affect his style (with the exception of the Pastorals if their Pauline authorship is admitted)⁴³ argues against the hypothesis of Origen and others.

Writers such as J. Hug, S. Davidson, and D. Black⁴⁴—who argued that Origen's statement as to who wrote the epistle referred to the one who wrote it down for Paul, that is, who functioned as his amanuensis or translator—find themselves swimming upstream against the context and usage of the Greek ho grapsas. Both Hug and Black render the participle in Greek as who wrote down in an effort to maintain Pauline authorship, and they asserted that the context justifies such a translation. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the sentence immediately following, Origen refers to "Luke, who wrote (ho grapsas) the Gospel, meaning authorship and not who wrote down" the Gospel as an amanuensis or translator.⁴⁵ The critique of this interpretation by Bleek and Thayer is difficult if not impossible to overcome.⁴⁶ Mitchell noted the many places in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (to write) refers both to authorship and to actual penning and thus concluded Black's distinction between author and amanuensis cannot be maintained in light of this evidence.⁴⁷

Origen was the first to suggest the theory that the thoughts were from Paul but the composition was from someone else. In this way he sought to reconcile the two disparate views that came down to him, namely, some said Paul was the author and others that another Christian teacher wrote it. Thus, when Origen says that the tradition handed down to him included the possibility of Lukan authorship, it is clear that he means independent Lukan authorship—and not as a translator or an amanuensis or a collector of Paul's thoughts. When Origen says but who wrote it, only God knows, he meant to indicate uncertainty as to which of Paul's disciples it was who developed his ideas and was thus the actual author.

The Alexandrian tradition regarding authorship continued to grow so that by the fourth century Paul was regarded as the author (either directly or indirectly) of the epistle. However, from the very beginning of this tradition, Hebrews was attributed to Paul usually in a tentative, indirect fashion.⁴⁸

Turning to the Western Church, apparently no tradition regarding Pauline authorship existed. Rather, in the late second and early third centuries, Tertullian made reference to the epistle as having been written by Barnabas.⁴⁹ In the Roman Church, there was likewise no tradition of Pauline authorship until very late. Clement of Rome made the first reference to the epistle in his letters to the Corinthians, but he did not posit Pauline authorship. The Muratorian Canon (c. 170–210) referred to the 13 Letters of Paul but did not list Hebrews, thus giving evidence that the Roman church did not regard Paul as the author. The Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gaius of Rome and Hippolytus all made use of Hebrews, but none ascribe its authorship to Paul. It was only toward the end of the fourth century that Pauline authorship began to be accepted in the Western Church and Hebrews gained a canonical position. What brought this about we do not know.⁵⁰

In the fourth century Eusebius informed us that there were 14 well-known and undisputed Pauline Letters (including Hebrews), but he also pointed out that some did reject Hebrews as canonical on the grounds that the Roman church disputed its Pauline authorship.⁵¹ Athanasius likewise included Hebrews among the Pauline Letters, placing it after the letters addressed to churches but before letters addressed to individuals. Hebrews is found in this position in Codexes Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, all of which were produced in the fourth and fifth centuries.

Towards the close of the fourth century, Jerome tied together several strands of information that had come down to him. First, Hebrews was disputed as Pauline on stylistic grounds. Second, Tertullian considered Barnabas as the author. Third, others had suggested Luke or Clement of Rome as the author, or perhaps as an arranger of Paul's ideas, or even as the translator of Paul's Hebrew original into the polished Greek of the epistle. Fourth, Paul may have omitted his name since he was in disrepute with the readers.⁵²

Jerome in the Latin Vulgate identified Hebrews as Pauline, as did Augustine, although both did so only tentatively.⁵³ Hebrews was firmly embedded in the list of canonical books by the time of the Synods of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397 and 419), where it was located at the end of the 13 Pauline Letters—a fact which testifies to the uncertainty over Pauline authorship. This tradition prevailed throughout the Middle Ages. For example, Aquinas in the prologue to his commentary on Hebrews accepted Pauline authorship along with the theory of a Hebrew original that was then translated into Greek by Luke.⁵⁴

With the dawn of the Reformation came a reversion to the skepticism of the patristic era concerning Pauline authorship. In the sixteenth century, Luther championed Apollos while Calvin preferred Luke or Clement of Rome. In the seventeenth century, H. Grotius suggested Lukan authorship of Hebrews and became the first to put forth linguistic evidence comparing Luke and Hebrews. In a very brief fashion Grotius showed similarities among just ten words and phrases.⁵⁵ The seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries witnessed a tug-of-war over Pauline authorship, but the twentieth century, even after W. Leonard's 1939 masterpiece in favor of Paul (see below), registered increasing skepticism regarding the Pauline theory and witnessed a flurry of theories regarding authorship. Oddly enough, the twentieth century dawned with the suggestion by Harnack⁵⁶ that Priscilla was the author, and in 1976 J. M. Ford proposed the last theory of the century, that Mary the mother of Jesus, assisted by Luke and John, wrote it.⁵⁷ These are the only two women who have been proposed as potential authors.

THE ARGUMENT FOR PAUL. A growing consensus against Pauline authorship developed in the twentieth century.⁵⁸ However, the patristic evidence for Paul, though inconclusive, should not be so easily dismissed as is often the case today. As shown above, of the three major traditions of authorship that circulated in the first four centuries, the Alexandrian tradition regarded Hebrews at least in some sense to be the work of Paul.

Although the majority of twentieth-century scholars rejected it, the Pauline authorship of Hebrews is most ably defended by the Catholic scholar William Leonard.⁵⁹ Roman Catholic scholars seem to be the largest single group who still support the Pauline hypothesis, although usually indirectly, and departure from the traditional position of the Roman Church has increased in recent years. Several articles have appeared recently, however, attempting to revive the Pauline hypothesis. Christos Sp. Voulgaris argued for it based on what he called new evidence, namely, the connection between Heb 13:23, Phil 2:19–24, and Phlm 22.⁶⁰ His entire schema is plausible, but quite speculative. However, some plausibility can be given to the suggestion that Hebrews was written to Jerusalem after the death of James to quell uncertainty in the face of renewed persecution. On this dating, Hebrews would be placed only a few short years prior to the beginning of the Jewish War in AD 66.

E. Linnemann wrote a three-part article that appeared in 2000 and was translated into English in 2002. The strength of this article is its demonstration that commentators have often overstated the case against Paul.⁶¹ Linnemann sought to bolster the Pauline case by the linguistic argument of lexical, stylistic, and literary comparison. Reviving the excellent work of C. Forster, she offered no new evidence as far as I can discern, but her article serves to highlight that Paul was not unaccustomed to using literary niceties and the lexical similarities that can be found between the Pauline Letters and Hebrews.⁶² She raised once again the banner of C. Forster, M. Stuart, and W. Leonard by making a good case for Pauline authorship. Her article is divided into six sections: manuscript evidence, the testimony of the early church, style, vocabulary, particularities of Hebrews used against Paul, and the line of argument in Hebrews.

In evaluating the style of Hebrews, Linnemann criticized those who make wholesale assertions about Paul's inferior style. In fact, she subtitled a part of this section Defamation and castigates D. Guthrie, who would presume to dress down the apostle Paul . . . as one would an ignorant grammar school pupil.⁶³ At this point, in spite of her strident language, I am in partial agreement with her. It appears to me that many times authors, especially modern authors, exaggerate the stylistic differences between Paul and Hebrews to the point of concluding the impossibility of Pauline authorship. Although the stylistic argument—perhaps the most devastating argument—against Paul is formidable, it does not render the view impossible, merely highly unlikely, as judicious scholars note.

It is here in the section on style that Linnemann's case is more substantial. She engaged H. Attridge point by point in the Literary Characteristics of Hebrews: Language and Style section of his commentary.⁶⁴ Linnemann succeeded in countering virtually all of Attridge's examples of Hebrews' better Greek with similar examples from the Pauline Letters, especially Romans. She considered 14 figures of speech ranging from alliteration to paronomasia and found Pauline examples for all of them. She admitted the range of vocabulary is higher in Hebrews than in the Pauline Letters of comparable length. But she concluded that none of the characteristics of elevated Greek in Hebrews is absent from the Pauline Epistles, and thus Attridge's claim of better Greek in Hebrews is invalid. However, merely showing that such literary characteristics are not absent in Paul should not be turned into evidence for Paul in light of other differences in style that she did not address. All things considered, her retrial in the case of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews ultimately results in a mistrial.

D. A. Black's two-part recent article is a helpful summary of the evidence presented by Leonard in his classic defense of Pauline authorship in 1939.⁶⁵ Black attempted to further the Pauline case by retracing the patristic evidence and showing that many during that era of the history of the church considered Pauline authorship possible. He misinterpreted Origen's ho grapsas by taking it to mean served as Paul's amanuensis, and thus he concluded that Origen affirmed Pauline authorship. In the other half of the article, Black provided us with the most comprehensive linguistic and theological arguments for Paul since Leonard.

At this point the three main arguments for Pauline authorship need to be considered: (1) similar vocabulary, (2) some similar theology, and (3) the historical testimony from the church fathers. It is striking that not one commentator on the Book of Hebrews actually engages W. Leonard's arguments in favor of Pauline authorship. Leonard provided a considerable amount of evidence to support his claim, though many of his parallels were not unique to Paul and Hebrews and hence can have only limited value in questions of authorship identification. A critical reading of his evidence reveals that Leonard has made use of some evidence for similarity that could also be argued for other New Testament writers, especially Luke.

An overall evaluation of Leonard's arguments for the Pauline authorship of Hebrews leads to the following five conclusions. First, without a doubt this is the most comprehensive compilation of evidence for the Pauline hypothesis. When one couples the massive work of Leonard with those of M. Stuart and C. Forster in the eighteenth century, who devoted almost 800 pages between them to the defense of Pauline authorship,⁶⁶ it becomes clear to anyone open to the evidence that the Pauline hypothesis cannot be set aside with such ease as is often done in modern works. Paul's name must remain in the upper echelon of those who are possible candidates for authorship.

Second, Leonard gave too much weight to the testimony of the church fathers in favor of Pauline authorship.⁶⁷ Third, some of his evidence suffers from non-exclusivity—such as lexical, stylistic, or conceptual evidence—that is not wholly unique to the Pauline Letters and Hebrews but also occur in other New Testament writers. This does not mean that this evidence is totally inadmissible, only that it cannot be given as much weight as Leonard seemed to give it along with evidence that is found exclusively in Hebrews and one or more of the Pauline Letters.

Fourth, Leonard considered material from the Pauline speeches in Acts to be valid evidence for Pauline usage without emphasizing the Lukan composition of Acts as well as Luke's selectivity of speech material from Paul that fit his theological purpose. Thus, he used both the Pauline Epistles and Paul's speeches in Acts to compare to Hebrews. Although I consider the speeches in Acts to be genuine as to their reported speakers, due allowance must be made for the editing hand of Luke in their employment in the overall discourse of Acts. As a result, some of his evidence may just as easily apply to Luke as to Paul. Many New Testament scholars would consider Leonard's methodology here to be flawed.⁶⁸

Fifth, Leonard's argument for Paul is often only an attempt to show that there is no essential contradiction between Paul and Hebrews. In the context of Leonard's overall discourse, conclusions drawn from a lack of conflict can only serve to strengthen the valid parallels that he did make, but they can never offer additional evidence in and of themselves in favor of his position. He tended to minimize the different conceptual emphases in the Pauline Letters and Hebrews to the point that they do not furnish evidence against the un-Pauline nature of its vocabulary, style, or content.

One final argument in favor of Pauline authorship was proposed by John Owen and has been put forth by many since.⁶⁹ Owen made note of the possible connection between Peter's statement in 2 Pet 3:15–16 and Hebrews: Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood. Since Peter wrote to Jewish Christians of the dispersion, the question arises, Which Pauline epistle is in view here? Many have suggested that it is Hebrews. Peter's statement that some of Paul's writings are hard to be understood is said to parallel Heb 5:11.⁷⁰ F. F. Bruce countered this suggestion by pointing out that 2 Peter was not written specifically to Hebrew Christians and that the reference in 2 Pet 3:15 is, in his words, surely to Rom 2:4.⁷¹ It is doubtful to say the least that 2 Pet 3:15–16 applies to Hebrews at all.

In summary, the following problems provide the greatest evidence against the Pauline hypothesis. First, Paul's name does not appear in the prologue (or anywhere else) as is the custom with his