The Letter to the Hebrews

By Sigurd Grindheim

What does the Letter to the Hebrews have to say to Christians today? 
  
A compelling exhortation to hold true to the faith in the face of adversity. A sermon full of iconic imagery and Old Testament allusions. A signal work of theology in the New Testament.   
  
Above all, the Letter to the Hebrews proclaims the high priesthood of Jesus Christ. Yet readers may find this central theme difficult to discern, given the epistle’s complexity and long history of interpretation. In this Pillar commentary, Sigurd Grindheim richly illuminates the Letter to the Hebrews, explaining difficult texts, offering a coherent reading, and paying careful attention to linguistic features and historical context—all while focusing on its relevance to modern readers.   
  
Grindheim clearly and comprehensively addresses major issues, including authorship, date, canonicity, formal qualities, and important themes. Following his thorough introduction, he explains each line of the text and its significance for believers today. Grindheim’s commentary offers pastors, students, and scholars the clarity and fresh insights they want in their scriptural study.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Nov 28, 2023
• ISBN: 9781467466752

Sigurd Grindheim

Sigurd Grindheim is a professor in the Department of Pedagogy, Religion, and Social Studies at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

The Letter to the Hebrews gives us a unique picture of the first Christians. It is the oldest unabridged Christian sermon that has survived, and no other first-century writing offers such an in-depth view of the way in which the Old Testament was read and interpreted.

In terms of style, the letter must be considered the high point of the New Testament. The author’s sonorous turns of phrase and his brilliant use of rhetorical devices find no match among the other early Christian writings. His knack for vivid metaphors has made him one of the most frequently quoted writers of antiquity. The word of God as sharper than a double-edged sword (4:12), hope as an anchor for the soul (6:19), the law as a shadow of the coming goods (10:1), and the cloud of witnesses (12:1) are images we owe to the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. Other unforgettable word pictures include those of the Son as the effulgence of God’s glory and imprint of his nature (1:3) as well as of his blood speaking better than that of Abel (12:24).

The letter’s cast of characters is no less impressive, as it gives a survey of the Old Testament and Israel’s history (11:4–38), beginning with fratricide and ending with victims of torture, finding place for battles with lions, spectacular miracles, and an oligarch who preferred a life in poverty. As role models, the letter offers a motley crew of forerunners, including the foolhardy, hotheads, cowards, prostitutes, homeless, vagabonds, immigrants, and refugees.

Style is no substitute for substance, however. It is also the Letter to the Hebrews that has given us the iconic portrait of Christ as high priest, culminating in the declaration that with one offering he has forever made complete those who are being made holy (10:14). As high priest, Jesus is empathic like no one else. He was brought to tears by despair yet is universally triumphant. He was exposed to the utmost shame yet is exalted in heavenly glory. He suffered death yet triumphed over it.

The author’s ethical vision is equally exalted, focusing on a new community based on a family union in which God is the Father and believers share the status of his firstborn Son, to whom they belong as his brothers and sisters. This is a people that spans all of world history, including the people of Israel and the members of the church. Not only because of style, therefore, but also because of its theology must the Letter to the Hebrews be considered one of the richest books in the New Testament.¹

I. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. That was the verdict of the church father Origen regarding the authorship of Hebrews.² Eighteen hundred years of subsequent New Testament scholarship has not brought us closer to the truth.

A. Traditional Attribution to Paul

Absence of firm knowledge has not held scholars back from guessing, however. Origen himself appears to have been fairly certain that the letter stemmed from the apostle Paul. His writings are replete with references to Paul as the author of Hebrews.³ Even his often-quoted admission of ignorance appears in a context in which he describes the letter as Pauline: If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote 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. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s.⁴ Then he adds, 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.⁵

In considering the letter to be Pauline, Origen was not alone. That opinion was broadly shared in the early church, albeit not universally.

The earliest attested use of Hebrews is found in the Apostolic Fathers, in the letter known as 1 Clement, written from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth. It is traditionally dated toward the end of the first century. This letter quotes from Hebrews as well as from Romans and 1 Corinthians, an indication, but not proof, that all these letters were associated with the apostle.⁶

In the second century, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) uses the letter extensively. Scholars have identified 106 allusions to or quotations of Hebrews in Clement’s writings.⁷ He explicitly refers to the apostle Paul as the author (Miscellanies 6.8; cf. 2.22; 4.16, 20; 5.10).

In the oldest surviving manuscript containing the text of Hebrews, the Chester Beatty Papyrus Inline Image ⁴⁶ from the third century, the letter is given the heading To the Hebrews. This heading corresponds to the custom of identifying Paul’s letters according to the recipient and not the author. The letter is placed between Romans and 1 Corinthians. Apparently, Hebrews was counted among the Pauline Epistles.

Up until the time of the Reformation, the predominant view seems to have been that Paul was the author of Hebrews, but this view was not shared by all. In his Ecclesiastical History, written in the fourth century, Eusebius devotes some attention to documenting the various views on the authorship of the letter. In addition to quoting the comments of Origen (cf. above), he noted that the author of 1 Clement gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions (Ecclesiastical History 3.38.1). Eusebius also refers to Irenaeus (ca. 130–202), who he claims mentioned the letter and quoted from it (Ecclesiastical History 5.26).⁸ Clement of Alexandria held that Hebrews was the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks (Ecclesiastical History 6.14.2).⁹ The reason why the apostle wrote anonymously, still according to Clement as reported by Eusebius, was that Paul, being the apostle to the gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance (Ecclesiastical History 6.14.4). Eusebius also mentions that some thought Clement of Rome had translated the letter from the Hebrew language, a suggestion Eusebius himself considers to be most likely (Ecclesiastical History 3.38.2–3).

Eusebius apparently listed all these authorities because he intended to refute those who denied Pauline authorship. He insisted that all the fourteen Pauline Letters were undisputed, even though he proceeded to admit that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul (Ecclesiastical History 3.3.5; cf. 3.38.2). More specifically, Eusebius mentions Gaius, who functioned around the turn of the third century and whom Eusebius describes as a learned man. Apparently motivated by his desire to combat the Montanists, who might claim the support of Heb 6:4–6; 10:26–31, Gaius did not accept the Letter to the Hebrews (Ecclesiastical History 6.20.3; cf. further VI. Canonicity below).

Eusebius’s account of Gaius’s views serves as one of the main pieces of evidence for the often-repeated claim that only the Eastern church accepted the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. In the Western church, it is claimed, this view did not prevail until the fifth century, based on the authority of Augustine and Jerome.¹⁰ However, the impression left by Eusebius is that Gaius’s views represent the exception.¹¹

The second main piece of evidence for Western rejection of Pauline authorship is the account of the New Testament books found in the Muratorian Fragment. Thirteen Pauline Letters are listed, but there is no reference to Hebrews. This fragment, which is usually dated toward the end of the second century, probably originated in or near the city of Rome.¹²

On the question of authorship, however, any argument based on the Muratorian Fragment is an argument from silence. The fragment makes no reference to Hebrews, even though it mentions two letters that are deemed to be forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion (63–65), namely, the letters to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians.¹³ Regarding the authorship of Hebrews, the fragment has nothing to say.¹⁴

The third piece of evidence is the testimony of Tertullian (ca. 155–220).¹⁵ His opinion, which appears to have left traces in France and Spain until the end of the fourth century, was that the letter was written by Barnabas (Modesty 20; cf. Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 5).¹⁶

Tertullian’s view is consistent with the picture that has already emerged. The dominant position appears to have been that Hebrews was accepted as Pauline. Questions were raised, however, both in the East (Origen) and the West, about whether someone else wrote down the apostle’s thoughts or translated the letter from a Hebrew original, but it was received as Pauline.¹⁷ Outright rejection of the letter was the exception.

The doubters gained influence during the Reformation. Neither Luther nor Calvin was convinced that the letter was written by Paul. Luther guessed Apollos (LW 8:178), and Calvin suggested Luke or Clement as the author.¹⁸

B. Against Pauline Authorship

Modern scholarship almost universally rejects Pauline authorship. The most important reason is that the author places himself among the second generation of believers, as he refers to the salvation which from the beginning was spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him (2:3b). As the apostle Paul insists that he received the gospel directly from Jesus Christ himself, and that he was not dependent on any middleman (Gal 1:11–12), the statement made in Heb 2:3b seems to be irreconcilable with the apostle’s self-understanding.

Other arguments have also been mentioned. Unlike Paul’s letters, the Letter to the Hebrews contains no letter opening identifying the author. None of Paul’s known letters match the elevated style of Hebrews, with its elegant prose and sophisticated use of rhetoric.¹⁹ Admittedly, such linguistic arguments are of limited value, as we have a relatively small sample of Pauline writings and we do not know whether he had the opportunity to craft the Letter to the Hebrews more carefully than the other letters. Nevertheless, this observation serves as corroborating evidence even if it is not conclusive in itself.

There are also differences in content between Hebrews and the Pauline corpus. The main topic of Hebrews is that Jesus is the superior high priest who offered his self-sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary. This theme is not found in Paul’s letters. On the other hand, Paul’s characteristic teaching on the transformative role of the Holy Spirit as the animating power in believers’ lives is not in evidence in Hebrews.²⁰ While both Hebrews and Paul frequently appeal to the authority of Scripture, the author of Hebrews is more consistent in developing his argument through biblical exposition. Both Hebrews and Paul emphasize the discontinuity between the law and Christ, but Paul’s statements about the law being brought in so that the trespass might increase (Rom 5:20; cf. 7:7–11; 1 Cor 15:56; Gal 3:19) go beyond anything found in Hebrews. In Hebrews, the focus is on the impotence, not the detrimental effects, of the law (10:1–4; but cf. 12:18–21). Too much weight should not be placed on this observation, however. Paul’s most quotable critique of the law belongs in a polemical context, and it is not reflected in the majority of his letters. As the Letter to the Hebrews addresses a very different kind of threat, we should not expect to find the same polemical edge as in Romans and Galatians.

Many scholars also detect a very different understanding of faith in Hebrews, as faith is directed to the future, as opposed to the finished work of Christ. According to them, the author of Hebrews understands faith as faithfulness rather than trust. As will be argued in Excursus: Faith in Hebrews below, however, this interpretation is unwarranted. The differences between Hebrews and Paul are more likely to stem from the different circumstances of writing than from substantially different perspectives on faith.

C. Affinity with Paul

On the other hand, the similarities between Hebrews and the Pauline corpus are considerable. The christological claim in Hebrews is that the Son is an effulgence of his glory and imprint of his nature (1:3), an idea that closely resembles that of Col 1:15: The Son is the image of the invisible God. In Phil 2:6–11, Christ Jesus is described as being in very nature God and characterized by equality with God. However, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness, before God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name. A very similar picture of humiliation and exaltation is found in Hebrews. Jesus is portrayed as the one who was for a little while made lower than the angels …, so that … he might taste death on behalf of everyone and who is now crowned with glory and honor (2:9). Indeed, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high, having become so much greater than the angels, as he is the heir of a more distinguished name than they (1:3b–4). In the development of their Christology, both Paul and Hebrews draw on motifs known from Jewish traditions regarding the Wisdom of God (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15–20; Heb 1:3). The author’s understanding of Jesus’s sacrifice as propitiation (2:17) finds its closest parallel in Rom 3:25.

While there are differences in the treatment of the law in Paul and Hebrews (cf. above), the similarities are equally noteworthy. In light of the fact that other New Testament writings, such as Matthew’s Gospel, James, and 1 Peter, emphasize the continuity between the gospel and the Mosaic law (cf. Matt 5:17; Jas 1:25; 1 Pet 2:9), the agreement between Paul and Hebrews is significant. The author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah’s prophecy about the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34) at length (Heb 8:8–12; 10:16–17), a prophecy to which there are allusions in several New Testament writings.²¹ Only Hebrews (8:13) and Paul (2 Cor 3:13), however, use the prophecy to argue that the old covenant is obsolete (cf. further commentary on 8:8–12 below).

In general, the use of Scripture in Hebrews also bears comparison with Paul. While the christological interpretation of the Old Testament is in evidence in most of the New Testament writings, some of the author’s specific exegetical moves are most closely paralleled in the Pauline writings. As he explains in 1 Cor 8:6, Paul understood the divine name that in English is translated Lord (Heb.: YHWH; Gk.: kyrios) as a designation for Jesus Christ. Consequently, he frequently found references to Jesus in Old Testament passages that spoke of the Lord (Rom 10:13; 14:11; 1 Cor 1:31; 2:16; 10:26; 2 Cor 10:17; 2 Tim 2:19).²² The same hermeneutic is also at work when the author of Hebrews quotes Ps 101:26–28 LXX (ET 102:25–27) in 1:10–12. In its original context, the Lord (kyrios) is God, but the author understands the title as a reference to Jesus.

When the author of Hebrews introduces his main text, Ps 110 (Heb 1:13), his use of this psalm leads into a discussion of Christ’s enthronement (2:5–18), a discussion that centers around his interpretation of Ps 8:5–7 LXX (ET 8:4–6). These two psalms are also combined and read together in 1 Cor 15:25–27. As in Hebrews, so are the psalms understood as describing the victory Christ has already won (cf. also Eph 1:22; 1 Pet 3:22).

The author of Hebrews offers a unique interpretation of Ps 39:7–9 LXX (ET 40:6–8) (Heb 10:5–7). In his reading, the speaking subject of the psalm is Jesus, who declares that he has been given a body in order to do what sacrifices were unable to do, namely, to fulfill God’s will. To the author, these words concern Christ’s self-sacrifice, an interpretation that has no known parallels, except for the fact that the language of the psalm is used to describe Christ’s self-sacrifice in Eph 5:2.

The use of Ps 94:7–11 LXX (ET 95:7–11) in Heb 3:7–11 is also unparalleled in the New Testament, but the author’s hermeneutical presuppositions are not. He finds in Israel’s wilderness generation an example that is specifically relevant to his audience, to the point that God’s judgment of that generation is directly applied as a warning to them. The same presuppositions are in evidence in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, whom he warns not to become idolaters as some of them did (1 Cor 10:7), not to indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did (1 Cor 10:8), not to put Christ to the test as some of them did (1 Cor 10:9), and not to complain as some of them did (1 Cor 10:10).

In his discussion of Abraham, Paul allows his entire point to hang on a matter of chronology, the fact that Abraham was counted righteous before his circumcision (Rom 4:9–10). Such an argument is uncharacteristic of contemporary Jewish exegesis but appears in Hebrews as well.²³ The author draws a decisive point from the fact that the promises in Ps 95 postdate the conquest of Canaan, maintaining that the promised rest could not refer to the possession of the land (Heb 4:8).

In his teaching on justification by faith, Paul repeatedly turns to Hab 2:4 as his prooftext (Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11). Strikingly, the author of Hebrews also introduces his treatise on faith with a quotation from Hab 2:3–4.

While the author of Hebrews uses Scripture passages that are known from several New Testament writings, it appears that he shares with the apostle Paul a preference for certain passages. His method of interpretation also bears the strongest resemblance to that of Paul.

The resemblance does not amount to mere mimicking, however. While Paul and the author of Hebrews both use Hab 2:4 as a prooftext, their interpretation of this passage is strikingly different. Paul’s reading of the phrase the righteous will live by faith may be paraphrased the one who is righteous by faith will have eschatological life. The author of Hebrews, on the other hand, understands the phrase to mean the one who is righteous will have eschatological life by means of faith. In other words, Paul reads faith as directed toward the past, but the author of Hebrews reads it as directed toward the future.

D. Authorship by a Paulinist

Any hypothesis regarding the author of Hebrews, therefore, should be able to account for these four findings: (1) the overwhelming, even if not universal, testimony of the early church that the letter is Pauline, (2) the author’s self-identification as belonging to the second generation of Christ-followers, (3) similarities between Hebrews and Paul that go beyond what can be accounted for by appealing to common tradition found in the radical Gentile-oriented wing of the early church,²⁴ (4) some significant differences between Hebrews and Paul.

Pauline authorship must be ruled out, therefore, especially in light of the second finding, but also in light of the fourth.²⁵ Clement of Alexandria’s opinion, that the letter is translated from Hebrew, has not been convincing to modern scholars. Despite the presence of some Semitisms, such as the expressions to suffer/see death (2:9; 11:5), flesh and blood (2:14), and to come from the loins of someone (7:5), its sophisticated style does not give the impression of being a translation.²⁶ Occasionally, scholars have suggested that Paul wrote the letter with the help of an amanuensis.²⁷ This suggestion is also unlikely in light of the author’s admitted reliance upon the first generation of witnesses (2:3b). It has also been argued that the letter is pseudonymous, deliberately crafted in order to claim Pauline authority.²⁸ But a claim to apostolic authority entails being the fountainhead of Christian tradition (Eph 2:20). Someone making such a claim for oneself would hardly undermine it by admitting dependence upon the first generation of witnesses.²⁹ While the letter appears to stand squarely in the Pauline tradition, it does not lay a direct claim to apostolic authorship.

It appears, then, that the identity of the author must be sought within the Pauline circle, perhaps among his coworkers. The affinity with Paul appears to be affirmed by the reference to Timothy, Paul’s trusted coworker, toward the end of the letter (13:23). Besides the identification with the second generation of believers, however, there is precious little information about the author contained in the letter. The use of a first person masculine verb form in 11:32 indicates that the author was male.³⁰ He is apparently well educated, as is demonstrated by his impressive mastery of Hellenistic rhetorical conventions.³¹ His quotations of the Old Testament are sufficiently similar to the text found in the Septuagint to conclude that he has used an existing Greek translation of the Scriptures, not a Hebrew text. His background appears to be Hellenistic Judaism.

E. Relationship with Philo of Alexandria

More specifically, the author appears to rely on a text type that is in evidence in Alexandria. In 13:5, he includes a quotation that may recall five different texts (Gen 28:15; Deut 31:6, 8; Josh 1:5; 1 Chr 28:20) but is not identical to any of them. An exact match may be found, however, in the writings of the Middle Platonist Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (On the Confusion of Tongues 166). The easiest explanation for this phenomenon is that Philo and the author of Hebrews depended on a manuscript tradition that was known in Alexandria in the first century but that has been lost to posterity.

There are also many other points of comparison between the author of Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria. In the history of New Testament interpretation, the predominant view has been that the author knew and had been influenced by Philo’s thought even if he did not share all his views. The evidence has been most eruditely presented by the French New Testament scholar Ceslas Spicq. Spicq overstated his case, however, and maintained that the author was a former Philonist who had been converted to Christianity.³² Ronald Williamson’s thorough study, concluding that the author of Hebrews did not know Philo or his works, is often credited as the conclusive refutation of Spicq’s thesis.³³ There is a flaw in Williamson’s work, however, as he does not accept Philonic influence if he finds that words and ideas are not used in the exact same way by the two thinkers. He pays too little attention to the possibility that the Philonic influence could have been significantly reshaped in light of the author’s Christian convictions.

While there are no clear examples of borrowing from Philo, there are a number of similarities between the two, similarities that require an explanation. While most of the linguistic evidence presented by Spicq is inconclusive, some examples are intriguing. The metaphorical use of the term for an athletic contest (athlēsis) is very rare but occurs in both Hebrews and Philo. Characteristically, Philo combines the terms technitēs (builder) and dēmiourgos (maker) with reference to God as creator (Allegorical Interpretation 3.99; On the Preliminary Studies 105), something Hebrews does as well (11:10). Other terms that are found in Hebrews, such as hypostasis (substance/nature), archēgos (originator), and teleioō (make complete), are best understood if they are compared to their use in Philo’s works (cf. commentary on 1:3 and 2:10 below). The metaphor of the word of God as a piercing dagger (4:12), the explanation for God’s swearing (6:16–18), and the distinction between God’s immediate and mediated speech (1:1–2) find significant parallels in Philo as well.³⁴

The Christology of Hebrews also bears comparison with Philo’s reflections regarding the Logos, the divine Wisdom that serves the function of mediating between the transcendent God and human beings. Among other things, he calls the Logos the stamp (charaktēr) of God (On Planting 18). In Hebrews, the Son is the "imprint [charaktēr] of [God’s] nature (1:3). According to Philo, the image of God is the Word [logos] through whom the whole universe was framed" (On the Special Laws 1.81), and the Logos is attributed with both creating and sustaining the universe (cf. Heb 1:2–3).³⁵ The Logos may be referred to as divine (On Dreams 1.62), even God (On Dreams 1.227–230; cf. Heb 1:8–9) or the second God (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.62).

Even sonship is a metaphor that Philo uses for the Logos, which may be called the Firstborn Son (On Agriculture 51; cf. On the Confusion of Tongues 63; On Dreams 1.215). If the author of Hebrews is thinking of an eternal today when he is referring to the begetting of the Son (cf. commentary on 1:5 below), there is another point of contact with Philo, who maintained that ‘to-day’ is the limitless age that never comes to an end … the absolutely correct name for ‘endless age’ is ‘to-day’ (On Flight and Finding 57).

Philo’s Logos may be called not only a son but also a high priest (On the Migration of Abraham 102; On Dreams 1.215), even a sinless one (On Flight and Finding 108; cf. Who Is the Heir? 84; On Dreams 2.189, 231). In his allegorical interpretation, Philo sees Aaron as representing the Logos in his mediating role (Who Is the Heir? 205).

The idea of a high priest according to the pattern of Melchizedek is not found in the writings of Philo. Nevertheless, the author’s exposition of Melchizedek has several points of overlap with that of the Alexandrian philosopher. The interpretation of his name as king of righteousness and king of peace also occurs in Philo’s works (Allegorical Interpretation 3.79).³⁶ What is more, a central point in the exposition of Melchizedek in Hebrews is based on the silence of Scripture. There is no reference to Melchizedek’s mother or father, prompting the author to maintain that he is without a bloodline, who neither has a beginning of days nor an end of life, who is made like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever (7:3). This exegetical argument finds a parallel in Philo, who makes a similar point regarding Sarah. According to Gen 20:12, Abraham says that she is the daughter of my father but not of my mother. Observing that Sarah is without mother, Philo understands her to be representing virtue, begotten of her father alone, even God the Father of all (Who Is the Heir? 62; cf. On Drunkenness 61).³⁷

All the parallels between Philo and the author of Hebrews also show that there is a big distance between them. Philo’s allegorical method of interpretation and his Middle Platonist worldview are alien to Hebrews. Nevertheless, the points of contact are so many and so distinct that they call out for an explanation. If the author of Hebrews did not know Philo or his works personally, he had likely been influenced by a tradition that had much in common with Philo. It is plausible, therefore, that the author’s background was in Alexandria.

There have been many guesses as to who the author of Hebrews might have been, including Clement of Rome, Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, and Priscilla, among others.³⁸ The letter known as 1 Clement bears some striking similarities with Hebrews, but the reason is most likely that the author knew and made use of the letter. The letters attributed to Clement do not compare to the theological sophistication found in Hebrews, and it is quite unlikely that they should be the product of the same author. What is more, in a move hardly conceivable by the author of Hebrews (cf. 7:12, 18; 8:13), the author of 1 Clement appeals to the Old Testament law in order to buttress his instructions regarding church order (40:1–41:4).³⁹

Luke is equally unlikely, as the characteristic theme of Jesus as high priest is not reflected in his writings. Luke also focuses more on the continuity between the old and the new covenants, and the strong statements regarding the obsoleteness of the law (8:13) strikes a note different from what we find in his works.

About the other suggestions, we do not have enough knowledge to make any confident assessments, but any female suggestions are quite improbable in light of the masculine verb form in 11:32. Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), which may account for the letter’s Hellenistic flavor and its interest in the priesthood. He was the one who introduced Paul to the apostles after his conversion (Acts 9:27), and he partnered with Paul in his missionary activity (Acts 11:30; 12:25–15:35). His bitter disagreements with Paul (Gal 2:13; Acts 15:36–40) have been mentioned as an argument against his authorship, but the two missionaries were apparently reconciled later (cf. 1 Cor 9:6). What we know about Barnabas makes him a possible candidate, but nothing speaks particularly strongly in his favor.⁴⁰

Silas, also called Silvanus, accompanied Paul on his missionary travels after the schism with Barnabas (Acts 15:40). Paul mentions him and Timothy as the ones who served with him when he founded the Corinthian church (2 Cor 1:19), and he is listed as cosender, with Paul and Timothy, of the letters to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1). He is also credited as the coauthor of 1 Peter (1 Pet 5:12). If he were the author of Hebrews, it would explain the similarities with 1 Peter.⁴¹ But the differences are more impressive. The emphasis on the theme of Jesus as high priest (2:17 etc.), the critique of the law (7:12, 18; 8:13; 10:1–4), and the affinities with Alexandrian Judaism (cf. above) speak decisively against a common origin of Hebrews and 1 Peter.

Because of his association both with Paul and with Alexandria, the candidate that has the most to commend him is Apollos.⁴² According to Acts 18:24–25, a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He was given further instruction in the faith by Priscilla and Aquila before he went to Achaia, where he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah (Acts 18:28).

Two curious characteristics of the letter may be easier to explain on the assumption that Apollos was the author. In 6:2, the author refers to instruction concerning laying on of hands. As Apollos’s knowledge of the faith was deficient before he received further instruction by Priscilla and Aquila, it is likely that he had hands laid on him in connection with his full acceptance into the church. More strikingly, in the same verse, the author mentions baptisms in the plural (cf. also 9:10), an expression that is unparalleled in the New Testament but that might have been particularly meaningful to Apollos, who initially knew only the baptism of John before he would have been exposed to Christian baptism.⁴³ It is also possible that part of the background for Paul’s comments in 1 Cor 2:1, 4; 3:4–6 was Apollos’s impressive demonstration of rhetorical skills, corresponding to the qualities on display in Hebrews.

None of the factors outlined above amount to anything like conclusive evidence. While the author of Hebrews was most likely a male, second-generation Christian who had been strongly influenced by the apostle Paul, his identity is unknown.⁴⁴ We can do no more than guess. But as far as guesses go, Apollos is the best.

F. Date

If the authorship of Hebrews is clouded in mystery, the situation is not very different when it comes to the date of writing. If we proceed from the conclusion that the author is a second-generation Christian who had been profoundly influenced by Paul, we should allow for some time to have elapsed since the beginning of Paul’s missionary activity late in the 40s. The audience members have been believers for some time (5:12) but do not demonstrate commensurate maturity (5:11–14). Another indication that some time has passed since their coming to faith is the reference to deceased church leaders in 13:7. The audience also appear to be sufficiently familiar with persecution that the author is able to refer to their habitual response (10:32–34), as well as to consequent diminishing commitment on the part of some (10:24–29). There are references to persecution in almost all the New Testament writings, however, so this information in itself does not bring us much closer to a date.⁴⁵ However, the note that the audience have not yet resisted until the point of shedding your blood (12:4) may reflect a stage when they had not yet suffered martyrdom. In any case, few scholars would date the letter any earlier than the 60s.⁴⁶

The latest possible date is usually determined on the basis of the relationship with 1 Clement. While the author of 1 Clement does not cite Hebrews explicitly, as he cites 1 Corinthians (47.1–3), he shows clear indications of dependence on the letter. Portraying Jesus Christ, the High Priest of our offerings, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness (36.1), 1 Clement apparently includes a series of quotations from Hebrews, beginning with 1:3–4, he, being the radiance of his majesty, is as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent (36.2), proceeding to 1:7, He makes his angels winds and his ministers flames of fire (36.3), continuing with 1:5, But of his Son the Master spoke thus: ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the Gentiles for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession’ (36.4), and concluding with 1:13, And again he says to him: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’⁴⁷ As the last three quotations are ultimately taken from the Old Testament, one might suspect that 1 Clement and Hebrews simply attest to a common tradition of combining certain Scripture passages and introducing them with a formula drawn from ecclesiastical liturgy.⁴⁸ As these quotations are tailored to fit the argument of Hebrews, this explanation is unlikely. In any case, the combination of quotations could not have been taken from a collection of messianic prophecies, as it includes Ps 104:4. Formally, this quotation also deviates from the Septuagint, but it is identical in both 1 Clement and Hebrews.⁴⁹ Finally, the affirmation that Jesus has inherited a more excellent name than the angels functions as the segue between the introduction to Hebrews (1:1–4) and the subsequent string of quotations (1:5–13). Its wording, which is duplicated in 1 Clement, can hardly stem from a preexisting source, as it is tailored to serve as such a hinge between different paragraphs.⁵⁰

There is good reason, therefore, to date the Letter to the Hebrews no later than the writing of 1 Clement. On the basis of a reference to the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us (1.1), 1 Clement is traditionally dated to 96 CE, the last year of the emperor Domitian’s rule.⁵¹ This date is now under dispute, as scholars doubt whether Domitian initiated a persecution of the Christians and whether the cryptic note indeed is a reference to such a persecution. As 1 Clement is referenced by Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.16; 4.22; 4.23), some scholars suggest that the latest possible date is in the middle of the second century, arguing that the letter cannot be dated more precisely than between 70/80 and 140 CE.⁵²

Several scholars argue that the Letter to the Hebrews must have been written before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the forces of the Roman general Titus in 70 CE.⁵³ As the author is insisting on the obsoleteness of the old covenant, they think he would not have failed to have mentioned the fall of the temple, had he indeed written the letter after this event.

This argument loses most of its weight in light of the fact that the author does not mention the temple at all.⁵⁴ His interest is not in the historical practice of the Israelites but in the divine ordinance given through Moses.⁵⁵ He is arguing not against contemporary Judaism and its practices but for the superiority of the revelation in Christ over against the Mosaic law. That is why his exposition concerns the tabernacle erected by Moses, not the First Temple or the Second Temple. He knows, presumably, that the temple service and its sacrifices were temporarily halted during the Babylonian exile and during the persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. But these historical facts are of no concern as he asks rhetorically whether the sacrifices would not have ceased to be offered if they had been effective (10:1–2). The reason is that his frame of reference is God’s instructions, not historical events.⁵⁶

A more reliable indication of a relatively early date is the reference to Timothy’s release from prison (Heb 13:23). Paul met Timothy when he came to Lystra (Acts 16:1) in approximately 49 CE, and Timothy is referred to as a young man even in 1 Tim 4:12. He may still have been active toward the end of the first century, but hardly well into the second.⁵⁷

The theology of Hebrews does not offer any further indications. Jesus is portrayed as God’s eternal Son, not as an honorary title but with respect to his nature (1:3). He is even called God (1:8–9). This Christology is also found in Paul’s letters (Phil 2:6; Rom 9:5) and does not bring us any closer to dating the letter. There is an emphasis on future eschatology (4:1, 6, 9, 11), but also realized eschatology (12:22–24), a tension that runs through most of the New Testament writings.

The nature of the church community that is presupposed by the author’s argument may take us a small step further, however. Except for nondescript references to leaders, we learn nothing about church structure, but we see reflections of a well-consolidated church that has developed its own identity, clearly demarcated from its surroundings. A comparison with the other New Testament letters may be illustrative. Paul writes to churches that appear to be quite intermingled with the community in which they live. As he perceives the situation, they appear to be threatened by teaching that is inspired by non-Christian Jewish theology. He warns the Galatians against circumcision (Gal 5:2–3) and assures the Romans that he is upholding the law (Rom 3:31), as he is defending himself against accusations that he promotes sin and injustice (Rom 3:8; 6:1). In contrast, the author of Hebrews affirms that the old covenant is obsolete (8:13), and he does not feel the need to defend himself for making such a claim. While he is unimpressed with their levels of maturity (5:11–14), he is nonetheless able to assume that the audience has not only learned but also internalized a distinctly Christian theology. Without argument, he offers a uniquely Christian interpretation of Scripture, reading the divine name as a reference to Jesus (1:10). The letter does not reveal the presence of alien voices tempting the audience to go astray. Its reference to false teaching (13:9) is formulaic and does not reflect the presence of teachers promoting alternative truths. The perceived threat is not external but internal. There is a fear that church members may become so discouraged that they apostatize (3:12; 4:1, 11; 6:4–6; 10:26–29).

From Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, we learn that some of the church members were so ingratiated with their pagan neighbors that they could receive regular invitations to parties at which idol meat was consumed (1 Cor 8:10; 10:27–28). The members of the churches to which 1 Peter is addressed have undergone a thoroughgoing change of lifestyle, a change that is still the object of surprise to their neighbors (1 Pet 4:4). In Hebrews, the lines between church members and outsiders are drawn more decisively. The church suffers social ostracism. Its members are routinely subjected to public shaming.

The picture of the church addressed in Hebrews presupposes a development of consolidating its identity and demarcating it from its social environment.⁵⁸ It is no longer a porous community that lives intimately, albeit in tension, with its surroundings.⁵⁹ The audience of Hebrews represents a more advanced stage of early church history.

It is difficult to estimate how much time is required for such a development to run its course, dependent as it is on a number of unknown factors, such as the origin of the church, its ethnic makeup, and the nature of the persecution.⁶⁰ There is no clear indication that allows us to conclude in favor of a more precise dating than 60–100 CE.⁶¹ A date toward the end of this spectrum appears more likely, however.

II. AUDIENCE

In the early church, the Letter to the Hebrews was considered to be a Pauline letter written to Jews in Judea.⁶² The earliest attestation of the designation to the Hebrews is from the second century.⁶³ Both Tertullian (Modesty 20) and Clement of Alexandria (according to Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.4) referred to the letter in this way. The heading to the Hebrews is included in the oldest extant manuscript, Inline Image ⁴⁶ of the Chester Beatty papyri, dated around 200 CE. In the oldest commentaries, we find the same understanding.⁶⁴

The heading to the Hebrews is not original, however. It must have been added at some point after the letter had begun to circulate. At that time, it became necessary to distinguish it from other writings that were used in the churches. It is necessary to inquire whether the letter includes any evidence of who its original recipients might have been. Such an inquiry immediately becomes rather complicated.

To begin with, it is not even clear that the Letter to the Hebrews really is a letter. The customary letter opening, with information about the sender and the recipient, is notoriously absent. A conventional closing, with greetings and well-wishes, is included at the end, but there is nothing in the body of the work that reflects its character as a letter.⁶⁵ The author refers to his opus as a word of exhortation (13:22), a designation that fits an oral address.⁶⁶ For these reasons, a scholarly consensus has emerged that the letter was originally written as a sermon that was subsequently equipped with a letter closing in order to be dispatched as a letter.⁶⁷

While it has been proposed that this letter was intended for circulation among a general audience, rather than an individual church, its tone suggests that the author wrote to a specific audience.⁶⁸ He betrays concrete knowledge about their situation, and he censures them for their lack of maturity. In his view, there is one specific danger that threatens the congregation: the possibility that they may grow weary and lose their commitment to their faith.⁶⁹

The author also seems to presuppose that the audience belonged in an urban setting. He reminds them that here we do not have a remaining city (13:14), and the exhortations to show hospitality and care for prisoners (13:1–2) find their natural context in urban life.⁷⁰ Like the author, the recipients were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’s ministry but dependent on the apostolic proclamation (2:3–4).

There are some indications that the author is not addressing all the believers in a geographic area but a specific congregation (10:25). Christian congregations in the first century usually met in private homes, and many scholars consider it likely that the audience of Hebrews was an individual house church.⁷¹

Regarding their specific location, the concluding note that those from Italy greet you (13:24) appears to contain a clue. The most natural interpretation seems to be that those from Italy are currently not in Italy, but they are sending their greetings because they are known to the audience. In other words, the audience was in Italy, most likely in Rome. However, it is also possible that the letter was sent from Italy, as at least some of its ancient readers understood it.⁷² Nevertheless, this note is a strong indication that the original audience was to be found in Rome, but it is not entirely conclusive.⁷³ As corroborating evidence of an association with Rome, the earliest attested use of the letter is found in the letter known as 1 Clement, a letter that was written from Rome (salutation) and that also quotes from Romans and 1 Corinthians. Affinities between Hebrews and 1 Peter, which appears to have been sent from Rome (1 Pet 5:13), have also been cited as corroborating evidence.⁷⁴ However, the similarities between the two letters are not sufficient to establish a connection between them (cf. above).

The church had experienced persecution, not only in the form of social marginalization but also through imprisonment and loss of property (10:34). Even more severe persecution might lie ahead (12:4). Some commentators have read this information as confirmation that the letter was addressing the church in Rome.⁷⁵ However, with the exception of Corinth, the description may fit almost any church known from the New Testament. According to the New Testament writings, social ostracism and incidents of violent persecution represent the normal state for Christian believers.

The lack of certainty about the original recipients has resulted in a number of alternative suggestions, including Spain, Ravenna, Thessalonica, Berea, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Bithynia and Pontus, Colossae, Cyprus, Alexandria, Samaria, and Antioch.⁷⁶ None of these proposals have been able to command broad scholarly support.

At first glance, the contents of the letter may appear to support the ancient tradition that its audience consisted of Jewish believers.⁷⁷ The discussion is saturated with references to Israel’s Scriptures, and the main topic concerns the Mosaic covenant and its institutions. But there is nothing in the letter that requires a Jewish audience.⁷⁸ The argument is fully comprehensible to any reader who has received a basic instruction in the Christian message, as the author presupposes is the case (5:12–6:3). Indeed, the instruction he presupposes is the Christian proclamation of the gospel, not any instruction in Jewish theology and ethos. It is quite plausible, therefore, as several scholars have proposed recently, that the letter is directed to a mixed audience, consisting of Jews and gentiles.⁷⁹ That is also precisely what we might expect, if the letter belongs squarely in the Pauline tradition. Paul’s message of reconciliation aimed at establishing a new community, a community in which Jewish and gentile Christ-believers lived together as brothers and sisters. According to Eph 2:15, Christ’s purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace. The assumption of a mixed audience is further strengthened if the destination of the letter is found in Rome. As most, but not all, scholars agree, Paul’s letter to the Romans was addressed to a church consisting of both Jews and gentiles. (Paul is addressing Jews in 2:17 and gentiles in 11:13, and he is including both Jews and gentiles when he refers to us in 9:24. Cf. also 1:16; 2:9–10.) If expectation matches reality, however, we do not know, especially on the hypothesis that the audience was a small house church. The letter simply does not contain any clear indications of the recipients’ ethnicity. If we are unable to trust the ancient tradition that the letter was addressed to Jews, we have to be content with ignorance.

Despite recent protestations, however, we can be more confident that the audience had a clearly pronounced Christian identity that set them apart from contemporary Jewish communities.⁸⁰ They were not only well versed in the basic message pertaining to Christ (6:1), but they had apparently also received some instruction in a Christian understanding of Israel’s Scriptures. The author could assume agreement with his uniquely Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. He relied on the audience to accept, without explanation, that both God and the divine title Lord referred to Jesus, who was also the object of worship (1:6). The recipients were also expected to nod along when he contended not only that the old covenant was obsolete (7:12; 8:13; 9:10) but also that it had been completely ineffective all along (7:18; 10:1–4). A torah-observant Jew, even if one held Jesus to be the Messiah, may hardly be considered the implied reader of such statements. What is more, the author’s argument required that they saw their own community as the audience of God’s address to his people (4:1–11). The author’s use of the Old Testament presupposes that Christ-believers are the genuine heirs of Abraham and the ancestors of God’s people (11:1–40). They constitute a community that is distinct from the Jewish community in general. That much is implied by the assertion that we have an altar from which those who serve at the tabernacle do not have the right to eat (13:10).

III. OCCASION

Even if we do not know who authored Hebrews and to whom, we do know why he wrote. He wanted to encourage his audience to persevere in faith (10:36). As he is preparing the audience for his extensive exposition of Jesus’s high priesthood, he gives them his fundamental exhortation: "Since we have a great high priest, therefore, who has proceeded into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold on closely to the confession! … Let us therefore boldly step up [proserchōmetha] to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace, so that we may be helped at the right time (4:14, 16). At the conclusion of his exposition, he returns to the same exhortation: let us draw near [proserchōmetha] with a true heart and the full assurance of faith…. Let us hold firm the confession of our hope, for the one who gave the promise is faithful" (10:22a, 23). His encouragement is twofold: to nourish the relationship with God and to make a public confession of it. The bulk of the letter is devoted to providing the motivation: by sacrificing himself once and for all, Jesus has provided cleansing from sin and broken down the barrier that separates humans from God. Believers now have free access to the heavenly throne and to God’s presence. The burden of the letter is to encourage the audience to continue to make use of this privilege and not forfeit on it.

The author’s rationale for offering his encouragement is apparently an acute sense of danger on the part of the intended recipients, that they may abandon their faith. Exhortations not to apostatize are sprinkled throughout the letter, beginning in 2:1: it is necessary that we pay all the more attention to the things we have heard, in order that we do not drift away (cf. 12:25). Taking Israel’s wilderness generation as a sobering example, the author continues, See to it, brothers and sisters, that there is not an evil and unbelieving heart in any of you, so that you rebel against the living God (3:12). Such a prospect is not merely theoretical but gives reason to fear: Let us fear, therefore, lest any of you may be deemed to miss out while the promise to enter into his rest is still valid (4:1). The audience needs to make faith commitment a matter of renewed priority: Let us therefore be eager to enter into that rest, in order that no one may fall by following their example of disobedience (4:11).

The necessary commitment is a matter of communal concern. Believers need to care for each other and be watchful so that no one misses out on the grace of God; that no bitter root springs up to cause vexation, so that many are tainted; that there is no one who is sexually immoral or this-worldly like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that, afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, even though he sought it with tears, he was rejected, for he did not find room for repentance (12:15–17).

Apparently, the author’s fear concerns specific individuals within the congregation, more than the congregation as a whole. He is appealing to the church as a community, therefore, to care for their individual members. Employing the metaphor of the church as a body, he exhorts them to straighten up your drooping arms and buckling knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is paralyzed may not be dislocated, but rather healed (12:12–13). Through their collective love and concern, the church may be able to restore the members that are in danger of backsliding.

To add gravity to his exhortations, the author repeatedly warns the audience of the consequences if they fail to heed the message. The stakes are even higher now than what they were under the old covenant: For if the message that was spoken by angels stood firm, and every transgression and disobedience received its just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? (2:2–3a).

In his Son, God has spoken his final word (1:2). For those who reject Jesus, therefore, there is no other means of salvation. When someone has enjoyed all of God’s gifts, and then turns away, the options for redemption have been exhausted. It is impossible for them to be renewed once again to repentance, as they are crucifying the Son of God for themselves and exposing him to public shame (6:6). Their end will be the fire (6:8). After the author has concluded his exposition, this point is reiterated. Those who, against their better knowledge, deliberately reject God’s salvation have only a certain terrifying prospect of judgment and a fiery zeal that is about to consume the adversaries (10:27; cf. vv. 28–31).

The reason why some church members appear to be on the verge of abandoning their faith is the opposition they have had to endure from their environment. They have been made to live a life of shame, as we can understand from the author’s encouragement to embrace such a life in imitation of their Savior (13:13; cf. 12:3). From the author’s account, we understand that the persecution manifested itself as social marginalization and sometimes also as imprisonment and confiscation of property. He recalls, At times you were made to be a public spectacle of vitriol and oppression, at other times you stood in solidarity with those who were subjected to such treatment. For you had empathy with the prisoners and welcomed the seizure of your possessions with joy, because you knew that you had a better and lasting property (10:33–34).⁸¹ From the author’s mild rebuke that the audience had not yet resisted until the point of shedding your blood in their struggle against sin (12:4), it would appear that they had yet to suffer martyrdom. However, the references to Jesus’s death (2:9, 14; 9:15) and the call to imitate him in his suffering (12:2–3; 13:12–13) seem to reflect a situation in which the audience lived in fear that their suffering might result in death (cf. 2:15).⁸² (See further Excursus: Persecution in Hebrews at 10:34.)

The sufferings have taken their toll, and the church members are in danger of becoming fatigued and ending up losing heart (12:3). Some of them have lost their enthusiasm for their congregation (10:25). It is not too late, however, and the author expresses his optimistic expectation that the audience will take his exhortations to heart and renew their commitment: Regarding you, the loved ones, however, we are convinced of better things, the things concerning your salvation, even though we are speaking like this (6:9; cf. 10:39). To help them, he reminds them of the example of Jesus, who has endured such opposition from sinners against himself (12:3), the one who suffered outside the gate. Therefore, let us go to him outside the camp while we are bearing the vitriol he bore (13:12b–13).

The traditional understanding of the situation is that the recipients were tempted to leave the church and return to the synagogue.⁸³ On the assumption that the audience consisted of Christ-believing Jews, this reconstruction is plausible, but there is insufficient evidence to support it. The author’s concern is to encourage the audience to remain firm in their commitment to the church, not to warn against alternative communities. There is only a cursory mention of diverse and strange teachings (13:9), teachings that are not defined, except for an obscure reference to being made firm by food, presumably having to do with observance of the law.⁸⁴ Advocates of the traditional view find here a reference to synagogue meals, but such a specific interpretation is unlikely to be correct (cf. commentary on 13:9 below).⁸⁵ The author does not devote any attention to such a threat, however. To the audience of Hebrews, the threat is internal, not external. If the assumption that the audience was of a predominantly Jewish background is deemed to be unfounded, this hypothesis will fall under the same verdict. All we may say with confidence is that the letter was written to counter the threat of apostasy.

IV. STRUCTURE

The Letter to the Hebrews is an artistically crafted sermon. It does not follow a simple, linear outline but weaves together exposition and exhortation. The author is also fond of foreshadowing themes that will be developed later. These characteristics result in a structure of interlocking sections. This strategy makes the structure difficult to trace, resulting in conflicting outlines offered by scholars, who typically disagree about whether the letter has three or five major sections. Some favor an outline based on the use of literary devices, and others divide the letter according to content.⁸⁶ A combination of these methods holds better promise.⁸⁷

The main theme of the sermon is the high priesthood of Jesus, a theme that is introduced in 2:17, reintroduced in 4:14, and developed on the basis of the chief Old Testament text to be exposited, which is Ps 110:4. This text is quoted or alluded to in 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17. Another important marker of the structure is the existence of parallel passages found in 4:14–16 and 10:19–23.⁸⁸ Apart from the concluding paragraph in 13:11–17, these two passages are the only ones containing multiple verbs in the first person plural subjunctive, the form that is used for exhortations in which the author includes himself. Together, these observations help identify 4:14–10:18 as the main section of the letter. With this starting point, it is possible to trace the basic outline by paying attention to the author’s use of literary devices that reveal his progression of thought and transition between topics. Such devices include the alternation between exposition and exhortation, the use of bookends (inclusio), identification of the subject, repetition of key terms, the use of hook words, and symmetric or chiastic arrangement.⁸⁹

Following the introduction (1:1–4), the first section concerns Jesus’s superiority as Son (1:5–4:13). This section contains two main subsections of exposition, the first of which is identified by the use of the key term angel (angelos), occurring ten times in 1:5–2:18 (and once in 1:4), only to disappear completely until it is mentioned again in 12:22 and 13:2. The first warning against unbelief (2:1–4) breaks up this subsection. Having introduced the theme of Jesus as a merciful and faithful high priest in 2:17, the second subsection (3:1–4:13) develops the latter of these characteristics by comparing Jesus with Moses (quoting Num 12:7), over whom he is superior because he is Son (3:1–6). This exposition is followed by the second warning against unbelief (3:7–4:13).

Picking up the theme of Jesus as a merciful high priest (cf. 2:17), the second main section is devoted to his high priesthood (4:14–10:18). After reintroducing the theme in the form of an exhortation (4:14–16), the first subsection (4:14–5:10) establishes Christ’s appointment according to the pattern of Melchizedek (5:1–10), quoting Ps 110:4 in 5:6. Exposition must once again give way to exhortation in the second subsection (5:11–6:20), which includes the