Intro to Hebrews/ Hebrews in Context

[Josh]

We're going to go into this in greater detail on Sunday, but here's the "skinny" on Hebrews to get us going.

Author:

Unknown, but Clement and Origen in Alexandria attribute the content to Paul (but perhaps the writing to Timothy or Clement of Rome). Augustine and Jerome agreed.

Tertullian thought Barnabas (because he was a Levite/from a priestly family)

Others suggestions for authorship throughout Church history: Silas, Priscilla, Apollos (Luther’s choice)

The identity of the author isn't super important in the case of Hebrews. However, the author does write with pastoral authority and in line with the teachings handed down by Christ to his disciples.

Date:

Scholars date the book between 60-90 AD.

I think it's dated before 70 AD because of references to the Jewish sacrificial system as still being present.

Audience:

The audience appears to be baptized and fully instructed Hellenized Jewish Christians, some of whom have grown lax in their faith

Major Themes/ Purpose of Writing

-Jesus as both fully God and fully man
-The Kingdom of God as fulfillment of the Scriptures
-Warnings against falling away, returning to the Old Covenant
-A God’s eye view of the Church

Maybe you can point out other themes as well?

[christopher]

I’m of the opinion that the primary (only?) purpose of this book is not to develop theology to the readers, but to exhort them to remain in the faith under tremendous pressure to do go back to the old Jewish system. The author even says as much (13:22). We must keep that purpose in view throughout this book or we risk taking passages out of context and misinterpreting the point the author is making. In my mind, this is one of the most abused books in that respect (the 10:25 missile is a classic example). If we treat the book like we would a course in theology, I think the inevitable result is a misunderstanding of what the author is really trying to get at.

It is true that there are things like high Christology and other themes developed, but that is not the intent. It’s done in the context of demonstrating the superiority of Christ and thus His authority over what they formally knew.

This is the point I wanted to make about the similarity with Colossians:

1. Christ as the creator of all things (Heb 1:2, Col 1:16)
2. Christ as the sustainer of all things (Heb 1:3, Col 1:17)
3. Christ as the heir of creation (Heb 1:2, Col 1:12)
4. Christ as the express image of God Himself (Heb 1:3, Col 1:15)
5. Christ as the firstborn of the New Creation (Heb 1:4-6, Col 1:18)
6. Christ’s preeminence over heaven and earth (Heb 1:10-12, Col 1:16)

There’s more, but you get the point. The author is drawing the readers’ attention to the fact that Jesus is the only valid and rightful Lord over everything. He is methodically and gradually leading them up to the conclusion that their old religion is now obsolete and indeed vanishing (Ch 8) and therefore continuing to follow Jesus is really the only option they have.

[Josh]

I’m of the opinion that the primary (only?) purpose of this book is not to develop theology to the readers, but to exhort them to remain in the faith under tremendous pressure to do go back to the old Jewish system.

Yeah, that does seem to be the main point of the book. However, I'd agree with a lot of the commentaries that I've been studying which point out that part of the reason the audience of this book might have been lapsing back into their traditional Judaism was because they had an incomplete theological understanding of who Jesus is.

It appears that perhaps they simultaneously, in different respects, held too high a view of Jesus (a Jesus who cannot relate to us) and too low a view of Jesus (that they were more interested in speculations about the powers of angels, etc..)

The author seems to be revitalizing their understanding of the gospel in order to help them continue on in their faith rather than running back to what was comfortable.

The interesting thing is that although the context for the original writing and audience of the book of Hebrews may be difficult for us to relate to, it is not difficult for us to relate to inadequate or incomplete views of the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the danger that poses to our faith.

That's why in some ways Hebrews is a timeless book.

[Josh]

Two other interesting similarities between Colossians and Hebrews are:

1. The warnings against unhealthy fascination with angels (like we possibly see in Hebrews 1-2):

Colossians 2:18
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

2. The use of Platonic philosophy (probably acquired via Philo, the great Jewish theologian who synthesized Greek and Hebrew thought)- especially reference to "shadows" vs. "heavenly reality"

Hebrews 8:5
They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Hebrews 10:1
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

Colossians 2:17
These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

[christopher]

That's why in some ways Hebrews is a timeless book.

Yes, there can be no doubt that Hebrews (and every other book in scripture) is timeless in that it has timeless truths. It's only when deriving those truths are attempted without the historical and circumstantial framework that errors are made.

I've seen too many verses in this book pressed into service as proof texts for someones theological presuppositions and they simply don't hold water when examined in context and balanced with the rest of scripture.

But, as a whole, I hold the book as one of my favorites in the New Testament largely because of the way it clearly explains the story of Jesus as the fulfillment of the long anticipated Messiah of the Jews and how that expands to rest of creation.

[Josh]

I've seen too many verses in this book pressed into service as proof texts for someones theological presuppositions and they simply don't hold water when examined in context and balanced with the rest of scripture.

As we go through the book, bring these up. I'm curious which one you're referring to specifically.

Could one of them be the 25th verse of the fourth chapter from the end?

[christopher]

Why certainly. Why not start with the chapter at hand?

Heb 1:1-21:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,NKJV

Have you ever heard someone say "in these last days", referring to our own time? This is a favorite for dispensationalists that believe we are in the Gentile dispensation, which continues until Jesus returns.

Many Christians believe that the "last days" started with Jesus and continue on until now. And this is a favorite proof text. Seems like a strange way to reckon time IMO.

"Last days" need not refer to the end of our space/time universe, but merely the end of an era (like the Old covenant era for example). Virtually every NT author referred to their days as the "last days". My former pastor/teacher used to say it was by God's design that every generation think they are the last so that we're always ready for Jesus to come back. I guess that would make the apostles not so inspired, huh?

I already know you agree with me on this concept, but it is just one example. If you remind me to, I'll bring them up as we go. Or, I could just list most of the passages I can think of off the top of my head (there are many) and have it all out there.

And yes, the verse you listed is about one of the most annoying misapplications of scripture I can think of. And it's even used by some of my favorite teachers.