Who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews? This is the question that dominates the thoughts  of many in coming to introductions and commentaries of the book. What is unfortunately lost in the shuffle are the many hermeneutical matters that might illuminate the book’s meaning found right behind that same authorial question. Rather than trying to reconcile the obvious letter-like ending with equally obvious non-letter-like beginning, in the ordinary critical fashion, we would do better to note the “wealth of rhetorical devices” [1] throughout the letter that draw out what appears to have been a Spirit-inspired homily, the transcription of which sent in letter form at some point afterward.  

A reasonable theory is that Hebrews was indeed a sermon to a predominantly Jewish Christian community, to hold forth the supremacy of Christ and thus to admonish them from exchanging Christ for a return to Judaism.

In other words, the argument is not simply that it was a sermon, but also that it still preaches to the church. This will make sense of both the theology of the book and the fact that its final composition is a letter to a wider Jewish Christian audience.  

What May Be Known About the Author and Audience

Without getting bogged down too much into why Pauline authorship has been abandoned in recent decades, it is worth noting that alternatives have always been proposed. That is because parallel canon lists existed from an early date: some of which contained Hebrews, others that did not. Of those that did, one featured Hebrews second only to Romans, and another after 2 Corinthians. This explains the esteem of some, like Eusebius, who opined that it was “modesty” in Paul that prevented him from identifying himself to the Jews, as he was the apostle to the Gentiles [2].

It is true that many fathers by the fourth century were claiming that only heretics reject Hebrews or that there were fourteen books of Paul [3], but there was always a tradition that was more reserved. The book was quoted by Clement of Rome (ca. 96 AD) as if he was quoting Paul; and yet some, like Calvin, theorized that the writer was Clement himself. There was also a “double tradition” theory, where Luke and Clement each contributed [4]. The other Clement (of Alexandria) proposed that Paul wrote it in Hebrew, but that Luke translated it into Greek [5]. Tertullian preferred Barnabas; and Luther held out Apollos. Each has their reasons, but in the final analysis, we cannot say with any certainty.

Against Pauline authorship we must reckon with 2:3, where the author seems to have received the gospel tradition secondhand. He himself was not an apostle, but rather a later member of the “apostolic circle.” Moreover, the usual letter greeting is wholly absent and typical Pauline doctrines and phraseology are conspicuously missing. In spite of these things, “by the third century Pauline authorship was accepted in the East”[6], and in the West, thanks in large part to the KJV, Paul’s claim was as good as canonical itself during the modern era. 

I would cite Origen’s thoughts as a bridge from knowing the author’s identity to knowing the complex genre employed: “the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings” [7]. It may be that Luke is the most interesting candidate for authorship for two reasons: 1. Luke’s composition rescues an element of Pauline theology without forcing the Apostle’s hand more than the evidence would indicate; 2. Luke is a Gentile and thus we are invited to consider what stake a non-Jew has in such a message as this book: how the same exhortation can apply to a predominantly Gentile audience down through the ages. 

  Who was this epistle meant for? The title “Hebrews” was added toward the end of the second century [8]. By itself that does not settle the question. The elements often referred to as “Platonic” are thought to perfectly explain the work of Christ to the Alexandrian Jews, as their theological framework had been prepared by thinkers like Philo [9]. The letter gives no explicit indication however. Commentators seem agreed that it would not radically change how we read the letter if its recipients were predominantly, or even entirely, Gentile. 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 and Romans 15:4 give us a good reason for this, as Gentile believers have been brought into the same people of God as Old Testament Israel, and the New Testament authors used the people of Old as examples for the instruction of Jews and Gentiles alike. 

A Biblical Theology of the Sermon (or Exhortation)

In claiming that the epistle has a “sermonic character” it is important to make clear my meaning. The basic characteristics of a sermon are exposition, illustration, and application [10]. Not that a sermon must feature these in a particular order, or each with a equal frequency: only that there is a basic doctrine that is driven toward the real life action of the audience. That is an important point because the argument is certainly not to impose a particular form or method of preaching that would be anachronistic.

What are the most telling qualities of Hebrews that suggests a sermon? There is a constant suggestion of time limitations. “And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell” (11:32; cf. 5:11; 6:3; 9:5). That would be a bit odd in a letter, or any other primarily written form. We would expect instead the author speaking of limited space, instead of time.

There is also 13:22, which speaks of a “word of exhortation” to describe the letter. He actually uses the word in two different forms in the same verse: “I exhort (Παρακαλῶ) you brothers, bear with my word of exhortation (παρακλήσεως).” The latter noun form is used in Acts 13:15 for “a word of encouragement” (ESV) in a preaching context. 

Most telling, perhaps, is when the author puts into practice that very exhortation with a constant call to belief in the face of a temptation to fall away (2:1; 3:1, 7-8, 12-13, 15; 4:1, 11, 14, 16; 6:1; 10:22, 23, 24-25; 12:1-2, 12-16, 25; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). Three of those early chapters start with a different form of the same exhortation. In other words, the exhortation makes up the backbone of the letter, at least structurally speaking. Returning to 13:22, he calls it “my” word of exhortation, which does not necessarily mean the final author preached it, but it seems to be an apologia for writing them “briefly” about such deep things. 

How different were those public readings of the epistles in the assembly in any event? In other words, what is the line between first century assembly-scripture-reading and what we are saying about his letter? Certainly different New Testament words are used for the different modes of gospel speech: (1) κηρύσσω (2) διδάσκω (3) λαλέω (4) κατηχέω, and finally our (5) παρακαλῶ (1) and (5) are most like preaching, but while (1) focuses more on gospel heralding, (5) brings us the regular purpose of a sermon: exhorting to action, or gospel response. 

Old Testament exhortation seems to feature this characteristic of exposition, illustration, and application. Genres will of course determine how much, and in what way, each is used. Moses gave a sermon on the edge of the Promise Land, Ezra did the same to the people back in the land.

The etymology of the verb behind נָבִיא (nabu) includes “to decree, to proclaim, to command, to make known.” [11] Even the short record of Jonah’s sermon clearly expresses the indicative, leaving the imperative implied: Repent. “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jon. 3:4)

Now if Hebrews is a continuation of this tradition, application ought to feature throughout. Can we divide the book neatly into a doctrine (1:1-10:18) then exhortation (10:19-13:25) mold? [12] My conclusion is that there is a relation of doctrine and exhortation throughout. We see an imperative refrain showing up as a kind of heading at 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1—“Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.” The rest are an intensification of the author-preacher’s call to behold Christ so as to not let him go, or so as to not slide into apostasy. 

 

The Author’s Use of Old Testament Exposition

In this first element of a sermon, exposition, what we will mean is the author’s use of Old Testament doctrine. What are the main Old Testament texts used by the author and how does he use them in expositional terms? Seven foundational quotations are in the first chapter alone (Ps. 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 89:27; 97:7; 104:4; 45:6; 102:25-27; Ps. 110:1-3). This begins a clear theme. The most basic contrast is made between the old and new covenants, yet the focus of that contrast shifts from angels and Christ, to Moses and Christ, to the priesthood and Christ. And the high Christology functions to anchor the people from drifting out into the sea of apostasy.   

Now in speaking of “Old Testament exposition,” what one has to show is the author specifically exegeting an Old Testament text. The use of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8 would be the most extended example. Since, however, our goal is to show how exhortation is anchored in early exposition, 3:7-11 provides a better case. This pericope cites Psalm 95:7-11, and the event itself is recorded in Numbers 14, though it seems to draw from several references [13]. Brown comments that, “The Psalm was regularly used each Sabbath day in first-century synagogue worship … They must not disregard God’s ways as their ancestors did” [14]. One implication is that the Psalm had already been orienting the people of God “back to the wilderness” for at least a thousand years to the Psalm’s composition. This was not a new doctrine. 

If this was such a well-known motif among the Jews, why should it need further exposition? First, it may be that there are many Gentiles among even the first audience; second, it does not follow that God’s people see how such a “look back” fits with the “better promises” of the New.

Those who do not accept Covenant Theology in our own day struggle with this same thing. If we are committed to the perseverance of the saints, we may naturally ask: How could a genuinely Christian audience be under such an extended warning of apostasy?

Moreover, where is Christ in such a negative message? The call to “look to Jesus” in 12:2 is the hortatory punchline to: “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (8:6). Because Christ is both the offeror and the offering, what was insufficient about the old priests and animals is no obstacle now. 

The Author’s Use of Old Testament Illustration

The church in the New Covenant age is a mixed body, just as it was in the Old Covenant. Other New Testament passages like 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 make this abundantly clear. This will become relevant when we resolve difficulties from 6:4-6 and 10:26-31. The first thing to notice is how the author employs illustration to clarify the nature of the mixed body. The imagery includes a house (3:2-6), a field (6:7-8), and a city (11-13). There is more going on in these images that depicting the church as a mixed body; but there is not less than this. 

The “two grounds” of Chapter 6 will await our later section on problem passages. However notice that just as God’s people are a “house” overseen by Moses in the Old, so the people of the New are God’s “house” overseen by Christ. An advocate of New Covenant Theology may want to object that there is no word here of a mixed body. For him the application of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8 is quite clear. This is the New Covenant in which all who are included will know the Lord: only the regenerate, and thus not at all any apostate.

But the whole context has the same Spirit speaking into the current “house” for the same purpose: dividing between those who will believe and those who will fall away. Remember that Christ came to divide between people in the same households (Mat. 10:30). That sword of division comes in the form of the Spirit’s words here.

Later on there are two cities implied by faith of the pilgrims in Chapter 11 and by Christ himself in Chapter 13. The more we take note of the “dividing” illustrations employed by the author, the more a traditional covenant theology (over against a New Covenant Theology) interpretation of the whole book is required. The exhortation (even if one does not take it as a sermon) makes no sense on the NCT reading. Other illustrations are built into the old system. The outer courts of the tabernacle are “symbolic for the present age” (9:9). Mount Zion is made the heavenly Jerusalem that even the present hearers of this letter “have come to” (12:22). 

Is typology illustration? Usually we would say that an illustration moves from the clear to the obscure. A difficult concept is made simpler by a picture that is more familiar than the concept. “More than any other New Testament writer,” says Greidanus, “the author of Hebrews is known for his use of typology. Although he uses the word ‘typos’ only once, he indicates types with other words such as copy or sketch (hypodeigma, 8:5; 9:23; antitypos, 9:24), shadow (skia, 8:5; 10:1), and symbol (parabole, 9:9)” [15].

The author of Hebrews sees Christ as the substance of the Old Testament. In drawing this forth, he works from a particular understanding of type and antetype, or shadow and substance. Vos sees 10:1 as a crucial passage: “the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities.” That expression, αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα, may also rendered “the very image” [16]. So if the Old was full of the copies, what can it mean that the New contains still images? Vos answers by considering how an artist first draws a sketch (skia) and then the final picture (eikoon). Note that “both the sketch and the real picture are only representations of some real thing which lies beyond both of them. This real thing would then be the heavenly reality” [17].

The upshot for Vos may strike some as Platonic, though by it he only means that the author differs from the other Apostles in how they have the Old “shadowing” the New. The author of Hebrews has the heavenly “shadowing down” all earthly exemplars (Old and New), while the Old still drives (left to right) toward the New. 

Now all of this deeper typology might seem far removed from a practical sermon. However even the new believer draws comfort from the fact that when the veil of the earthly temple was torn in two (Mk. 15:38), this was really the “image” of Christ passing into the more real heavenly vail (Heb. 9:24, 10:20). The symbolism is not so impossible to understand after all. 

One scholar is sure that the immediate audience is “facing persecution,” and that they are Christians “with whom the author was acquainted” [18]. This would shed light on how discipline is used in Chapter 12. It would not be insensitive to relate fatherly discipline even to such an intensity of trial. But when he does so, he points to Proverbs 3:11-12; and naturally he calls this an “exhortation” (v. 5). 

We can go even further and say that the lines between illustration and application are often very thin, so multifaceted is the author’s use of them. For example, the language of “entering the land,” corresponding with “entering his rest” (3:18; 4:1, 3, 10), is both illustration and application. The land of Canaan was indeed rest “from all [their] enemies” (Josh. 23:1), but it was also to be seized and maintained; and then of course there is a fulfillment of both dimensions: illustration and application.

This is often the nature of typology: that the type is both a symbol, and so an illustration; but it is also often a token, or kind of medium of exchange that is accepted in lieu of the real substance that backs the currency.

This is a little different than when God accepted the animal sacrifices as atonement for the people’s sins (Lev. 1:4), even though the author here makes plain that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). Here there is illustration, but the application is very different. 

The people of the New are to “strive to enter that rest” (4:11). Our true Canaan and Sabbath is the new heavens and new earth, though arguably the Sabbath passage supports the ongoing nature of the fourth commandment. It may be supposed that this is far too complex to be edifying to simple Christians in a sermon. Several responses could be given, but limiting myself to two: (1) There is nothing to say that this final composition is not edited precisely from oratory simplicity to greater complexity, especially given the higher form of Greek; (2) If the final composition is destined for Alexandrian readers, for example, perhaps what was milk in the audible version was meat in the reader version. This may be speculative, but it is equally speculative to always assume that this or that first century audience was barely educated. 

The Author’s Use of Old Testament Application

Every good sermon has what various homiletics professors call a “big idea,” which, in his framework, consists of an indicative and an imperative element [19]. Rooting the imperative in the indicative is what preserves the integrity of the gospel in the exhortation. Now the author of Hebrews has the ultimate indicative to work with, and if we read the hortatory refrain building upon our aforementioned paradigm imperatives (2:1; 3:1; 4:1), what we conclude is that we ought not to fall away from Christ by beholding the supremacy of Christ. 

By the time we arrive at chapter 13, the message closes with rapid-fire-imperative. 7 of the first 9 verses begin in the imperative, differing only in first person or second. The upshot is: “Do not go back to the temple and priesthood of old! Do not harden your hearts and fall away in disbelief!” The use of “Today” makes clear to the contemporary hearers that the “Holy Spirit” (3:7) is speaking to them with the words he had always spoken to Israel. And as the Spirit, so the human preacher.

We cannot read this epistle with the same tone as some of the others. Philippians may communicate joy and Galatians exasperation, but there is an ever-present pleading here. This is really the same dynamic at work in the great “hall of faith” in chapter 11. To be sure there is exposition. The principle of faith is given definition. The idea of our earthly pilgrimage comes to the fore. By the time one gets to the end of it, there is not merely exposition, but a kind of faith-crisis. The reader is the would-be pilgrim, and the choice is clear: Which city will it be?    

The Ultimate Christ-Centered Preaching

Another obvious feature of a sermon, not yet mentioned, is a gripping introduction. People wonder why there is no typical letter greeting. What if the answer is that the final letter-writer did not want to ruin the literary place of the sermonic introduction? Now such an opening must be “gripping” not merely in the sense of gaining our hearer’s attention, but also in setting the theme: making it plain what the subject matter is. In 1:1-3 there is no doubt. It is Christ, and it is a most exalted vision. Right away, all of reality and especially the Jewish reality, has been revolving around and aiming at Christ.

The driving theme is that Christ is infinitely greater. Bruce remarks that, “The comparative adjective ‘better’ is used thirteen times in Hebrews to contrast Christ and his new order with what went before him” [20]. The whole of Christology is found here, at least in seed form. No one can doubt that this letter depicts Christ as both divine and human. His divinity is witnessed in this opening: “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (1:3). 

The humanity of Jesus is explained in this book more than any other in the New Testament. Christ’s humanity is treated in its relation as a necessary condition to salvation. This is not a radically different theme than the supremacy of Christ, for it is precisely as Prophet, Priest, and King that he is superior to the shadow versions of those Old Covenant offices. It is instructive that one does not get out of those first three verses before all three offices of Christ are shown to be the very fulfillment of history.

Prophetically he is greater than all of God’s former messengers and modes of revelation (1:1-2). As the priest, it says, “After making purification for sins, he sat down” (1:3). The priest did not sit, since his work was never done (9:25), but this sitting speaks of finality: a perfect work. Note where he sat down: “at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (v. 3). This speaks of the kingly office of the Son, “whom he appointed the heir of all things” (v. 2). The opening is so targeted to the Jews and so applicatory to the whole world, that one can see why the final composer did not wish to spoil its literary and theological function. 

Problem Passages Explained in Light of the Sermon

By “problem passages” we will restrict ourselves to the two famous passages that seem to suggest that one can fall away from the faith (6:4-6; 10:26-31), and then the mysterious relationship drawn between Christ and Melchizedek. In viewing these three passages, we will also notice a genetic relationship between them. Something of the difficult task of preaching to a mixed body, a difficulty which existed for a Spirit-inspired sermon writer, will reveal itself. 

First let us look at the two “falling away” texts in light of the fact that this is a mixed body to which the author is writing. In 6:4-6 we read that there are those in the church “who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” (vv. 4-5). The Arminian perspective is clear: the text shows that one can lose salvation. The Calvinist replies that these were the same as in 1 John 2:19, who “were not of us,” so that their profession was false. Why then the language of having participated in what seem like true spiritual graces?

The fully covenantal view points to the wider context of the imagery that directly follows. Two soils are compared. Rain is the word, such as the word being preached to them here [21]. One soil bears a useful crop, the other nothing but thorns (cf. Gen. 3:18). These latter were part of the visible church, and it is from that covenant community [22] that they fell away, having tasted of the real means of grace, but failing to appropriate them in faith.

Then comes the sermonic punchline: “Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation” (v. 9). The author (the original speaker) is fully aware of the awkwardness of giving such a dire warning in the direction of all in the mixed body. 

The second warning passage in 10:26-31 is even more striking because of the “lesser-to-greater” [23] argument it contains about the two covenants. After warning those who “go on sinning” that they should expect “judgment” (v. 27), the author recalls the standard of punishment under the law of Moses: in other words, under the Old Covenant. Note his very next line thought: “How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?”

Verse 29 is a hortative punch to the gut for anyone who thinks of their status in the New Covenant community as secure simply because they have participated in the sacraments or even if they are presently a member in good standing. But the warning only functions if certain realities have continued between Old and New: (1) the reality of a mixed body, (2) a kind of “receiving” of grace, (3) a level of being considered “sanctified” for those who are nevertheless (4) apostatizing in, and out from, the church. In short, the exhortation throughout, to believe lest you fall away, is very personal and a present conversation between speaker and listener. 

The most complex reasoning that the author uses relates the historical Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20) with the promise to Christ to be, in some sense, in his priestly order (Ps. 110:4). It is important that the author did so. As both Vos [24] and Kistemaker [25] point out, this epistle is unique in how it unpacks the doctrine of Christ’s priesthood. Other books in the New Testament imply the office and describe the work, but in no other writing is it given such definition. Paradoxically, the authors still teaches the office as if it were “a well known idea” [26]. Could it be that sermons with such a rich soteriological theme were common, Hebrews being only the inspired exemplar? 

If this is a model sermon, then we are cautioned against dismissing complex doctrinal references out of hand. As a general rule, the preacher ought to speak to the people, not over them; and yet there are points when, as the author himself says, we must “leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity” (6:1).

He chides them for their shallow understanding, and yet he utilizes the first of the “falling away” texts as his way of catching them up. Interestingly, then, all of this talk about milk and solid food (5:12), and cultivated and thorny ground (6:7-8), is said almost parenthetically after he had wanted to introduce the material of Melchizedek in 5:6-10, but stops himself by adding, “About this we will have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing” (5:11). In other words, what was preventing rich doctrinal understanding was not the inappropriateness of the subject matter, but rather the psychological state that comes with apostasy: dullness of hearing. On the other hand, there are elements that we would be wise to modify. The audience here knew their Hebrew Bible, granted that they knew it in the LXX. Our use of the whole Scriptures must take care to move slower and with less raw material, given a less biblically literate, post-Christian audience. 

_________________________________

1. D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 596.

2. cf. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 4.

3. Epiphanius and Theodore of Mopsuestia are also cited in this line: cf. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 6.

4. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13.

5. Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2015), 2.

6. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, 3.

7. Origen, quoted in Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 5.

8. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, 7.

9. cf. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 618-19.

10. Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 89-94.

11. Michael Williams, The Prophet and His Message (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2003), 52.

12. Donald Guthrie, Hebrews (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 58-59.

13. Owen focuses on Numbers 14 (61, 63), while Kistemaker cites Exodus 17:7 for the meaning of the word "quarreling," and then Numbers 20:13 for Moses' naming the place (91). “The rebellion” refers to all of the following: Ex. 15:22-25; 17:1-7; 32:1ff, according to Guthrie (107-08).

14. Raymond Brown, The Message of Hebrews (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 84.

15. Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 219.

16. The word εἰκόνα is an feminine accusative singular, but it is in construction with the plural for “things.” I am only trying to give the same sense of it as does Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 55.

17. Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 55.

18. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 618.

19. Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 45; cf. 143-49.

20. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 51.

21. cf. Owen, Hebrews, 152.

22. Owen speaks of the “covenant of grace” as coextensive with saving grace, in terms of evidence that the author is not speaking of people who are “saved” who would then fall away: cf. Hebrews, 147.

23. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XXII (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 246.

24. Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 91-93.

25. Simon Kistemaker, BTINT

26. Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 93.