LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

Exhortation: Worship God suitably in obedience to the word spoken in the Son

      13:1–17 Peroration

      13:1–6 Specific applications on conventional topics

      13:7–17 Restatement of the call to perseverance in connection with an endorsement of the church’s leaders

      13:7 Recall the message of the former leaders

      13:8 Recall who Jesus Christ is

      13:9–14 Follow Jesus outside the gates

      13:15–16 Render worship corresponding to faith

      13:17 Submit to your leaders who share in your pilgrimage with special responsibilities

      13:18–25 Closing

For the purposes of exposition, in this commentary the text has been divided into thirty-seven units.6 A few of these units group or divide within the preceding outline.

      Looking Behind the Text: The Original Setting

      Questions of who, where, when, and why are tangled together. The name of the human author is unknown. Origen’s oft-repeated comment, “who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.11–13), probably refers to the pen rather than the voice of the letter, but it has served as a convenient bottom line for many. For this reason there cannot be certainty that Paul did not write the whole of the book or possibly the final verses, but there are strong arguments against such theories. That the writer was a male remains probable, partly in the light of the grammar of 11:32, though again certainty is not possible. The mere listing of other possible names (e.g., Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, Clement) supplies no reliable basis for further interpretive inferences. What we know of the author is what we gather from what he wrote. He was a highly educated, literate, eloquent person, theologically mature, pastorally hearted. He had a history with this church, but we cannot be sure he had been numbered among its “leaders.” More on his background anon.

The earliest manuscript of Hebrews in our possession, P46 (c. ad 200), carries the heading, “to the Hebrews,” a theory on the audience that must already have been established in some circles (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14). Allied with this was the assumption that this text had been addressed to believers in Judea. Both of these associations seem to have been grounded in inference rather than reliable traditions. There is no conclusive evidence or argument against a Judean destination, but 1) the phrase “those who come from Italy” in 13:24 can imply that Italians are sending greetings back to their homeland, 2) there are strong parallels with 1 Peter, which is another epistle associated with Rome, 3) the earliest evidence of Hebrews’ thought is 1 Clement which was written from Rome in the late first or early second century, and 4) the general circumstances and other details comport with a Roman (or Italian) destination.7 That the audience was in Italy and probably Rome is our own assumption but it can be only speculation. The church may have been in Asia Minor, Syria, Judea, Egypt, or elsewhere. More on their background anon.

If, for the sake of argument, it was written to Jewish believers in Judea (or elsewhere, for that matter) tempted to return to non-Christian Jewish temple worship (whether directly or indirectly via the synagogue) then it would naturally stem from some time before ad 70 when the Romans destroyed the temple. But Hebrews’ argument revolves on Moses’s tabernacle and never mentions the temple. It is also more forward looking than backward looking in this sense: If one used the analogy of two married couples, one of which suffered from a desire of one of the members to return to his parents’ home, the other of which suffered from a simple failure of one of the members to have embraced married life as fully as he should have done, Hebrews sounds more like the latter. Its message is less like, “Do not go back home,” than it is like, “Move forward!” Such a message could be addressed to the church of any time or place. The argument’s strong rootedness in the OT does evidence a readership already fully invested in those Scriptures and, at least in principle, in the sanctuary-centered life of Israel, but the preacher’s theology of divine speech would have required the expositional strategy he follows for Gentile as well as Jewish Christians. Moreover, particular texts (2:3; 5:11–14; 13:7) suggest a later rather than earlier date, as does the way in which the letter’s teachings seem to be building on a theologically developed confession. The church, we theorize, was probably of mixed ethnic character, particularly if we are right in locating it in Italy or anywhere else outside of Judea, and if we are right in thinking that the letter was sent at least as late as the early 60s.8 The invisibility of the Gentiles is part of the larger absorption of the audience into the “heavenly” story of the promise. We may observe that many a Gentile congregation has subsequently believed itself to be directly addressed by this text; the substance of its message has proved meaningful to a Gentile readership. It would be strange if the preacher missed the implications for a decentralized mission that were built into his own argument. The theory that it was written to believers in Rome (or environs) after the experiences of Claudius’ temporary expulsion of the Jews (ad 49; cf. 10:32–34; Acts 18:2) but before Nero’s deadlier persecutions (ad 64–68; 12:4) had taken hold has a satisfying fit. Nothing, however, finally excludes the possibility that the letter was written after the destruction of the temple, albeit prior to the composition of 1 Clement and Timothy’s death (unknown, but likely within the first century).

      The lack of precision on such things is a problem that becomes amplified when it is a matter of finely-tuned historical theories, but is a significantly exaggerated problem in other ways. The historical glass is more than half full. There is for us no doubt that the letter emanates from the same period as the rest of the NT writings, that it represents a witness at one with that of the apostles, and that, even if it is not from Paul’s hand, it belongs to the Spirit’s own witness among the other canonical writings.

      For the rest, space allows only the stating of our conclusions which will be operative for our own exposition: For all its uniqueness, Hebrews shares particular parallels with the writings of Luke (especially Acts, and particularly Acts 7), Peter (1 Peter), Paul, and John. Its teaching is deeply rooted in the apostolic tradition, which it is faithfully developing. The Timothy mentioned in 13:23 can be taken as Paul’s associate, evidencing a concrete link with Paul’s mission and gospel. Its message is centered on strengthening the core of fellowship in perseverance but it everywhere breathes the theology of a church caught up in mission. It is a church that is the result of mission and its theology is the theology of an inclusive, outward-moving mission. Signs of inner Jew-Gentile tensions over matters of law are non-existent; all believers are together the seed of Abraham (2:16) striving as one people toward the goal.

The beginnings of the church reached to the period relatively soon after the gospel events (2:3) but some time must have since passed (5:11–14; 10:32; 13:7). The earliest history of the church was characterized by a robust life of faith that met with and endured public persecution and that upheld the life of fellowship. Their unbelieving society had attempted to shame them back into conformity; they had suffered loss of property and some had been imprisoned. It is possible that there had been a season of relative calm and that storm clouds now loomed. Whether or not that is the case, there had been a waning of faith among at least some of the church’s members. The specific charges lodged are that some had begun to forsake the Christian assemblies (10:25), that the church as a whole had not matured as it should have done given the time (5:11–14), and that they have forgotten how God addresses them as his children (12:5). Beyond this we note passive (e.g., drifting [2:1]), active (e.g., rebellion), and external (persecution) aspects of the problem9 that are vague enough to accommodate a range of hypotheses. On the one hand there is the failure to persevere in the “approach” to the divine throne with a confidence that is based on Christ’s atonement, with an understanding of the way of salvation, and with a sense of urgency in keeping with the historical moment (inhabiting what is unseen). On the other hand there is a failure to persevere in the life of bodily fellowship and in their public witness (the visible). Hebrews calls them to faithfulness

Скачать книгу