COMMENTARY
ON THE
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
BY MOSES STUART
Associate
Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Seminary at Andover.
SECOND
EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED.
ANDOVER
PRINTED
AND PUBLISHED BY FLAGG, GOULD, AND NEWMAN.
NEW YORK:
J.
LEAV1TT, 182, BROADWAY.
1833.
Preface
- Preliminary remarks
- Is the letter
inscribed to the Hebrews properly an epistle, or is it a homily or
essay?
- General
considerations respecting the inscription
- To what church was
it written?
- Was it written to the church at
Galatia?
- To the church at Thessalonica?
- To Hebrews in Asia Minor?
- To the church at Corinth?
- To the church in Spain, Rome,
Alexandria, or Antioch?
- To the church in Palestine?
RESULT
- Was it directed to all of the
churches in Palestine, or to only one of them?
- Antiquity and canonical authority
of the epistle
- Was Paul the author of the
epistle to the Hebrews?
- Testimony of the Alexandrine
church?
- Testimony of the Eastern churches
- Testimony of the Western churches
- RESULT
- Internal evidence that the
epistle is Paul’s
- Evidence of this from
circumstances
- Evidence from similarity of
sentiment, form, method, style, etc.
- Similarity of Paul s doctrines to
those of this epistle
- Form and method of this epistle
compared with those of Paul
- Phraseology and diction compared
with those of Paul
- Remarks on the comparisons made
- Objections
- Objections by Bertholdt
- Objections by Schulz
- Objections by Seyffarth
- Objections compared with those
which may be made against the genuineness of the first epistle to the
Corinthians
- Objections by De Wette
- Objections by Boehme and Bleek
- Hebraisms and non-conformity to
classic usage
- Alexandrine hue of the epistle
- RESULT
- Was Barnabas the author?
- Was Luke the author?
- Was Clement of Rome the author?
- Was Sylvanus the author?
- Was Apollos the author?
- In what language was the epistle
written?
- Critical and exegetical helps
Summary of
what is contained in the epistle
COMMENTARY
TRANSLATION
PREFACE
A new
edition of the present work has for some time been determined on, in
order to meet the calls for it which are often repeated. It may be
proper to state in this preface, that, since the publication of the
first edition, a work of the like kind and of about the same size has
made its appearance in Germany; the author of which is Frederic
Bleek, Professor Extraordinarius of Theology in the University
of Berlin, at the time of its publication. Prof. Bleek is distinguished
for his attainments in the department of sacred criticism. Of his work,
however, only the first volume has come to hand, which (like the first
part of the present volume) is wholly occupied with an Introduction
to the epistle to the Hebrews. The author believes that Apollos (and not
Paul) was the author of this epistle; and a great part of his book is
occupied in giving the history of opinions among the ancient churches
relative to the authorship of the epistle, or in adducing arguments
against the Pauline origin of it.
In
addition to this work of Bleek, replete with learning, and exhibiting
for the most part a commendable degree of moderation and candour, I have
received a review of the first edition of my own work, written by the
same author since the publication of his own volume, and published in
the Universal Literary Gazette at Halle. When Prof. Bleek
published the volume just named, he had not seen my work on the same
subject. His Review, therefore, which is a long one, exhibits more
definitely his opinions in reference to those points in which I differ
from him.
In this
second edition of my work I have, throughout the first part, had my eye
upon the work and review of Prof. Bleek, and have frequently gone into
an examination in extcnso of his positions. In consequence of
this, there has been a very considerable addition made to the present
edition.
I should
have much preferred to render the work smaller, instead of enlarging it;
for I well know, that a majority of readers in our country take less
interest in discussions of such a nature as it comprises, than in
commentary. But duty to the cause of sacred criticism, and my obligation
to endeavour to meet the exigencies of the times in regard to criticisms
recently made upon the epistle to the Hebrews, do not render it
compatible for me, as I view the subject, to comply with the wishes of
this class of readers. I am quite sure, moreover, that if they were
fully aware of the force which is already organized against its Pauline
origin and its canonical authority, they would feel and judge very
differently with respect to the importance of critical efforts to defend
the commonly received opinion of the churches in regard to the author of
the epistle.
Persuaded
as I am, that no efforts of learning or ingenuity can ever extinguish
the light, which the most ancient testimony of the Christian Fathers and
the internal structure of the writing itself afford in relation to the
origin and author of the epistle to the Hebrews, I feel it to be a duty,
while my convictions remain as they are, not to pass in silence any
attempt which is worth regarding, to obscure this light. This is my
apology for the additional matter of the present edition ; which al
though it does not amount in itself to a large number of pages, has,
from the nature of the discussions, cost much severe labour ; such, in
deed, as only those can estimate, who have been engaged in the like
occupation. I do not mention this in order to enhance any claims of mine
on the reader ; but only to satisfy him, that I have not spared any
efforts which it has been in my power to make, in order to accommodate
my work to the present state of sacred literature.
Prof.
Kuinoel, the well known Commentator on the historical books of the New
Testament, has also published, a short time since, a commentary on the
epistle to the Hebrews, with a somewhat extended and laboured
introduction. He accords in the main with Bleek; but he has merely given
a synopsis of what has been advanced by others, with out adding any
thing that requires notice which is strictly his own. On this account, I
have not deemed it expedient to make his introductory essay a subject of
special examination in the present edition of my work. His commentary
presents some things which are worthy of attention, and by which I shall
endeavour to profit in my notes upon the epistle; although, in general,
it seems to me far inferior to his other critical works.
The
alterations and additions, both great and small, made in the present
edition, are too numerous to be specified. It is my sincere wish to
render the work more complete, and more worthy of the reader’s
approbation. All the changes that have been made, have originated in
this desire, and in a sense of the obligation to do the best in one s
power, which necessarily attaches itself to the publication of a work on
subjects so important as those of which the present volume treats.
I have
only to add, that the type used in printing the present edition, enables
the publishers to present it to the reader within the compass of fewer
pages than were occupied in the first edition, and at a somewhat less
price, notwithstanding the additions which it has received. This, in
deed, is some sacrifice on the part of the publishers, inasmuch as their
labour of setting up the work in type (taking the additions into the
account) is increased, while their profit is diminished. But this
sacrifice they cheerfully make, with the hope of accommodating the
public.
M. STUART.
Theol. Sem. Andover,
Sept. 2, 1833.
INTRODUCTION
1. Preliminary Remarks.
No part
of the New Testament, if perhaps we may except the Apocalypse, has
occasioned so much difference of opinion, and given rise to so much
literary discussion among critics, as the Epistle to the Hebrews. The
principal reason of this seems to be, that this epistle does not
exhibit, either at the beginning of it or elsewhere, any express
evidence of having been addressed to any particular church, nor any
designation of the author s name. If it had been expressly inscribed to
a particular church, and if the author had originally affixed his name
to it, there would of course have been as little occasion for dispute
respecting the persons to whom it was addressed, or in regard to the
author of it, as there has been in the case of the epistles to the
Romans, Corinthians, or Galatians.
At a
somewhat early period of the Christian era, the eastern and western
churches appear to have been divided in opinion respecting the author
and canonical authority of this epistle. In modern times, and especially
of late, every topic which its literary history could suggest, has been
the subject of animated discussion. It has been disputed whether it is
an epistle, an essay, or a homily ; whether it was written by Paul,
Apollos, Barnabas, Clement of Rome, or some other person ; and whether
it was originally written in Hebrew or in Greek. There has also been a
difference of opinion as to the place where, and the time when, it was
written. On every one of these topics, critics have been and still are
divided. Nor has this division been occasioned merely by a difference in
theological opinions. The subjects of dispute have, in this case, been
more generally, although not always, regarded as topics of literature,
rather than of religious sentiment or doctrine. Men of very different
views and feelings, in other respects, have often been found united in
the same ranks, when questions respecting the epistle to the Hebrews
have been disputed. Such too is the case, even at the present time. All
the learning and ability which have hitherto been summoned to the
contest, have as yet failed to achieve a victory so complete, as to
bring about a general acknowledgment that all ground for further dispute
is fairly removed.
The
student, who is unacquainted with these facts, and who has merely read
the epistle to the Hebrews with the same views and feelings which he has
entertained while reading the acknowledged epistles of Paul,
finds himself thrown into a situation not a little perplexing, when he
begins to make such critical inquiries respecting the epistle in
question, as are usually made respecting any ancient writing. He finds
philologists and critics of great reputation in the church strangely
divided and opposed to each other, in respect to every topic to be
examined. What he reads in one author, which perhaps for a time
satisfies his mind, he finds controverted, shaken, or overthrown by
another ; who again, in his turn, receives castigation from a third ;
while a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth, differ each from all his
predecessors. The curiosity of the inquirer thus becomes roused, and he
begins to pursue some train of thought or investigation, with hope, or
perhaps with confidence, that it will lead him to an important and
satisfactory result. He presses forward with eagerness, peruses and
reperuses modern critics, dives into the recesses of the ancient ones,
and finds, perhaps, after all his toil, that he has been pursuing a
phantom, which recedes as fast as he advances. Perplexed with doubt, and
wearied at last with the pursuit, he becomes exposed to the danger of
entirely abandoning his object, or of settling down in the cold and
comfortless conclusion, that nothing satisfactory can be known in regard
to it.
Such, or
not much unlike to this, will be the experience, I believe, of nearly
every one who sets out with his mind unfettered by any notions of early
education, and determined seriously and thoroughly to investigate and
weigh for himself all the evidence which can be found, in respect to the
topics suggested by the literary history of the epistle to the Hebrews.
He who begins such an investigation, with his mind already made up that
Paul wrote, or did not write, this epistle ; and that it was, or was
not, directed to the Hebrews of Palestine ; may indeed spare himself
most of the perplexity in which an inquirer of the class just named will
be involved. But then if his mind is already made up, what need is there
of further investigation ? And why not spare himself the time and
trouble which it must cost?
Minds of
a different order, however, will doubtless wish to examine for
themselves, to “prove all things,” and then “to hold fast that which is
good;” if indeed they may be able to distinguish what is of this
character. It is for such, that the following investigations are
intended; and it is only to persons of this class, that they can be
particularly useful, even supposing that they are conducted in such a
manner as the subject demands. The writer commenced them, in the
discharge of his duty as a lecturer upon the epistle in question. He
found many unforeseen and unexpected obstacles in his path. He had been
accustomed, with those around him, to regard Paul as the author of the
epistle to the Hebrews; and he did not well know, until he came to
examine, how long and how extensively this had been doubted. Men of high
reputation in the church, and who admitted the canonical authority of
the epistle, he found to have been doubtful in regard to the question,
Who was the author of it? Neither Luther, nor Calvin admitted it to be
from the hand of Paul; and so early, at least, as the latter part of the
second century, more or less of the Western churches, seem to have
doubted or rejected its authority.
With such
facts before him, he became deeply interested in the subject, and
resolved, if possible, to satisfy his own mind. For this purpose, he
directed his attention principally toward the original sources of
evidence, although he has not knowingly neglected any writer of
importance among modern critics. The results of his investigation he now
gives to the public, in hope that if they do not serve to satisfy the
minds of others, they will, at least, excite some to engage in the
discussion of the topics presented, until, sooner or later, light enough
is poured in to scatter the remaining darkness which rests upon them.
2. Is the epistle to the Hebrews appropriately called
an EPISTLE, or is it
a HOMILY or ESSAY?
Berger, a
late critic of some eminence and considerable acuteness, has advanced
and endeavoured to support the opinion, that this epistle (so called)
was originally a homily or address to some assembly of Christians, which
was afterwards reduced to writing by some of the preacher’s friends or
hearers. Others, also, have doubted whether it is properly named an
epistle. But none have argued on this topic so much at length, or with
so much effort, as Berger. On this account) it may be proper briefly to
consider the principal arguments which he has advanced; briefly,
because the topic seems not to be of sufficient importance to justify
the occupying of much time in the discussion of it.
(1) ‘The
writer himself of the epistle to the Hebrews,’ says Berger, ‘calls it
, a hortatory address, 13:22, which accords well with
the contents of the piece.
But Paul,
one may reply, often employs the word
in his acknowledged
epistles. May not then an epistle of his in which
is used, be appropriately enough styled a
May not any
epistle containing precept and exhortation, be so denominated? An
instance exactly in point is the circular letter respecting the question
about circumcision, sent by the apostolic council at Jerusalem to the
churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; which is called a
,
Acts 15:31. The words of Luke are: “When they had read [the epistle],
they rejoiced
(2) ‘The
writer of the epistle to the Hebrews uses [G.T.] instead of [G.T.];
which is rather characteristic of a hortatory address than of an
epistle.’
But an
appeal to the Greek Concordance shews, that [G.T.] is used every
where in the epistles contained in the New Testament ; and a
corresponding word of the same import, is in fact used in the epistolary
style of all nations and languages. No evidence, therefore, in favour of
Berger s opinion, can be deduced from this usage in the epistle to the
Hebrews.
(3)
Berger supposes the basis of our present epistle to the Hebrews to have
been the address of Paul to the church at Antioch in Pisidia, as
recorded in Acts 13:14—41. Some disciple and friend of his, he
conjectures, reduced this discourse to writing ; commenting or enlarging
upon various parts of it, and finally adding of himself to the original
discourse the four last verses of our present epistle. To these four
verses he sup poses that the copyist refers, when he says, “I have
written to you [G.T.]” viz., by adding only the four last verses
of the epistle, as properly his own.
To these
considerations we may reply, first, that the address of Paul to the
church at Antioch in Pisidia exhibits two very important topics, as
prominent parts of the discourse, which are not at all commented on (one
of them is not even adverted to) in the epistle to the Hebrews; I mean
the subject of John the Baptist s testimony concerning Christ, and the
resurrection of Jesus, Acts 13:24, 25, 30-37. Would it not be strange,
that a commentator should entirely pass by the prominent topics of the
very discourse which he designed to explain or to enforce?
Secondly,
[G.T.] does not admit of the reference which Berger supposes; for
it is necessarily connected with the preceding part of the epistle to
the Hebrews, and not (as he asserts) with the succeeding part; to
which it can be attached only by doing violence to the ordinary laws of
language.
(4) ‘The
word [G.T.], in Heb. 13: 21, shows that the original
discourse ended there, and that what follows is only an addition made by
the transcriber.’
The
answer is, that [G.T.] here stands after a doxology, where Paul
al ways inserts it ; and he frequently introduces it in this way in the
midst of his letters ; e. g. Rom. 1:25. 9:5. 11:36. 15:33. 16:30. Gal.
1:5. Eph. 3:21, etc. It follows of course, that the insertion of [G.T.]
cannot afford any valid proof that our epistle ended with it ; specially
if written by Paul.
(5) ‘The
whole epistle is a regular series of reasoning, a connected chain of
discourse; it is like to an essay or a homily, and not written after the
manner of a familiar letter.
But (it
may well be asked in reply to this) may not and do not men reason, and
regularly discuss subjects, in familiar letters or epistles? Has not
Paul discussed and reasoned in the epistles to the Romans, the
Galatians, the Ephesians, and in others? Is there any more regularity of
structure in the epistle to the Hebrews, than there is in that to the
Romans? Surely the regularity and orderly discussion exhibited by any
composition, can never prove that this composition was not an epistle.
At most, it can only serve to shew that it was not an ordinary
epistle on topics of little moment. Nor because a great part, or even
the whole, of an epistle is of such a tenor, that it might have been
spoken as an address or a homily, will this prove that it was not
originally, or was not designed to be, an epistle. For every species of
composition in use among men, is employ ed in epistolary writing.
The
reasons of Berger, then, for the opinion which he has advanced, will not
bear the test of examination. I may add, that the whole question is but
little if any thing better than logomachy. Of what consequence
can it be, whether the so called epistle to the Hebrews, was, in its
first conception, designed to be an epistle or a homily? But whatever
the original design was, I cannot believe, with Berger, that our epistle
is a kind of commentary on an original discourse of Paul. That the
author (the original author) of the epistle wrote down his own
conceptions, or at least dictated them to an amanuensis, appears
to me so deeply enstamped on every part of the composition, that it
seems hardly possible for a discerning and unprejudiced reader not to
perceive it. But whether the author first spoke the words which the
letter contains, to some assembly, and afterwards reduced them to
writing, or whether he did not, can make no difference as to the tenor
and general character of the epistle; so that dispute about this would
be only dispute about the name to be given to the writing ; and how
would this differ from logomachy?
However,
if this must be disputed, we can easily satisfy ourselves respecting it.
The address is every where like that of an epistle, viz. in the second
person plural ; with the single exception, that the writer occasionally
uses a [G.T.], that is, he includes himself with those whom he
addresses, and so employs the first person plural. But this is a
practice so common in epistolary correspondence, that it occasions no
difficulty in the case under consideration.
It is
true, the mode of address would be the same in regard to the particular
just noticed, if the epistle had originally been a homily. But other
particulars render such a supposition utterly inadmissible. The epistle
every where supposes the persons addressed to be absent from the
writer, not present before him, as in the case of a homily. How could
he, in a homily, ask them to “pray that he might be restored to
them?” Heb. 13:19. How could he promise to “make them a visit in
company with Timothy, if he should come speedily?” 13:23. The first of
these cases, at least, belongs to that part of the epistle, which Berger
acknowledges to be the original discourse of Paul.
I add,
that I am unable to see how any one can well imagine, (as Berger does,
and as Origen long ago conjectured), that the hand of a commentator
is discernible in this epistle. The whole tenor of it, from beginning to
end, contradicts this. Did ever any writing come more warmly and fully
from the heart? Here is no patch-work; no congeries of heterogeneous
materials; no designed, exegetical commentary; no trace of a
copyist or reporter. It is one uniform, unbroken, continuous work;
produced by the powerful impulse of one and the same mind, which was
fraught with a knowledge of the subject that it discussed, glowed with
benevolent feelings toward those who were addressed, and was agitated
with alarm at the danger to which they were exposed. Sooner should I
think of dividing into parcels the Iliad, the Eneid, or the Paradise
Lost, and assigning respective parts to different poets, than of
introducing the hand of a copyist or a mere commentator into the epistle
to the Hebrews. Be it written where, when, or by whom it may have been,
one mind per formed the great work, and stamped it with characteristics
too plain to be obscured, too deep to be erased.
3. General considerations
respecting the present inscription to the Epistle.
In what latitude is the word Hebrews,
used in the inscription to this episitle, to be understood ?
Certainly not as designating all Hebrews
of every country. To the unbelieving Jews most evidently it was not
addressed. From beginning to end, the persons addressed are regarded as
having made a profession of the Christian faith ; for the great object of
the epistle, as all agree, is to guard them against apostasy from this
faith.
To the believing Jews of
every country, it could not have been primarily and immediately
addressed. It is altogether improbable that all such, in every country,
were in special danger of apostasy, when this letter was written. We
know from the epistles of Paul, that many churches plant ed by him, and
made up in part of Jews, were, at the period when our epistle must have
been written, in a very flourishing condition, and eminent for Christian
faith and holiness of life. Other circumstances mentioned in the
epistle, and pertaining to those whom he addressed, cannot be applied to
all the believing Hebrews of that period. The writer speaks of
the great fight of afflictions and the loss of property, to which those
whom he addresses had been subjected for the sake of religion, 10:32-34
; occurrences which surely had not taken place in every church where
Jews were found.
A still more convincing argument in
favour of the sentiment just advanced, is drawn from what the writer
himself has stated at the close of his letter. He asks the prayers of
those whom he addresses, that he may be speedily restored to them, 13 : 19
; and promises, if Timothy return in a short time, that he will in his
company pay them a visit, 13 : 23. But can he be understood as meaning,
that he would, in company with Timothy, visit all the churches where Jews
were to be found throughout the world ? And could Timothy be known to them
all ? Or could the circumstances of Timothy, and of the writer himself, be
so well known by them all, as the manner of address here necessarily
supposes?
These considerations
render it quite clear, that whosoever the Hebrews were that are named by
the present inscription, they must have been those of some particular
church and country. And even if we pay no regard to the inscription,
(but suppose it, after some time had elapsed, to have been affixed to
the epistle by another hand), the fact that Jewish converts are
addressed, and such too as belong to some particular church or
region, is, from the internal evidence of the epistle just stated, too
plain to admit of any reasonable doubt.
4. To What Church was the Epistle
to the Hebrews written?
A question replete with difficulties,
and which has been much agitated by late critics. We can easily satisfy
ourselves, that the epistle was designed for Jewish converts; and
exclusively (in a certain sense of this word) designed for them, i. e.
originally adapted to them throughout, in its texture and mode of
reasoning. But where did these converts live? No salutation, such
as stands at the head of nearly all the apostolic epistles, gives us
information on this point. The conclusion of the letter, moreover,
contains nothing definite enough to settle this question. We are left,
then, to gather from ecclesiastical tradition and from internal evidence,
such information as is necessary to determine it. But the first of these
has been regarded by many critics, particularly by recent ones, as too
indefinite or too imperfect to satisfy the mind of an inquirer; and the
second is so indeterminate, as to afford no convincing evidence,
but rather to give occasion for constant diversity of opinion. The same
passages, for example, have often been quoted, in some instances, to
support conclusions directly opposed to each other ; and in other cases,
definite conclusions have been drawn in support of particular
opinions, from texts which appear to be capable of conveying only a
general idea.
The task of
examining the principal opinions, which have been advanced in respect to
the original destination of the epistle to the Hebrews, ia tedious and
appalling; but it has become absolutely necessary to any one, who makes
just pretensions to acquaintance with the literary history of this
epistle. I shall be as brief as the nature of the discussion, and
justice to the arguments of others, will permit; and I shall examine
those opinions which the authors of them have endeavoured to support by
arguments, omitting a particular discussion of those which have been
thrown out as mere conjecture. For a mere conjecture that the
epistle was direct ed to Jewish converts at Rome, in Spain, or at
Babylon, (such conjectures have been made by critics of no small note),
is sufficiently answered by a conjecture that it was directed to
Jewish converts at some other place. Where no weight is laid in one
scale, it requires none to adjust the balance of the other.
In our investigations respecting the question under
consideration, we meet with critics who have maintained, that the
epistle was written to Jewish Christians in Galatia ; in Thessalonica ;
in Corinth; or to dispersed Hebrews in Asia Minor at large, who had fled
from Palestine in order to avoid the persecutions to which they were
there exposed. The majority of critics however have held, as nearly all
the ancient churches did, that the epistle was directed to the Hebrews
of Palestine. I proceed to examine each of these opinions, in the order
here suggested.
5. Was the Epistle written to the
Church of Galatia?
The opinion that the epistle was directed to Jewish
converts in Galatia, has been advanced and maintained, with no small
degree of acuteness and learning, by Storr, late Professor of Theology
at the University of Tubingen. I shall present a summary of the
arguments which he uses to establish it; and in order to avoid
repetition, and also to render the discussion as perspicuous as may be,
I shall examine the validity of each argument, as it is adduced.
He begins by observing, that the epistle to the Hebrews
could not be directed to the church in Palestine, because it appears
from Heb. 2:3, that the persons to whom it was addressed were not such
as heard Christ speak in person; from 12:4 and 13:7, that they has as
yet suffered no bloody persecution; and from 6:10, 13:3, 10, and 10:34,
that so far from having received charity from other churches, they had
themselves contributed to the support of others. Now as neither of these
things can, in his view, be truly said respecting the church in
Palestine, he concludes that our epistle must have been directed to some
church abroad.
I Shall not stop here to examine whether he gives a
correct interpretation of the passages on which he relies for the
support of his opinion; as this subject must be examined in another
place. I must content myself at present with simply remarking, that if
he has rightly construed the texts to which he refers, they only serve
to show, at most, that the church in Palestine was not the one to
which the epistle was directed; leaving the question still untouched,
whether it was sent, as he maintains, to the church in Galatia. As
I now propose to examine only the positive arguments in favour of
his opinion, I have this consideration without further remark.
Most if not all of the arguments on which Storr relies,
are grounded on what he supposes to be probabilities. The general
nature of them may be thus stated. 'Certain facts relative to the
Galatians and the Hebrews, are known from history, and from the epistles
which bear their names. But these facts cannot well be accounted for on
any other ground, than by the supposition that the epistles to the
Hebrews and Galatians were cotemporaneously written and directed
severally to the Jewish and Gentile parts of the same church.
This being admitted, several things otherwise strong or inexplicable,
may be easily accounted for; and consequently we may or must admit such
a composition and direction of these epistles.'
Let us now examine the particulars, which go to make up
the general argument that I have just stated.
