Transcript
The assignment which I have recklessly or foolishly or inadvisedly – take your pick of all of those adjectives – accepted for this weekend is a study of the book of Hebrews. But I think you need to know that after I was made chairman of the New Testament department of Dallas Theological Seminary, I exercised one of the very few perks that I had as department chairman and took the course in Hebrews for my own. It had previously been taught by the department chairman who preceded me. And I gave one of my other courses to one of my subordinates in the department. And so I had the privilege of teaching the book of Hebrews a number of times before my seminary career came to a conclusion.
And I always felt when I was teaching Hebrews that I was teaching the most powerful book in the Bible. But I sometimes felt the same way about other books when I talked through them. But there is no question that the book of Hebrews is a very rich, a very powerful, and effective message from the Holy Spirit of God through an inspired author. And so hopefully before our sessions are over, you will be able to capture some of the sense of the power of this book.
But my mission is almost a mission impossible because when I taught this book at seminary, I developed about 250 typewritten pages of notes that I communicated to the students over a period of about 15 weeks, two sessions a week. And I’m supposed to cover Hebrews in a minimum of three sessions. And as a matter of fact, I’m going to try to get over it in a sense in the two sessions and allow the third session to be one in which you bring your particular questions about Hebrews to the session and allow me to attempt at least to answer it.
I think that the minute I say that it becomes evident, doesn’t it, that I can’t go into all the details of the book. And so my purpose will be to give you a sense of the whole book of Hebrews. Try to put it together for you as best I can. And then to remember that the study of the epistle to the Hebrews cannot be completed. Not only can it not be completed in three sessions, it can’t be completed in 30 sessions. It’s a lifetime study.
And so perhaps the most valuable thing that I can do for you is to attempt to give you an overview of the book and to give you a direction as you move out to study it for the rest of your experience in the word of God. Now I think in the book of Hebrews it is important for us to talk about the background of Hebrews, particularly such things as author, audience, and date. One of the reasons it’s important to talk about this is because the epistle does not give us any explicit information about any of these things.
And yet as we approach the book of Hebrews, I think we can find enough clues about the purpose, direction, and thrust of the book that we can develop at least a plausible scenario within which we can understand that the book of Hebrews was written. And so it may seem to you that I’m spending more time than I need to on introductory matters, but hopefully the result of this will be that you will get a frame of reference within which we will be able to talk about the book more clearly and you hopefully will be able to think more clearly about the book yourself.
So let’s talk about these introductory matters. When was the book of Hebrews written? Well, on almost all hands, it’s agreed that it was certainly written by the time of Clement of Rome, who lived in about 95 or 96 A.D. Everyone agrees that Clement’s writings show a knowledge of the book of Hebrews. And so we can say that the book was certainly not written after 95 or 96.
And having said that, it seems to me that we must also say that the book of Hebrews was probably written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. And here I want you to take your Bibles and turn with me to a passage, Hebrews chapter 8 and verse 4.
For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law.
He doesn’t say “since there were priests who offer the gifts according to the law” but “since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.” This seems to indicate that as far as the writer of Hebrews is concerned the Jewish temple is still in operation and sacrifices are being offered there by the priests who are duly appointed to do so.
It has often been pointed out that because the writer of Hebrews insists on the fact that the new covenant succeeds and supersedes the old covenant, if He had been aware that the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed, that would have been a very powerful argument that God was finished with the old covenant in the sense in which He argues that God is finished with the old covenant. And therefore the probability is very, very strong, I think, for all intents and purposes certain, that this book was written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.
How much before the destruction of the temple? Turn to chapter 13 and verse 23.
Know that our brother Timothy has been set free, with whom I shall see you if He comes shortly.
I don’t need to tell you that the mention of Timothy here has suggested Paul as the author to many minds as they’ve read this because we know of the relationship between Paul and Timothy. But upon closer reflection, in my judgment at least, this doesn’t sound like the typical way that Paul would refer to Timothy – “our brother Timothy.” Maybe I can’t exclude the possibility that He might have referred to Timothy that way, but it doesn’t sound like Him. His true son in the faith, the man who labored with Him as a son labors with a father.
And notice that Timothy has apparently just been released from prison. And this particular writer expects Timothy to quite possibly join Him. This suggests to me, it doesn’t prove, but it suggests to me that the epistle might have been written after the death of the Apostle Paul, which we would probably place in 68 under the reign of Nero. If this is a good clue to that, then one guess that we might make is the book of Hebrews was written in 68 after the death of Paul and Nero or in 69.
Who wrote it? Well, our English Bibles tell us that Paul wrote it, right? And many commentators agree with that. And we want to talk about that a little bit. There is evidence that there was an ancient tradition that Paul did write the book of Hebrews. It comes mainly from the west.
You will look up here. We have a map of the Roman Empire. The area that was covered by the Roman Empire. And by the west we mean over here in the direction of the land of Palestine. And in Alexandria in Egypt, there were a number of writers in a relatively early period who believed that Paul was the author of the book of Hebrews.
However, if we move east on this map, we don’t find this tradition. For example, we’ve already mentioned Clement of Rome, who would be up there if you see Rome up there in Italy. What am I saying? I’ve got them backwards. Okay, this is east and that’s west. Okay, let me see if I – east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. All right, this is east and this is west. Let’s get that one clear.
And here in the west we had Clement already knowing the epistle to the Hebrews about 95 or 96, but He never mentions it as the work of the Apostle Paul. We also have a church leader of the 9th century. This is not evidence of very powerful weight but nevertheless worth noting who quotes a writer of the sixth century who tells us that the very early writers Hippolytus and Irenaeus denied the authorship of Paul.
It was Jerome and it was Augustine who basically swayed the opinion of the west in the direction of Pauline authorship. So what we have at the earliest period is apparently a tradition over here in the east that Paul wrote it. In the west that tradition does not appear until a later period of time.
Now one of the questions that has always been raised about the epistle to the Hebrews is whether the style reflects the style of the Apostle Paul. And frankly judgments about style are notoriously slippery and subjective. But okay, I’m going to give you my opinion, right? And maybe I will slip and fall on this opinion. But nevertheless, when I read the book of Hebrews in Greek after having read the known epistles of the Apostle Paul, I have the distinct impression that I’m not reading Paul. That is my impression. But it may not be a very strong point of evidence.
I remember years ago I had been reading some material by J. N. Darby in his collected writings and I pulled a book out of the shelves by Darby and I opened it up and I started reading another article by Darby and I said to myself, “This doesn’t sound like Darby. This doesn’t sound like Him at all.” And apparently it was Darby at a later period of His writing career. So that His earlier writings or maybe His writings on another subject sounded a little bit different to me when I read them than this particular article did.
But almost everybody notices that the style of Hebrews does suggest to our minds the possibility of another author besides the Apostle Paul. But in sum we would say no one has certainly disproved the point that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews and He very well may have done so but needless to say many other names have been submitted.
Clement of Rome is one. Luke is another by the way. Some have thought Luke wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. Others think Silvanus wrote it. Others think Philip the evangelist wrote it. The suggestion has even been made that Priscilla wrote it with some assistance from her husband Aquila.
Now somebody who was definitely not politically correct made this argument in favor of Priscilla. You remember the author of Hebrews says at the end of Hebrews 13 that please accept this word of consolation or exhortation which I have given to you with few words and this particular individual said only a lady could write 13 chapters and record them as a few words.
Now ladies, I want you to know I don’t agree with that. I have known some very loquacious men who can talk just as well as the ladies can. And furthermore, the objection to Priscilla is also based in Greek grammar. You may remember that there’s a statement in the book that says time would fail me narrating. Well, the word narrating which modifies me, the reference to the author is masculine. Not very likely that a lady wrote this unless she decided to let Aquila take the credit for it.
Another name that has been proposed is Apollos. This is a fairly popular suggestion today because of course Apollos was acquainted with the teaching of the Apostle Paul through the medium of Priscilla and Aquila. He was an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures. He seems in many respects to fill the bill that is required for the author. But I would not feel that there is very much evidence for any of these writers.
And that brings me to my candidate. Now I’ve voted for many candidates in elections who lost. So you understand that this may be the kiss of death as far as this writer is concerned. But if I were forced to guess at the authorship of Hebrews, I would guess that it was written by Barnabas. Let me tell you why.
There is a tradition in the west over here in the city of Carthage reported to us by a writer by the name of Tertullian around 160, 170 and later and this is what He says. He says there is extant an epistle of Barnabas addressed to the Hebrews written by a man of such authority that Paul has ranked Him with Himself. “Only I and Barnabas have we not power to forbear working.”
Now it has been pointed out that Tertullian was a Montanist and a Montanist could be loosely described as a charismatic of the very earliest type and He’s defending His Montanist position and it would be very much in His interest to elevate the authority of Hebrews as far as He could if He thought Hebrews supported His Montanist position. But He seems not to have heard of the idea that Paul wrote it. Instead, He seems to take it for granted that those who read His material will assume that in fact, as we all know, Barnabas wrote this letter.
Now, if you will pause for a minute and turn to 1 Corinthians chapter 9, Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 9 is defending His apostleship. And He says in verse 1 of 1 Corinthians 9, “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ?” And then skipping down to verse 4, “Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?”
Notice that He implies here that He and Barnabas are on the same level. That is on an apostolic level. And this is confirmed by the book of Acts. Turn to Acts chapter 14. In the story that takes place at Lystra where there is an effort to make a sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas and Paul and Barnabas are resisting this impulse. Notice in Acts chapter 14 and verse 14, “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this,” not the Apostle Paul, but the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this. They tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude crying and so forth.
It seems to me in the book of Acts we have a grand total of 14 apostles. We have the 12 apostles who appear in the first chapter of the book of Acts. Judas has fallen from His place and He is replaced by Matthias that makes 12 while the witness goes to the 12 tribes of Israel. The 12 are the operating vehicles for this message. But now the writer of Hebrews is establishing that the apostleship goes beyond the original 12. And He names two more apostles, Barnabas and Paul.
And it seems to me that the biblical authentication would suggest to us that there were 14 apostles in the early church. No more, no less. Some others have been proposed but without any in my judgment definitive proof that they should be considered apostles. So if I say that the book of Hebrews is written by Barnabas, if I say I think it was written by Barnabas, then I’m saying that I think it was also written by an apostle and therefore of course has the same authority as any other apostolic document that is likewise inspired by the Spirit.
Now turn to Hebrews 13:24.
Greet all those who rule over you and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.
Now, admittedly, the phrase from Italy could be those in Italy, but this is the only geographical reference in the entire epistle to the Hebrews. Is it in the west or the east? You have it straight. I had it confused. Is this a reference to the west or the east? The west.
Carthage, which is the city in which Tertullian lived, had considerable communication with Rome. And therefore, as far as it goes, the fact that the only geographical reference in Hebrews is to the west and the tradition of Barnabas as the author of Hebrews is also a western tradition. As far as it goes, that supports the proposition that Barnabas could have written it.
It’s interesting that Jerome at a later time remarked that many thought that the epistle to the Hebrews was the work of Clement of Rome or Barnabas. So the tradition was definitely alive and well. What do we know about Barnabas? What tribe of Israel did He come from? He was a Levite. Is that significant? The book of Hebrews, which is very concerned with the operation of the Mosaic covenant, the sacrificial system and so on, would be an area of expertise, would it not, for a Levite?
We would also point out that if Paul was dead, obviously Barnabas already knew Timothy because Barnabas and Paul together evangelized the area of Lystra and Derbe from which Timothy comes. I think it is very probable that after the death of Paul, Timothy joined Barnabas wherever Barnabas was.
A number of modern writers, therefore, this is not an original idea with me I’m hastening to add, but a number of modern writers, I’ve counted about eight of them, have felt that Barnabas was the most likely candidate as the author of Hebrews. So for the moment our hypothesis is it could have been Barnabas.
Now we want to ask the question what is the background of the readership? Who is the writer addressing here? Let me ask you to turn to Hebrews 10:32.
But recall the former days in which after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings, partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated.
I simply make the point from this that the writer of the epistle knows the past situation of the readership. Right? This is not an audience He’s never met before or that He knows nothing about. He knows how things were for them in the past. Look at Hebrews chapter 6 and verse 10.
For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints and do minister.
Though He knows not only their past activity on the part of the Lord but their present activity as well. Turn to 5. Just move your eye back up from 6. Notice what He says of whom we have much to say talking about Melchizedek and hard to explain since you have become dull of hearing. “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God and you have come to need milk and not solid food.”
He knows the spiritual condition of the readership which He describes as immature, not sufficiently advanced. It is also clear as we’ve seen from chapter 13:19-23 that the readers also know the author. So first of all we may say that we probably are looking for a definite group of people whose history is known to the writer.
Secondly as almost everyone agrees the background of the readership is probably Jewish. The content of the epistle to the Hebrews is particularly relevant to Jews. The emphasis on the superiority of the new covenant to the old, the priesthood of Christ to the Levitical priesthood. These emphases are appropriate to a Jewish audience.
So then we ask the question, if we have a definite group and we have an audience that is Jewish in background, where are they located? That’s the sticky question. And the most common answer that is given to that is that they are located in Palestine. And that is a possibility. That is certainly a possibility.
There is one little problem here however and that is that strangely enough even though the writer is very much concerned with the Levitical and sacrificial system He never directly mentions the temple. The verse that I read is as close as He comes to actually referring to the temple. He talks instead primarily about the tabernacle. That’s an interesting observation that we’ll have to come back to.
And as far as it goes, and it doesn’t go very far, it may raise the question of whether in fact He is writing to a group of people who are close to the temple operation. Another suggestion that has been made is Rome. Another is Corinth. Another is the Christian churches of the Lycus Valley where Colossae was located. Another is Cyprus. Another is Caesarea or Antioch. All of us who study this are guessing as you can tell many suggestions have been made.
Now my suggestion is but I make it tentatively and it doesn’t really matter too much whether it is absolutely right or whether it might be wrong because it is the background scenario that is important here. I want to suggest that the audience lived in Cyrene. Cyrene offers a very fine background that fits the book of Hebrews.
One of the things that we have to notice here is that it has recently been pointed out that the background of Hebrews is better understood if the readership is being allured to a sectarian form of Judaism rather than a normative form. Let me try to explain that. Normative Judaism would be the type of Judaism that was carried on in Jerusalem under the auspices of the priests and the Levites and in the temple and so on.
Do any of you know a name that would be applicable for a sect in Judaism? How about Qumran? You’ve heard of that? There was a group of Jewish people who withdrew from Jerusalem and withdrew from the temple operation. They went out into the Judean desert and they established what amounted to a community all on their own. They more or less idealized the wilderness experience of ancient Israel and their community was ended after the Jewish war when they were destroyed by the Romans.
A Jewish scholar by the name of Yadin has put out a very interesting and significant article about the correlations between the kind of thinking that went on at Qumran and the background that we could easily presuppose for the book of Hebrews. Let me just without getting you enmeshed in a lot of details. We know for example that the Dead Sea Scroll people had a very important role for angels and Yadin claims that the Qumran sect believed that the angels were the deliverers of the future and that the future world was under their dominion.
Does that remind us of anything in Hebrews? Yes. In chapter 2, “not unto the angels has He subjected the world to come whereof we speak.” At Qumran, they believed in two Messiahs. They believed in a priestly Messiah who came from the line of Aaron and they believed in a lay messiah that came from the line of Judah.
All right. What happened here? In their view, the priestly Messiah was greater than the lay messiah. In the book of Hebrews, however, it becomes very plain that in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, we have the unity of the priestly and the kingly roles of Messiah in one person. So that counters that kind of an idea.
It is interesting according to Yadin that the camps of the Qumran people were kind of set up like the tribes in the desert. They had tribes and families and thousands. They were mustered. They had banners and trumpets like the Israelites in the desert. Their leaders had titles like those that you find in Exodus. They called themselves the exiles of the wilderness.
Now, as far as I’ve said so far, it sounds like we could be dealing with a sectarian group that was located in the land of Palestine. And that is certainly possible. On the other hand, the surrounding territory of Cyrene is also suitable to that type of thing and we do have some evidence for that kind of activity in that area.
I am attracted to Cyrene for the simple reason that if Barnabas is the author of this, there’s a close connection between Cyprus and Cyrene. Here, let me ask that you turn first of all to Acts chapter 2 and verse 10. There’s a reference here to Cyrene. Among those who are present on the day of Pentecost are people from Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya around Cyrene.
Turn to 6:9. In the career of Stephen, we are told in 6:9 that there arose some from what is called the synagogue of the Freedmen, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia disputing with Stephen. Turn to 13:1. Barnabas, we know of course, was from Cyprus. Now in the church that was at Antioch 13:1, “Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen and so on.”
Turn back to 11:20. We are now talking about the founding of the great church at Antioch in Syria. And we read in verse 19, “Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who when they had come to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists preaching the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The church at Antioch therefore was founded by preachers from Cyprus and Cyrene. And then you remember that when the apostles at Jerusalem heard about what God was doing at Antioch, who did they send to Antioch? Barnabas, which is logical. He’s from Cyprus. And the connections with Cyrene are very interesting.
We also are reminded that the man who carried the cross of Jesus, Simon, came from Cyrene. It is interesting that this fact is mentioned along with the name of apparently His two sons in Mark 15:21 and tradition has it that the gospel of Mark was produced in Italy probably or very possibly at Rome.
The area south of Cyrene which would be on the northern coast of Libya there is desert area where even today nomadic existence continues and Josephus tells us about a certain Jonathan who after the war of 70 A.D. withdrew to Cyrene. He led a group of dissident Jews. There was a large Jewish community at Cyrene. He led them out into the desert and the Roman governor Catullus crushed the movement.
Let me sum it all up and then I want to pause so that you can ask questions here because what’s important here is not whether Cyrene is right or even whether Barnabas is right. Although I’ll put a very little bit heavier weight on the probability of Barnabas. But nevertheless, it seems to me that the kind of background that we are looking at in the epistle to the Hebrews is first of all that the author is writing to a Jewish community. This Jewish community of Christians is a body that has been saved for some time, but they have not progressed spiritually as rapidly as the writer feels that they should.
They are now confronted with an allurement to go back into Judaism. This has often been thought to be an allurement to go back into normative Judaism. I think instead much more likely that it is an allurement to go into some form of sectarian Judaism of the type that we meet in Qumran with some of the distinctive ideologies and theology that goes with Qumran.
And it will help us, I think, if we can at least hypothesize that kind of a background that we’re not necessarily talking about people going back to the Jewish temple. We’re not necessarily talking about people who live in Palestine. We are talking obviously about Jews. We are very likely talking to people who were known to Barnabas. And Barnabas is concerned with the spiritual dangers that are confronting these people and with the temptation to throw their Christianity overboard and to return to some form or other of the Jewish religion.
That’s the background hypothesis out of which we will be working and hopefully it will make it clearer to us exactly where the writer the epistle is going with the truth that He unfolds to us. So let me pause therefore for some questions. I’m sure that I’ve gone over a lot of material here and took a lot longer to say a lot more when I was teaching it in seminary, but this is the quintessence of the approach that we took at that time.
The question here is what is the connection between the Qumran community and Cyrene and why would there be a connection? First of all, we know there is a connection in that there was interaction. Jonathan moved from Palestine to Cyrene. But even if there was no – a gentleman that is referred to by Josephus – Jonathan. Yeah. But there’s more to it than that. The area that you pointed up there on the tip of Libya is a five city area, but just immediately below it, it’s desert.
So the point here is that the Qumran type of sectarian Judaism preferred the desert life. They withdrew from the normative Judaism and they lived out in the desert. They idealized the desert experience of Israel. So we’re asking the question, are there other areas where there was a heavy concentration of Jews who were near a desert area who might indeed be tempted to do the same thing in their particular area.
So we have evidence that Jonathan led a bunch of them of course well after the time of the writing of Hebrews but only by a few years it led a bunch of them out into the desert. So this type of thing could easily have happened in Cyrene and in all probability it’s obviously a guess. Yeah. And if they send me to the stake and are lighting the fires at my feet I will recant. Yes.
The questioner wonders why Cyprus wouldn’t be a good guess. After all, Barnabas was from Cyprus. And that is where He took Mark after His disagreement with Paul. Cyprus is not a bad guess. There are some questions that arise however. First of all, He couldn’t have in all probability stayed there forever. So our question is if Barnabas continues His missionary efforts after He goes to Cyprus and just as Paul continues His where does Barnabas do His missionary work?
And since there were close connections between Cyprus and Cyrene, it at least is a plausible hypothesis that He could have gone to Cyrene. And also that He might have moved across the northern coast of Africa evangelizing, might even have gone to Carthage for all we know, which is where we meet the tradition that the epistle of Hebrews is by Barnabas. Cyprus lacks the desert situation that the background of Hebrews seems to fit best, but Cyrene has it.
But again, understand we’re trying to draw a scenario here that helps us to understand what could be going on in Hebrews. And we’re trying to get away from the tunnel vision of this has to be written to people who were tempted to go back to the Jewish temple. Follow me? If that’s the way we think about Hebrews, we will not be as open to the text or to the conclusions that we ought to draw from the text as we would be if we realize that there are more possibilities than that.
Yes, right back here. The questioner asks if the people from Qumran were considered Essenes. The question is debated in the scholarly community as to how closely we should identify the people at Qumran with the Essenes. There’s one thing we know about Judaism in the first century is that it was highly fragmented. It was not the monolithic religious body that we sometimes imagine that it was.
And so the Essenes could very well be a slight variation of the Qumran movement. We also know that there was a movement of some kind in the time of Philo down in the Egyptian area. So we understand that the what is called the diaspora the spreading of the Jews all through the Roman world left some areas with very heavy concentration of Jews. Alexandria was one such area. Cyrene was another such area. Obviously many went to Cyprus.
So we really don’t have enough precise information to say what exactly might be the differences between these various bodies but similarities between them could very well have existed and most people feel that there is some similarity between the Essenes and the Qumranites but I think it’s not universally agreed that they’re one and the same.
And of course, John the Baptist started out in the desert, right? And some have made Him an Essene. I think that’s going a little bit beyond our evidence. But what we have to remember is that there are people in the Jewish community who feel very much like many Christians feel today that the whole establishment is rotten and we’re going to get out of it. And one way to get out of it is to go back to the pristine days when the Israelites had Moses as their leader out in the desert and they had the tabernacle around which they could gather and worship and so on.
And so they go out into the desert whether it’s at Qumran in Palestine or whether it’s in the desert south of Cyrene or some other place. They go out there and they reproduce the ancient experience of Israel as closely as they can. This has a very seductive appeal. In addition to which if there are pressures upon them for example economically or socially in the communities where they are is an additional temptation to you know let’s chuck it all and go out into the desert and be the spiritual people we want to be.
If we can get the idea that Judaism was like this, we know it was like this. Even though we may not be able to pin this audience down to Cyrene as over against Qumran or some place like that, but the knowledge that we have this kind of current flowing in Judaism is important I think to open our minds to the possibilities that exist for the exegesis of Hebrews.
Yes. Here the questioner asks about Hebrews 2:3 specifically the end of the verse which says and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him. If Barnabas was the author of Hebrews and was an apostle, wouldn’t He have had to personally hear Jesus? If so, this verse seems to state the author had not personally heard Jesus.
That is a very perceptive question. One would almost suspect you of being seminary level material here. That’s a very good question. I think the answer to that really is that this fits Barnabas in so far as we know about anything about Him. The general opinion is that the presentation of Barnabas in Acts suggests that He was a convert of the apostles. He was from Cyprus. We don’t know whether He ever really heard Jesus directly or not.
But the impression we get from the book of Acts is and of course they are the ones who gave Him the name son of consolation. By the way, that’s another argument in favor of Barnabas. It’s not a very strong one, but when He says endure this word of consolation, that fits the name that the apostles gave Him. But I think that as a matter of fact, that’s not an objection to the authorship by Barnabas, but supportive if we can imagine that Barnabas was probably won to the Lord by the apostles themselves or therefore those who heard Jesus personally.
In a continuation from the previous question, the questioner states that she thought it was impossible to be an apostle without seeing Jesus. It’s a little surprise to us because we don’t know too much about the subsequent history of Barnabas. And I would assume if we can deduce from 1 Corinthians 9 that it was a condition of the apostleship that they see the Lord that Barnabas may have seen Him in the same way that Paul did in some kind of a vision subsequent to His resurrection. But we don’t have any data on that.
And yeah, it really is. And of course with Paul Himself, we don’t really know whether He ever heard Jesus in person. We assume He did, but we don’t know that. All we really know is that He met Jesus on the road to Damascus and understood who Jesus was at that point. So and we know even less about the conversion and immediate postconversion experiences of Barnabas.
But please understand when I get to heaven and Barnabas comes up to me and say, “I didn’t write that book.” I say, “I’m sorry, Barnabas. I thought maybe you did, but I admit I was wrong.” Yeah, everybody knows now. Well, I the you know the famous statement about the authorship of Hebrews was made by Origen. Origen said, “God alone knows who wrote Hebrews.” And that has never been computed from the day He said it to the present. Anything else? Feel free to ask on this.
I want this to be as clear as possible to you because we’ll have this frame of reference as we talk about the book necessarily in very condensed form. And so I want you to kind of understand the scenario that I think lies behind it. Yes. Yes. I think it was not in the original even though there are some manuscripts that have the R but they are not the manuscripts which underlie the King James version and I think that the technical answer there is the R is not in the original. There is no specific word for our that does not mean it is impossible to put it in or to understand it in connection with the word brother because Greek does permit that.
As far as that goes, that makes it even less personal because then it has the writer saying, “Brother Timothy,” that to me that doesn’t sound like Paul. Now, maybe it does to other people, but to me it doesn’t quite. You made a point though that you just kind of passed over and didn’t ask me a question, but what did you say at the beginning? I’ve forgotten what you said. That’s a very good observation and that’s why I wanted to comment on it because all of the known Pauline epistles are Paul introduces Himself as the writer.
Now it’s possible that He wrote one epistle in which He didn’t introduce Himself as a writer but if this is Barnabas that explains why the name is not there. He preferred not to put it in. If any of you are familiar with the Plymouth Brethren tradition of writers, there was a period of time in the Plymouth Brethren tradition where the writers didn’t use their full names out of a sense of humility. They used abbreviations ch all these things that was a kind of an expression of humility that they thought was appropriate. If I put my name, I’m talking about the Bible. My name is not important.
And so it would not surprise us greatly given what we know about Barnabas that if He wrote a letter like this that’s what He did. Now the thing about ancient letters to communities the bearer of the letter would know who it came from and it might be that the name of the sender was on the outside of the scroll but not a part of the document. Either of those things is possible, but there’s no reason to think just because the name is not here that the people who received it didn’t know perfectly well who wrote it. I’m sure they knew who wrote it.
And He assumes in the verses that we have read that they know Him and He knows them. But the fact that He didn’t put His name in the document itself suggests a slant on His character that as far as we know it is not characteristic of Paul. That’s a very good point you made and the scholars make it all the time and it’s very apropos. Anything else? All right. Yeah, go ahead.
Here a gentleman gets up and states the following. A lot of the push I think for Pauline authorship was to get Hebrews into the canon. Yeah. And if we recognize that the Scriptures recognize Barnabas as an apostle, we’re not bothered by the possibility that Barnabas wrote it because Barnabas Himself would be an apostle. So that that problem if in fact it is a problem. I’m not sure it really is because if the Spirit inspires somebody, the document is inspired whether they’re an apostle or not.
But nevertheless, the fact remains most of the New Testament documents are written by apostles. But this is not true of all of them. Jude, for example, is a brother of the Lord, but as far as we know, not an apostle. James, and if Mark wrote Mark, Mark was not an apostle. If Luke wrote Luke and Acts, He’s not an apostle. But most of these men and people who discuss these points point out that even though these are non-apostolic writers, they have a very close association with apostles.
So Mark was regarded as the interpreter of Peter. Luke was the companion of Paul. James and Jude are in the Jerusalem church associated with the apostles and they are the half-brothers of our Lord and Savior. So we’re not particularly worried about the by the fact that any of these men wrote inspired documents. But in the case of Barnabas, we would have an apostle.
Now obviously all I want to do in the time that is left this evening which is not a lot of time is to try to walk you rapidly through the book of Hebrews with the assistance of this overhead. And then tomorrow night, we’re going to come back and walk you less rapidly, but still rapidly through the book of Hebrews again guided by this overview of it. And then as the two nights progress and you develop questions about the content of Hebrews or maybe questions we don’t touch at all and you’ve always had these questions that you wanted to ask about Hebrews, be sure and bring them on Sunday night. We’ll do our best to answer as many of them as possible.
Unfortunately, we live in a day and age in which not many people know how to write books or at least not many people know how to write good books. And I was surprised when I was a teacher at the seminary that the general impression that students often had was that when a biblical author came to write a book, you know, He had an idea in His head and sat down with pen and whatever papyrus or parchment that He used and He started to write.
But all the evidence that we have from the Greek or Roman world of the first century suggests that this was not the case. And in the Greek or Roman world there was a study called rhetoric. Very loosely speaking rhetoric is the art of communicating effectively whether verbally or in writing. And there were Greek or Roman specialists in rhetoric. And we have documents discussing their principles of speech and all the rest of it.
And I have looked at some of the material that is represented here. And it seems to me very clear that the ethos of this period would be that if a writer was going to write a fairly long document and Hebrews was a fairly long document. If He was going to write a fairly long document, He would sit down and plan it. He would plan it and then He would write according to plan.
And in the overhead that you are looking at, I am suggesting the plan which the writer of Hebrews followed when He wrote this very significant and important epistle. Notice that at the very top here under Hebrews, we have the first four verses of chapter 1, which are widely recognized as a prologue. This is an introduction. Anyone who reads this introduction in Greek knows that the writer has exerted pains to make it a very effective introduction. It’s a nicely worded piece of Greek.
Notice also that at the end of the book, right down here at the bottom of that first column, chapter 13 we suggest serves as an epilogue. And what we mean in this case by an epilogue is that the content of the book as a whole, the argument of the book as a whole is finished at the end of chapter 12. And that 13, chapter 13 is a kind of an appendix or it’s a kind of addition where the writer wishes to say some very specific things which He thinks can appropriately be said to His audience.
What we do notice is that in the body of the letter, parts one, two, and three, most of the exhortations are pretty general. They are based on the principles that the writer is teaching from the Scriptures and He is applying them in the general way in which those principles need to be applied. But when we get to chapter 13, however, we discover that He gets fairly specific about a number of things.
And if you will just read chapter 13 at your leisure sometime, you will notice that suddenly He gets into specific things. And you know, He throws off a verse or two for this and a verse or two for that, several verses for this. So I think it is not at all illegitimate to say that the first four verses are a prologue to the body of the epistle. The body of the epistle concludes down here at the end of third column with 12:29 and the epilogue is not really a part of the argument of the epistle even though a few of the themes that emerge from the epistle are alluded to in chapter 13.
So what we have here then is a prologue introducing the main body of the epistle. And then we are saying that when we examine the content of the epistle, we can discover that it is divided into basically three parts. Part one, two, and three. Notice that what we suggest here is that the subject matter of part one is God’s kingly Son. It is the Messiah as king that we are primarily occupied with.
In part two, we are preoccupied with Messiah as God’s priestly Son. It is in other words, it is the kingship of Jesus that predominates in part one and the priesthood of Jesus that predominates in part two. Please notice how this immediately fits into the background scenario that we studied a moment ago. If we are dealing here with people who are luring these Christians into a form of sectarian Judaism where they have two different Messiahs, one is a king, the other is a priest.
The writer says, “No, no, no. Jesus is the one and only Messiah and He is God’s king. He is God’s priest. He is a priest on His throne.” And therefore the fundamental presentation of the book of Hebrews is of God’s kingly and priestly Son having presented to us the kingship and priesthood of Jesus Christ. Part three deals with our response to this truth which is to be a response of faith.
So we haven’t gotten into the sub passages yet. Notice, but basically a unit that focuses on the kingship of Jesus Christ. Secondly, a unit that focuses on the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Thirdly, a unit that focuses on our responsibility to respond with the life of faith, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.
Now, that I suggest is a three-fold breakdown of the epistle to the Hebrews. But within the three-fold breakdown, as our overhead here seeks to suggest, the writer follows the following technique. The writer begins with a unit of exposition. When He finishes the unit of exposition, He gives a unit of admonition which we’ve called here warning.
In part one chapter 1:5-14 is an exposition of the exaltation of God’s kingly Son with particular reference to His destiny as the ruler of the entire world “not unto the angels as He subjected the world to come whereof we speak but to Jesus” this is followed by the first warning the briefest of all the warnings and the most general of all the warnings but nevertheless followed by a warning. That’s chapter 2:1 to 4.
Then we return to the subject of the king. But now to the king as one who was for a little while made lower than the angels. And here the key text is Psalm 8. And remember that Psalm 8 declares that God has created man to be over. He set Him over the works of His hands, put all things under His feet. That’s the destiny of Jesus as presented in Hebrews chapter 1.
But says the writer, we do not yet see all things put under Him. We don’t see that yet. That’s for the future. But what we do see is the one who was made a little lower than the angels who went through this life and who suffered and who died and who is the captain or leader of our salvation. We’ll be talking more about what the term salvation means tomorrow night, but it doesn’t have to do with being saved from hell. It has something else that I think is very important as its core of definition.
But the point here is that the kingly Son who is presented first of all as the one who is destined to rule the world to come is also the one who was made a little lower than the angels and who showed us how to walk the pathway of suffering. And in the process of following Him He is leading many sons to glory. We’ll talk a little bit more about that tomorrow.
Now that’s the second section of exposition. This is followed by the second warning. A very significant and interesting warning. The core idea is don’t miss out on the glory to which He wants to lead you. We’ll talk more about that tomorrow night. But notice here a very neatly divided unit. Exposition, admonition, exposition, admonition.
And this is a I would have loved to have heard this writer preach. He would have expanded the Scriptures richly and then He would have applied them most effectively. That’s what He does in His epistle. Now this brings us to the second major unit and once again a relatively short unit presenting the Son as the priest.
And here the key transition for this writer is that the one to whom God said “sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet” is also the one to whom God said “God has sworn and will not repent. Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” He’s not only destined to be king, He is already a priest.
This leads us after this expository section to a hortatory section in which we’re warned against becoming thorn-infested ground. We’ll have to talk more about that tomorrow night. But this does not have to do with unsaved people. It has to do with those of us who are Christians.
Then that brings us to the biggest unit of exposition in the whole letter. The greater priest and His greater ministry. Chapter 7 verse 1 to 10:18. I think the very size of this unit tells us that this is the heart and core and center of the author’s message to us.
Yes, of course we have a king and that’s tremendously important to Him and that’s where He starts. Yes, of course we have a captain who is leading us to glory. But this is not an easy pathway. He Himself walked a pathway that was filled with suffering and we have to follow Him in that. What is our resource? Our resource is the person who is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
Who mediates a covenant that is better than the old covenant whose ministry on our behalf is based on a sacrifice that is supremely more excellent than the sacrifices that were made under the old covenant. This is a great High Priest and this is the secret of persevering in the Christian pathway.
Let it just be said right here. We will never reach the end of the road successfully unless we rely upon the intercession of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is alive for us today. He ever lives to make intercession for us. He is our resource. Let us come boldly to the throne of grace to obtain mercy, find grace to help in time of need.
The Christian who thinks He can do the Christian life on His own never gets it done. We need our great High Priest. So what is the response to this reality? Faith, right? Not the faith that saves. We’ve already saved. But the faith of Christian living.
So we have this wonderful exposition in part three of the life of faith as it is lived in the Old Testament. Everybody knows what you know if you don’t know anything else about Hebrews the chances are good you know that chapter 11 is the chapter of the heroes of faith. This is the hall of fame of those who trusted God in various ways.
And all the different permutations under which it is possible and necessary to trust God during the course of our human life are presented in one or the other of the examples that are presented in that chapter. One of the things I love about the chapter is after He gives all these heroic things, you know, all the mighty accomplishments of men of faith, then He talks about the people who wandered about in sheep skins and goat skins and lived in the holes and the caves of the earth and this too was a manifestation of their faith of whom the world was not worthy.
Says the writer, it doesn’t matter what your experience is if it’s an act of faith. It can be a splendid victory or it can be a terrible experience of deprivation but by faith you endure. And that leads of course to the final admonition which is chapter 12 which I’ve entitled here keep seeing the invisible looking to Jesus the author and completer of our faith who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross despised the shame and has sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
He’s your example. He’s your pattern. He won through and by His grace and help so can we. So can we. That’s the message of the book of Hebrews.