(4) In Hebrews the incarnate Son is called "Jesus," or "Christ," or "the Lord." In St. Paul's Epistles we find fuller titles employed, such as "our Lord Jesus Christ."
(5) The theological differences are important. The teaching of the author harmonizes with that of St. Paul, but throughout the Epistle we feel that the truths of Christianity are being expounded to us by one whose personal history is different {211} from that of St. Paul. The author starts from the fact of the perfection of Christ's sacrifice, and in his doctrine about the Law he looks at it from that fact. St. Paul, on the other hand, starts from the doctrine of justification by faith, and looks at the Law from the point of that doctrine. Again, the author takes a general view of faith as heroic belief in unseen facts; while St. Paul, though he sometimes does the same, prefers to use the word "faith" in the sense of devoted, personal, adhesion to Christ.
(6) In ii. 3, 4 the author seems to imply that he had not personally seen the Lord.
Many conjectures have been made as to the real author. Few of these conjectures deserve serious consideration. Luther suggested Apollos, and the suggestion has been accepted by many writers. In favour of it are: (1) he was a friend of St. Paul; (2) he was "mighty in the Scriptures," and Hebrews deals with the Old Testament in a masterly way; (3) he was an Alexandrian Jew, and Hebrews was plainly written by a Jew, and apparently by one acquainted with Philo and other Alexandrian authors.[3] Against this theory is the complete absence of traditional support, and the fact that Apollos was taught by Aquila and Priscilla, whereas the author of Hebrews implies that he was taught by a personal disciple of Christ. On the whole, St. Barnabas seems to have the best claim. Tertullian not only speaks of it as the work of Barnabas, but also shows by his words that the Church of North Africa regarded it as his work.[4] He is not, therefore, making a conjecture, but assuming a tradition. His evidence is the more valuable, because the Church of North Africa was important and was in close contact with Rome, where the Epistle was venerated at least as early as A.D. 95. In favour {212} of the tradition we can note: (1) St. Barnabas was an influential companion of St. Paul; (2) he was a Levite, and would be interested in Levitical worship; (3) he was a native of Cyprus, which was in close communication with Alexandria; (4) he had been in the regions to which the Epistle was probably addressed.
Against the theory that St. Barnabas was the author, it is said that the author makes surprising errors with regard to the Temple ritual, which St. Barnabas was not likely to do. The so-called "errors" are: (a) the high priest sacrificing daily (vii. 27; x. 11)—but the high priest was free to do this; (b) the pot of manna and Aaron's rod placed in the ark (ix. 4), though not so described in 1 Kings viii. 9—but in the tabernacle they were at least close to the ark (Exod. xvi. 34; Numb. xvii. 10); (c) the altar of incense is said to belong to the holiest place (ix. 4)—but it did belong to it in the sense of sanctifying the approach to it, though it was placed outside it: see 1 Kings vi. 22. No one can reasonably say that these statements are of such a nature as to prove that the Epistle was not written by a Levite.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
The title says "To the Hebrews." The character of the Epistle suggests this. It was plainly written for Jewish Christians, and apparently for some particular community of them (v. 11, 12; vi. 9, 10; x. 32-34; xiii. 1, 7, 19, 23). Which community, it is difficult to say. The Jewish Christians of Rome have been suggested, and in support of this the reference to Italian Christians (xiii. 24) has been quoted. It is a strange fact that this theory about the destination of the Epistle is favoured by some critics who assign it to a late date. For if it was really written to Rome, the date must be early. It is almost inconceivable that the author should have said, "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood," to the Christians of Rome after the persecution of A.D. 64-65. Some town in Syria or Palestine is more likely than Rome, and Antioch seems a probable destination for the Epistle. The community must have been {213} familiar with Greek, and at the same time must have been under strong temptations to relapse into Judaism. They had for the sake of Christ left the warm social life of Judaism. They felt isolated and depressed. The splendour of the temple worship and the zeal of Jewish patriotism were luring them back to their old religion. They felt that they had perhaps deserted a magnificent reality for a shadowy hope. Such circumstances fit with the theory that the community dwelt in Palestine or Syria, and the same theory is supported by the fact that these Christians had been converted long ago (v. 12), and had heard the apostles (ii. 3).
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
Probably from Italy, as shown by xiii. 24. The date may be put about A.D. 66. A generation of Christians had passed away (xiii. 2). The doom of Jerusalem was approaching (x. 25; viii. 13; xiii. 13). The frequent reference to the Levitical worship, as exerting an attractive force, must imply that the temple was still standing. The Epistle must therefore be earlier than 70.
It is true that the references to the Levitical worship are sometimes more appropriate to the ancient tabernacle than to the temple, and this fact is urged by those who maintain that the temple was already destroyed when the Epistle was written. But this is no answer to the fact that the Jewish worship is throughout assumed to be in existence. The author is not opposing the propaganda of Jewish rabbis or the attractions of synagogues which were connected with the temple by tradition only. He is opposing a great living system with its priesthood and its ritual. And in order to criticize Judaism he deals with the tabernacle, concerning which the Old Testament gave definite directions. This was a more effective method than discussing the temple which superseded the tabernacle.