THE ORIGINAL RECIPIENTS OF THE BOOK OF HEBREWS

BY

DARREN M. SLADE

LAKEWOOD, COLORADO

SUNDAY, MARCH 3, 2013

ii

CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Presuppositions ............................................................................................................................. 1

Title ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Genre ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Date ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Social Dimensions.......................................................................................................................... 6

Religion ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Affiliation .................................................................................................................................. 10

Temple Priests ..................................................................................................................... 10

Qumran Sect ........................................................................................................................ 11

Hellenist Jews ...................................................................................................................... 13

Historical Situation ..................................................................................................................... 15

Conclusion and Message ............................................................................................................ 20

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 21

1

Introduction

Craig Blomberg comments that interpreters can better understand the warning passages in

the book of Hebrews when they correctly identify the circumstances of the original readers.1

Likewise, D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo view the audience as essential to interpretation, “Any

assessment of the purpose of Hebrews is inextricably tied to one’s understanding of who the

addressees were.”2 The purpose of this research is to investigate the identity of Hebrews’

original recipients through a systematic approach to the topic. It will first examine

presuppositions to the investigation, such as the book’s title, genre, and date, and proceed to

analyze the recipient’s social dimensions of religion, ethnicity, and cultural affiliation. The

research will then examine various theories regarding the audience’s historical situation and

conclude by relating the book’s overall message to the needs of the original readers. In the end,

analysis of the book of Hebrews reveals that it is a homily addressed to a particular group of

Hellenist Jewish-Christians. Written prior to AD 70, the original recipients required strong

encouragement to combat spiritual lethargy, immaturity, and the threat of persecution. However,

identifying the specific historical circumstances requires an abundance of conjecture; thus,

interpreters should use this information with caution when interpreting the book’s message.

Presuppositions

Before an investigation is possible, analysts must first determine the plausibility of

identifying the original readers. This requires examining the title of the book, its genre, and the

date of composition.

1 See his discussion on the importance of identifying the audience and other historical information of New Testament books, Craig L. Blomberg, A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 79-84. 2 D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 609.

2

Title

The title of the book in all extant manuscripts bears the name, “to the Hebrews” (πρὸς

Ἑβραίους). Paul Ellingworth explains that the title likely refers to a Jewish audience as opposed

to Gentiles.3 Matthew Black recognizes that the term “Hebrews” was used to identify a local

synagogue in ancient Rome and Corinth. He also comments that early church writings applied

the title “Hebrews” to first century Jewish-Christians.4 However, its general usage in other

Christian writings did not always indicate a specialized group of Jews.5 As Rodney Decker

remarks, many titles were added to ancient manuscripts for the purpose of easy reference. Even

though the term “Hebrews” was sometimes used to distinguish between Hebraic Jews and

Hellenist Jews (cf. Acts 6:1), the term was also used more broadly without regard to different

affiliations. Therefore, because of the possible interpolation of the label and the term’s

ambiguity, the title of the book of Hebrews should not be used to identify the original audience.6

Genre

Determining the exact genre of the book of Hebrews is important because it will dictate

whether an interpreter can locate an audience in the first place. For instance, Richard Moulton

defines the book of Hebrews as an “epistolary treatise,” which he describes as a formal

discussion not addressed to any particular group of people. Likewise, Adolf Deissman

distinguishes between a letter and an epistle, commenting that an epistle gives the impression it

3 Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary On the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 21-22. 4 Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1961), 78. 5 See F. F. Bruce, “‘To the Hebrews’ or ‘To the Essenes’,” New Testament Studies 9, no. 3 (April 1963): 231. 6 Rodney J. Decker “The Original Readers of Hebrews,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 3, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 34-36. See, especially, 35n49.

3

is written to a particular group. Its true intention, however, is to address a larger audience. Both

argue that Hebrews was not meant for anyone specific.7 Though appropriate for other books in

the New Testament, Moulton and Deissman do not accurately reflect the text of Hebrews.

William Lane explains that the book is actually an ancient homily. First, the author

specifically identifies his writing as a “word of exhortation” (13:22, ESV), which was an

idiomatic phrase referencing a homily (cf. Acts 13:15). Similarly, the book’s structure is

characteristic of a sermon, which customarily incorporates scriptural warnings and repeatedly

alternates between exposition and exhortation of biblical passages. Lane explains that the author

gives the impression that he is present with his audience as though he were delivering a speech

directly to the group (cf. 5:11; 6:9). In fact, the author describes his writing as a speech rather

than a formal document (cf. 2:5; 8:1; 11:32). Based on the author’s “skillful use of alliteration,

of oratorical imperatives, of euphonic phrases, of unusual word order, and of literary devices

designed to enhance rhetorical effectiveness,” Lane concludes that Hebrews is a Diaspora-style

homily typically delivered in synagogues of the first century.8

Because the genre is rightly understood as a homily, interpreters should recognize the

potential of discovering a specific group of people with a particular set of circumstances. This is

evident in the author’s detailed knowledge of the audience’s past (cf. 10:32-34).9 Ellingworth

confirms this by identifying the book’s distinction between a select congregation and a more

general assembly (cf. 13:24).10 Also, the author displays an intimate knowledge of the

7 See Louis F. Gough, “Epistolary Literature of the New Testament,” Ashland Theological Journal 6 (1973): 28-31. 8 William L. Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (Fall 1985): 13-15. 9 See Decker, 21. 10 Ellingworth, 26.

4

recipients, citing his previous meetings with the readers (v.19), his desire to visit them again

(v.23), and details about the date of their initial conversion to Christianity (10:32).11

Date

As Simon Kistemaker and William Hendriksen remark, identifying the date is important

because certain historical periods limit the available options of recipients. For instance, if the

writer wrote prior to the Roman siege of Palestine in AD 70, then the author could have been

addressing members of Jerusalem or even Qumran. However, if the author wrote after AD 70,

then interpreters can no longer consider these two groups. Kistemaker and Hendriksen

hypothesize that the author was exhorting his audience during a time of peace rather than

persecution. It was because of the surrounding tranquility that the audience became spiritually

lazy. Also, the author boldly writes against the Levitical priesthood and never mentions the

temple in Jerusalem. Because both were considered sacred, the author must have written after

the temple’s destruction. Kistemaker and Hendriksen conclude a date of AD 80-85.12 Merrill

Tenney agrees and suggests a date of AD 69-79 because of the separation between Christians

and Jews after the temple’s destruction.13

Despite the internal consistency with these assertions, their arguments are generally weak

and rely on unverifiable assumptions. First, periods of peace occurred before and after AD 70,

and the audience’s spiritual laxity could have been the result of hardship, as well. Likewise, the

absence of mentioning the Jerusalem temple is an argument from silence. It can also be argued

11 See Brook Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Notes and Essays on the Greek Text, 3d ed., Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (1903; repr., London: MacMillan, 1909), xxxvii. 12 William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Baker New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1984), 14-16. 13 Merrill C. Tenney, “A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews,” Bibliotheca Sacra 123, no. 491 (July 1966): 234.

5

that not mentioning the temple’s destruction indicates it had not been destroyed yet.14 Carson

and Moo comment, “If the sacrifices of the temple had ended (as they did in A.D. 70), it is hard

to imagine how [the author] could have resisted pointing this out.”15

Ellingworth provides a thorough analysis of the usual claims regarding the book’s date.

Commentators typically refer to the citation of Hebrews in Clement of Rome’s work around AD

96, indicating that the homily was known before the end of the first century. Yet, dating

Clement’s writings is often disputed. Second, the author suggests that he and his audience were

second-generation Christians (2:3), but this could indicate any decade in the first century. The

same is true for the mention of Timothy’s release from prison (13:23). The comment that a

lengthy amount of time has elapsed since the audience first converted to Christianity (5:11) does

not actually require more than a few years from the author’s perspective. Others have used the

book’s remarks about the recipients experiencing persecution (10:32-34) but not martyrdom

(12:4) as proof for Imperial persecution under different Roman Emperors (e.g., Claudius in AD

49, Nero in AD 64). However, the author does not provide details regarding the historical

circumstances of the audience’s persecution. Also, the verses do not preclude other lesser-

known trials that occurred throughout the Roman Empire by different antagonistic groups.16

Still others comment that the author’s use of the present tense when referring to the

Levitical cultus (cf. 5:1; 7:5; 8:3; 9:6, 22; 10:8; 13:11) indicates the temple was currently in

operation. Ellingworth correctly counters this argument by explaining that the references were to

the wilderness tabernacle, not the temple, and that many early church writings also described the

14 See Mal Couch, “Inerrancy: The Book Of Hebrews,” Conservative Theological Journal 5, no. 14 (March 2001): 57. 15 Carson and Moo, 607. 16 Ellingworth, 29-31. See, also, the discussion on the audience’s historical situation below.

6

temple in the present tense, even though the temple had already been destroyed. In the end,

Ellingworth concludes that determining a precise date is almost impossible.17

Despite the difficulty of identifying a particular date, there is one verse in Hebrews that

strongly suggests a period prior to AD 70. The author states in 8:13 that the old sacrificial

system “is becoming obsolete” (παλαιούμενον) and “growing old” (γηράσκον). Both verbs are

present participles, indicating that the process of dismantling the old rituals was still underway

but not yet completed. This would be a strange statement if the old system, as operated under the

Jerusalem temple, had already been destroyed.18 In light of this verse and the other

considerations, there is nothing in Hebrews that would eliminate a date prior to AD 70.

Nonetheless, attempts to identify a specific decade within the first century rely primarily on the

interpreter’s speculation concerning the audience’s original situation. These suggestions are

unverifiable and cannot be determined with any certainty. It is best to conclude that the book of

Hebrews was written prior to AD 70, though a date after the temple’s destruction is still possible.

Social Dimensions

The most easily discernible information regarding the original readers concerns the

audience’s religion, ethnicity, and communal affiliation.

Religion

Despite Carson and Moo’s declaration, “All agree that the book is written for

Christians,”19 some believe the book was written to nonbelievers. For instance, Mal Couch

attributes an apologetic and polemical value to the book of Hebrews. He believes the homily

17 Ibid., 31-33. 18 Ibid., 32. See, also, George H. Guthrie, The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 282n8. 19 Carson and Moo, 609.

7

was written to skeptical Jews in order to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. The book was then

later used by Christians to combat other doubting Jews.20 Yet, this interpretation fails to

recognize the author’s beliefs about his audience. As Decker explains, the author reports in his

homily that the readers formerly confessed faith in Christ (4:14; 10:23). Likewise, the author

associated his readers to a common belief in Jesus’ priesthood and apostleship. He repeatedly

used the first and second person plural pronouns when remarking that the audience belonged to

Christ’s house (3:6), shared in Christ (v.14), and have come to Jesus personally (12:24). The

author also addressed his readers has “holy brothers” (3:1; see also, v.12; 10:19; 13:22).21 From

the author’s perspective, the recipients were at least associated with the Christian community.

While J. Paul Tanner argues that the author believed his readers made a genuine

profession of faith, some interpreters doubt the genuineness of this confession (cf. the

conditional nature of 3:6 and 14). Realistically, it seems more plausible that the author was

unable to discern genuine believers from nominal Christians. While some appear to have lost

their association with the church (10:25), the author did express confidence that his particular

readers would persevere and remain faithful to the Christian community (6:9).22

Similarly, the author hints at their Christian history. It is probable that the audience knew

about Paul and Timothy’s ministry (13:23), but they did not know Jesus personally (2:3; 13:7).

Ellingworth acknowledges that this does not necessarily mean they were second-generation

Christians, though it is obvious that they were not new believers, either (cf. 5:12).23 In fact,

20 Couch, 57-58. See, also, Ellingworth’s reference to others with similar views, 22. 21 Decker, 24. 22 Cf. J. Paul Tanner, “For Whom Does Hebrews 10:26-31 Teach A “Punishment Worse Than Death”?” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 19, no. 37 (Autumn 2006): 60-63 and Guthrie’s discussion that warns of the possibility of appearing regenerate but having never truly been transformed by Christ; Guthrie, 216-32. 23 Ellingworth, 141.

8

according to the author, the recipients had been Christians long enough to warrant a greater

maturation than presently observed (5:11-6:3). Finally, due to a distinction between the readers

and other Christian “leaders” and “saints” (13:17, 24), the recipients likely belonged to a small

house church that may have been located in an urban environment (cf.13:1-6, 14).24

Ethnicity

There were two primary types of Christians in the first century: Jewish-Christians and

Gentle-Christians (cf. Acts 15). Those who argue for a Gentile audience recognize that the

allusions to Jewish rituals are dependent on a literary knowledge of the Old Testament rather

than any personal experience.25 Gentiles, especially Gentile converts to Judaism, would have

understood these allusions just as much as Jews.26 The use of Old Testament Scripture and

familiarity with Jewish practices was still present in Gentile congregations. Likewise, the

mention of “strange teachings” related to Jewish food laws (13:9) indicates a gentile audience

because kosher requirements would have only been considered strange to non-Jews.

Nonetheless, as Decker explains, these arguments do not prove the audience was pagan. It

merely allows for the possibility of a Gentile presence. Regarding the “strange teachings,”

Decker is correct to recognize that they may have had nothing to do with kosher laws at all.27

Also, some interpreters argue that the prepositional phrase, “fall away from the living

God” (3:12), could only apply to Gentiles. They reason that a Jewish-Christian audience, if they

regressed back to Judaism, would still know the one true God. On the other hand, only a

Gentile-Christian audience would abandon the living God if they lapsed back into paganism. 24 See William L. Lane, Hebrews, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 47A:liii. 25 Guthrie documents thirty-five quotations from the Old Testament, thirty-four allusions, nineteen summaries, and thirteen references to Old Testament names and topics; Guthrie, 19. 26 Carson and Moo, 609-10. 27 Decker, 25-26. For a list of interpreters who ascribe to a Gentile audience, see Decker, 25n13.

9

Ellingworth correctly rejects this reasoning because it neglects the Christian mindset of the book.

For the author, Christ is the direct revelation of divinity (1:3); to reject Christ is to reject the

living God, regardless of the subsequent embrace of Judaism or paganism (cf. 2 John 7–9).28

While the book’s multiple allusions to Jewish rituals do not require a Jewish ethnicity, the

arguments for a Gentile readership are too few in number and are generally unconvincing.

The evidences for a Jewish ethnicity are more concrete. To begin, the author assumed

that the original readers accepted the Old Testament as divinely inspired (cf. 4:12). As John

Dahms states, “The author can assume that the OT is authoritative for his readers and, indeed, is

so fully accepted as true that it can provide the basis for his argument at almost every turn.”29

Ellingworth notes that the author expected his readers to be familiar with Old Testament

personalities, stories, specific texts, and the Mosaic Law (cf. 9:1-10). The author expressed his

message in distinctly Jewish terms, such as referencing the Jewish “high priest” (5:1), assuming

the Levitical priests were ordained by God (7:11), and associating animal sacrifices specifically

to the forgiveness of sins (9:22). Jesus is compared only to Jewish themes, such as angels (1:5-

2:9), Moses (3:1-6), and the Levitical cultus (chs. 8-10). Finally, the author believed his

audience could personally relate to ancient Israel (cf. 4:1; 11:40; 12:25-27).30

While some may argue that these evidences do not preclude a Gentile audience’s

knowledge of these beliefs, the weight of the evidence for a Jewish ethnicity compound with

additional support. Decker points out that the book does not mention anything about Gentile

28 Ellingworth, 24. See, also, John V. Dahms, “The First Readers Of Hebrews,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 4 (December 1977): 365. 29 Dahms, 365. 30 See Ellingworth, 23-25.

10

society or practices. Instead, Christianity is repeatedly compared to Judaism.31 The book also

shows evidence of Jewish midrashic interpretation. For instance, the book parallels oral

traditions concerning tithes (7:5), daily sacrifices at the tabernacle (7:27), the location of the altar

of incense and the contents of the ark inside the tabernacle (9:4), the use of blood on the furniture

(9:21), and the theophany at Mount Sinai (12:21).32 The author also used traditional rabbinic

hortatory practices, such as appealing to extrabiblical Jewish traditions (2:2), utilizing arguments

from silence (7:3, 14), and demonstrating familiarity with rabbinic a fortiori arguments (10:28;

12:25).33 It would be overly peculiar to implement so many Jewish techniques if the audience

did not directly associate with Jewish rhetorical expressions and cultural traditions.

Affiliation

As J. Julius Scott reflects, intertestamental Judaism developed a variety of sects and

parties that excluded the chance for a homogenous society in the first century.34 Thus, there is

still a possibility of discovering a distinctive affiliation associated with these particular Jewish-

Christians. For those who accept a Jewish ethnicity, the text readily depicts a disassociation

from the traditional Hebraic Jews of Palestine. Interpreters have suggested three primary

affiliations: former temple priests, members of the Qumran sect, and Hellenized Diaspora Jews.

Temple Priests

Based on the record that Jewish priests converted to Christianity (Acts 6:7), one

possibility is that the readers were former temple priests from Jerusalem. C. Sandegren explains

31 Decker, 26. 32 See F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., The New International Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 27n115, 225n137. 33 See Ellingworth, 23. 34 J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1995), 20-22.

11

that certain remarks require this conclusion. For instance, the statement that the audience “ought

to be teachers” (5:12) signals a specific class of Jews. Sandegren cites James 3:1 in defense that

not all Christians should be teachers; instead, according to the Old Testament, only priests

“ought” to be instructors (cf. Mal. 2:7). He insists that the author naturally thought of his readers

as teachers, as opposed to being farmers or some other occupation. Similarly, Sandegren

believes the exhortation to be hospitable (13:2) applied to former priests because only Levites

permanently retained their land rights (Lev. 25:32-34). Thus, after facing the confiscation of

their property (10:34), only those with land could adequately provide hospitality.35

While this suggestion is possible, Decker is correct to recognize that Sandegren’s textual

evidences do not necessitate former priests. There is no reason that only priests could become

teachers. In fact, many of the early church leaders became instructors without mention of their

former priestly roles. Likewise, hospitality does not require owning land or property. It can be

exercised regardless of someone’s monetary situation.36 Therefore, the suggestion that the

recipients were former priests is selective and unconvincing. Similarly, it would be strange for

the author to address former priests and yet make no mention of the Jerusalem temple or its

institution. Instead, the author alluded only to the tabernacle, something that former priests

would have had no direct experience personally.

Qumran Sect

A popular suggestion is that the readers either belonged to or were converts from the

Qumran sect. As J. Daryl Charles explains, the Qumran community viewed Michael the

35 C. Sandegren, “The Addressees of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Evangelical Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1955): 222-23. Sandegren also makes the odd hypothesis that the title of the book, “to the Hebrews” (ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ), may have been a scribal error and originally read, “to the priests” (ΠΡΟΣ ΙΕΡΕΙΣ); Ibid., 224. As Decker reveals, this can hardly be the case. The earliest manuscripts do not support this contention and the two titles are not easily confused; Decker, 29. 36 Decker, 28-29. See, also, Ellingworth, 27.

12

archangel as a mediator for God’s people, which is why the author of Hebrews had to correct

these claims and place Jesus as the ultimate intercessor. Charles also argues that the recipients

reflected the type of Judaism that emphasized angelic beings found in Qumran’s apocalyptic

literature.37 Decker summarizes some of the other arguments in support for a Qumran audience,

including the writings that stress two Messiahs, as well as Qumran’s devotion to Moses. The

author of Hebrews directly refutes each of these themes, indicating that the audience likely

shared similar beliefs with the Qumran community.38 F. F. Bruce lists other connections, such as

the book’s prophet, priest, and king motifs, description of purification rites, “house of God”

terminology, beliefs regarding sacrifices, acceptance of earthly images reflecting heavenly

realities, and reverence for saints and martyrs.39

However convincing these similarities appear, the evidence does little more than identify

slight affinities to the Qumran sect. As Bruce concludes, mere affinities cannot determine the

particular target audience. Besides, all of these elements were present in many Jewish groups

from the first century, not just Qumran. Many of the connections are loose and not strongly

attested in either sectarian literature or the book of Hebrews. There is simply no strong evidence

to suggest that the recipients were ever part of the Qumran community.40 At best, the text

demonstrates that the original readers had strong affinities to sectarian Judaism. The readers

were likely not adherents to the traditional, Hebraic form of worship.41 Nevertheless, finding a

37 J. Daryl Charles “The Angels, Sonship And Birthright In The Letter To The Hebrews,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30, no. 2 (June 1990): 171-78. 38 Decker, 29-30. 39 Bruce, “‘To the Hebrews’ or ‘To the Essenes’,” 219-31. 40 Ibid., 218-19. 41 Black argues that Christian origins came from non-conformist, non-Levitical Judaism such as the Essenes rather than from Pharisaic Judaism in Palestine; Black, 75-88.

13

direct link between the recipients and any particular group requires ignoring the similarities to

other Jewish sects and presses the text beyond verifiable evidence.

Hellenist Jews

The best evidence involves the readers association with the broader, Hellenistic culture.

Lane provides a defense for a Hellenistic Jewish-Christian audience. He comments that the

author not only assumed authority in the Old Testament Scriptures, but he assumed authority

specifically in the Greek Septuagint, which was the main Bible for Jews in the Diaspora.42 Lane

continues to describe literary features that correspond primarily to Hellenistic Judaism. For

instance, the introduction of Hebrews reflects Hellenistic wisdom literature by referencing Jesus

as a royal son, royal priest, and His role in creation, revelation, and redemption. Hellenistic

Judaism also maintained the tradition that angels mediated the Law and placed Moses as a

central figure. All of these elements are assumed true in the book of Hebrews.43

There are, of course, weaknesses to these evidences. It can be argued that these details

merely reflect the background of the author rather than the culture of the recipients. However, as

Ellingworth explains, the author’s background is important to identifying the original readers

because the author makes no attempt to bridge any cultural gaps between himself and his

audience. The author’s background is likely the background of the readers, as well.44 This is

most clearly evident in the author’s lack of elaborating details or clarifying statements regarding

Hellenistic traditions. The author simply assumes the readers share in the same knowledge.45

42 See Scott, Jewish Backgrounds, 133-36. 43 Lane, Hebrews, 47A:liv-lv. 44 Ellingworth, 22. 45 See Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 14-20 and Guthrie, 23-27. Both conclude that the author was a Hellenist preacher.

14

Robert Thurston details the author’s background even more and argues that the author

may have been a convert from “Philonism.” Thurston lists many of the parallels between the

book of Hebrews and the work of Philo, especially Hebrews’ Christology compared to Philo’s

doctrine of the divine Logos. He concludes that the author of Hebrews likely borrowed his

topical studies from Philo, though he did not necessarily borrow exact words, phrases, or

beliefs.46 Bruce also acknowledges that there are more affinities to the words and phrases of

Philo than to the Qumran sect.47 Ronald Nash concludes that even though there are strong

correlations between Hebrews and Alexandrian philosophy, the author had to also correct

Hellenistic ideas held by the readers that did not align with a proper understanding of Christ.48

There are other evidences to support a Hellenistic background, as well. Lane lists

multiple traditions and rhetorical devices utilized mostly by Hellenistic Jews for Hellenistic

audiences. For example, the source material for the homily was primarily the Septuagint version

of the Pentateuch and Psalms. Likewise, the citation style of the Old Testament follows

Hellenistic practices, and there are references to Hellenistic apocalyptic material and wisdom

literature. He concludes, “Hebrews is a carefully constructed homily of the type given in a

Diaspora synagogue.”49 It is also appropriate to recall that Hebrews does not reference the

Jerusalem temple. As Scott points out, Hellenized Jews shared the same disdain for temples as

many of the Greek philosophers. Hellenist Jews often disparaged the notion of a permanent

46 Robert W. Thurston, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Evangelical Quarterly 58, no. 2 (April 1986): 133-36. For a connection between Hebrews and Philo, see Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” 14-15. 47 Bruce, “‘To the Hebrews’ or ‘To the Essenes’,” 218. 48 See Nash’s entire discussion on the similarities and repudiations of Hellenistic thought in Hebrews; Ronald H. Nash, “The Notion Of Mediator In Alexandrian Judaism And The Epistle To The Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (Fall 1977): 89-115. 49 See his entire discussion, Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” 14-15.

15

temple.50 With such strong literary evidence, it is more probable that the readers were Hellenist

Jewish-Christians with personal knowledge of Hellenist traditions, literature, and philosophy.

Historical Situation

The historical circumstances surrounding the original recipients are undoubtedly less

certain than many other contentions. Attempting to identify the exact situation is simply not

possible; interpreters must often rely on speculation and vague details to support their beliefs.

Thus, readers of the book of Hebrews should treat the historical setting as tentative and uncertain

when interpreting the message of the homily.

It is widely recognized that the audience was in danger of experiencing something

negative in the Christian community. The exact details, however, are left to speculation. Tenney

hypothesizes that the original audience was entangled in the religious upheaval produced by the

temple’s destruction in AD 70. Thus, the book of Hebrews reflects the transition from when the

church was predominantly Jewish to when the church began disassociating from Judaism.51

While this suggestion accurately reflects the historical situation of the latter first century,

Tenney’s hypothesis requires a late date for the book of Hebrews. Because a late date cannot be

firmly established, there is no way to verify the accuracy of Tenney’s theory.

Lane has a more elaborate suggestion. He believes Hebrews was written to a house

church in Rome after their persecution under Emperor Claudius in AD 49. During this initial

persecution, the original audience was forced to leave Rome and then return at a later date.

Afterwards, the church members became an easy scapegoat for further mistreatment; thus, the

original audience resorted to practicing Judaism, a legal religion, in order to avoid the 50 Scott, Jewish Backgrounds, 154. 51 Tenney, 232-35.

16

maltreatment toward illegal Christianity.52 Scott also believes the situation involved reverting

back to Jewish rituals. However, he comments that the threat did not directly involve

persecution but spiritual laziness. The audience may have believed that Judaism and Christianity

were the same faith but expressed differently, thereby ignoring the development of salvation

history.53 Decker, on the other hand, suggests that the audience needed encouragement to

maintain faith in Christ. The audience had formerly been persecuted, but it is unclear whether

they were currently experiencing oppression or merely feared future persecution. If future, the

audience may have had to prepare for one of several major historical catastrophes, such as the

siege of Jerusalem or the Neronian persecution (see 1:2; 3:13; 10:25; 12:27).54

While it is appealing to conform the book of Hebrews to the oppressive edicts by Roman

Emperors, there is an unfortunate lack of evidence to verify any one of these scenarios. Nothing

in the text mentions imperial decrees, expulsion, or any other indicators that pinpoint a particular

event. Decker identifies one of the major failings of these types of approaches. He writes,

First, persecution of Christians was widespread (even if sporadic)….in Palestine (Acts 8:1–3), Macedonia (1 Thess 1:6) and Asia Minor (1 Pet 4:12–19). Second, other than the confiscation of property [10:34], the description does not match Claudius’ expulsion order. The text refers to these people as standing their ground, not fleeing the city. It also implies a series of events, probably over an extended period of time [v.33].55 Likewise, these attempts require solidifying a specific destination for the homily. While it is

beyond the scope of this research to produce an in-depth analysis of possible destinations, it is

sufficient to point out that all destination theories rely on unverifiable speculations, as well. In

52 Lane, Hebrews, lxiii-lxvi. See, also, Guthrie, 21-22, 283. 53 J. Julius Scott Jr., “Archēgos In The Salvation History Of The Epistle To The Hebrews,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 1 (March 1986): 48-50. 54 Decker, 23, 37. 55 Ibid., 41-42.

17

the case of Lane’s Roman hypothesis, the only textual evidence appears from the noun “Italy”

(Ἰταλία) in 13:24. Yet, even Lane admits that the most natural rendering of this verse indicates a

mere associated with members living outside of Italy.56 The original audience could have had

Italian associations regardless of their residence. There is simply no way to confidently

determine a specific destination for the book of Hebrews.57

As Thomas Schmidt cautions, “With so few details of background available for the

epistle, it is inadvisable to adduce in support of any theory of Sitz im Leben particular conditions

that cannot be supported by direct reference to the text.”58 He argues that the audience was not

currently experiencing persecution. Instead, the warnings passages of Hebrews should be

interpreted as preventative in nature. He continues to surmise that the primary vulnerability was

the audience’s corporate laziness rather than any outside pressure to apostasize. Though the

danger of apostasy was possible, the more serious threat was the moral lethargy that would

prevent the audience from enduring future persecution. Thus, the author of Hebrews stressed

active obedience rather than attempting to defend against any external problems.59

Dahms has a unique view of the historical situation. He believes the original audience

was not in danger of being spiritually sluggish or regressing back to Judaism. Rather, the danger

was the acceptance of a Christian heresy. As evidence, Dahms notes that the book of Hebrews

56 Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” 16. See, also, Ellingworth, 735-36. 57 Lane admits, “There is, of course, a considerable risk in assigning so definite a social location to the community in the absence of firm evidence from the text or in early Christian tradition. This construction is one that can never be proven,” Hebrews, lviii. Harold W. Attridge comments, “None of the possibilities [regarding destination] has strong support from any internal evidence,” The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 10. 58 Thomas E. Schmidt, “Moral Lethargy and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 54, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 167. 59 Ibid., 167-68, 173.

18

never suggests the audience questioned Jesus’ Messiahship. The original recipients were

genuine Christians because they accepted Jesus without contention (cf. 3:6). Also, the book

references the tabernacle rather than the Jerusalem temple. It never says the readers were trying

to imitate Jewish practices. The recipients remained within the Christian faith; they merely held

improper Christological beliefs that the author tried to correct.60 Charles expresses the same idea

that the audience held an improper view of Jesus by either underappreciating His role in the

Christian life or over exalting other beings (e.g., angles).61 Based on a presumed influence of

Philo on the original readers, Thurston concludes that the audience may have begun to see Jesus

as either an angel (chs. 1-2) or as Moses (3:1-6). The situation was that Philo’s Logos doctrines

infiltrated the Christian community, causing the author to counter these heretical beliefs.62

These scenarios are generally weak because they press only certain verses without

considering the overall development of the warning passages in Hebrews. Dahms neglects the

fact that the author believed only those who persevere are true sharers in Christ (3:14). It is

possible that some of the original readers were not genuine Christians. Guthrie discusses the

conditional statements as they occur throughout Scripture (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:22-23). He

recognizes that some may associate with the Christian community but, over time, may eventually

demonstrate a lack of genuine faith.63 Similarly, Dahms acknowledges that the original readers

strived to avoid persecution (cf. 12:3; 13:13), indicating that the situation was not merely a case

of spiritual laziness.64 As far as ascribing Christological heresy to the original situation, it is

60 Dahms, 365-75. 61 Charles, 171. 62 Thurston, 136-41. 63 Guthrie, 135-37. 64 Dahms, 365.

19

clear that the audience did not have a fully developed understanding of Christ’s role and

supremacy. However, the text does not directly mention that they held abhorrent theology. They

merely lacked the advanced knowledge expected of mature believers (5:11-6:3).

In the end, interpreters must rely on speculation to identify particular historical events.

The text is simply too general to verify the details about the original audience’s situation, as

evidenced by the myriad of interpretations and theories. Harold Attridge summarizes,

Most of the imaginative hypotheses developed to describe the situation of the addressees are in fact scenarios to explain why some people in the congregation addressed were becoming disaffected. As in the issue of authorship, critics want to be able to know more than the evidence allows and want to use that knowledge to guide their perceptions of the author’s literary and theological strategy.65 There are several deductions, however, that interpreters can accurately make about the recipients.

First, the group appeared to suffer from spiritual lethargy, being characterized as “dull,”

“sluggish,” and “weak” (2:3; 5:11; 6:12; 12:12). What caused this laziness is debatable and may

relate to the other two deductions. Second, the readers were likely apprehensive about further

persecution. It is unclear if they were currently experiencing oppression or anticipating future

persecution, but they needed encouragement to maintain a commitment to Christ (3:6; 10:35–39;

12–13). Finally, the audience had an immature understanding about the supremacy of Christ in

salvation history (chs. 1-3; 5:11-14), which was likely a result of their spiritual negligence.66

There are other considerations, as well. It is possible that some members had a fear of

death (2:14-15) and an improper belief about food regulations (13:9). What is certain is that the

audience did, at one time, experience persecution (10:32-34) but not martyrdom (12:4). Despite

earlier expressions of generosity toward other Christians (6:9-11), some stopped participating in

65 Attridge, 12. 66 See Lane, Hebrews, 47A:lvi-lviii, lxi-lxii for details of the recipient’s laxity, apprehension, disheartened mindset, and faltering hope.

20

corporate worship (10:25). Outside these specific textual details, interpreters are left guessing

about the audience’s historical situation.

Conclusion and Message

Assuming the book of Hebrews is a homily written before AD 70, this research reveals

that the original recipients were Hellenist Jewish-Christians who suffered from an arrested

spiritual development, needed encouragement to persevere in their faith, and required instruction

about the role of Christ in salvation history. Identifying a particular historical event to coincide

with these details is futile because the text does not provide enough details for verification.

Thus, while interpreters may prefer different theories involving the original readers, they should

not rely on these hypothetical scenarios to interpret the message of the book.

Instead, the message of the book of Hebrews can only correlate to the most plausible

information about the audience. Being lethargic, immature, and apprehensive, the message of

Hebrews addressed the audience’s need for encouragement. It intended to renew their faith

while growing their spiritual knowledge at the same time. The message focused on the audience

retaining their confession (10:23), their hope (6:18), and their trust in Christ (3:6). The dominant

theme throughout Hebrews is to persevere in faith (cf. 2:1, 3:7-19; 4:1-3, 11-16; 6:1-6, 11-12;

9:28; 10:22-26, 29-32, 35-39; 11; 12:1-16, 25-28; 13:13-15, 22). Thus, the author believed that

his audience faced a serious threat that could challenge their relationship with God. The overall

goal was to recall the person and work of Christ. The book’s message answered this need by

stimulating a response to practice obedience and diligence.67 As Lane summarizes, “Christians

must be prepared for the cost of discipleship, even if that cost extends to martyrdom” (13:13).68

67 See the references listed in Scott, “Archēgos,” 48, Tanner, 58-59, and Charles, 173. 68 Lane, Hebrews, 47A:lvii.

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1961. Blomberg, Craig L. A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. The New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. ________. “‘To the Hebrews’ or ‘To the Essenes’.” New Testament Studies 9, no. 3 (April 1963): 217-32. Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. Charles, J. Daryl. “The Angels, Sonship And Birthright In The Letter To The Hebrews.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30, no. 2 (June 1990): 171-78. Couch, Mal. “Inerrancy: The Book Of Hebrews.” Conservative Theological Journal 5, no. 14 (March 2001): 55-62. Dahms, John V. “The First Readers Of Hebrews.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 4 (December 1977): 365-75. Decker, Rodney J. “The Original Readers of Hebrews.” Journal of Ministry and Theology 3, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 20-49. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary On the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993. Gough, Louis F. “Epistolary Literature of the New Testament.” Ashland Theological Journal 6 (1973): 28-38. Guthrie, George H. The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Baker New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1984.

22

Lane, William L. Hebrews. Vol. 47 A. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1991. ________. “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (Fall 1985): 13-18. Nash, Ronald H. “The Notion Of Mediator In Alexandrian Judaism And The Epistle To The Hebrews.” Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (Fall 1977): 89-115. Sandegren, C. “The Addressees of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Evangelical Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1955): 221-24. Schmidt, Thomas E. “Moral Lethargy and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Westminster Theological Journal 54, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 167-73. Scott, J. Julius Jr. “Archēgos In The Salvation History Of The Epistle To The Hebrews.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 1 (March 1986): 48-54. ________. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1995. Tanner, J. Paul. “For Whom Does Hebrews 10:26-31 Teach A “Punishment Worse Than Death”?” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 19, no. 37 (Autumn 2006): 57-77. Tenney, Merrill C. “A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews.” Bibliotheca Sacra 123, no. 491 (July 1966): 230-36. Thurston, Robert W. “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Evangelical Quarterly 58, no. 2 (April 1986): 133-43. Westcott, Brook Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Notes and Essays on the Greek Text. 1903. 3d ed. Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament. Reprint, London: MacMillan, 1909.