V. DESTINATION.
The letter is described in all existing copies as addressed 'to Hebrews'; and TertulJian, who assigned the authorship to Barnabas, gave it the same destination (de Pudic. 20 Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos). There is, as has been already seen (§ III.), no evidence that it ever bore any other address. Though there is no reason to suppose that the title is original, it expresses at least the belief of those by those by whom the Epistle was placed among the apostolic Scriptures, and describes truly the character of those for whom it was written, so far as their character can be determined from its general scope, as men who by birth and life were devoted to the institutions of Israel.
The argument of von Soden (Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884), who endeavours to shew that it was written to Gentiles, cannot be regarded as more than an ingenious paradox by any one who regards the general teaching of the Epistle in connexion with the forms of thought in the apostolic age.
The term Hebraios (or rather Ebraios) occurs in the N. T. in two senses
(a) of language:
Acts vi. 1 ton Helleniston pros tous Hebraious.
(b) of descent:
2 Cor. xi. 22 Ebraipi eisin;..Israeleitai eisin;...sperma Abraam eisin;...
Phil. iii. 5 Hebr. ex Hebraion. The title properly describes' the people from beyond the river Euphrates'; and is the national name of the race having regard to the divine call In this widest sense Eusebius speaks of Philo as Hebraios: E. E. ii. 4 to genos anekathen Hebraios en. Comp. E. E. iii. 4.
The two other names by which Jews are styled in the N. T., Ioudaios and Israeleites, have each their distinct meaning.
Ioudaios is the name of the people as forming a religious commonwealth; and is used of the people especially after the Return (1 Cor. i. 22 ff.; Apoc. ii. 9).
Hence in the Gospel of St John 'the Jews' (ohi Ioudaioi) is the common title for those who stood apart from Christ and represented the nation from the side of unbelief.
Israeleites is the name of special privilege.
In connexion with Israeleites the phrases ohi huioi Israel (c. xi. 22 note), ho laos Israel, Israel (Rom. ix. 6) ho Israel (John i. 31 note), ho Israel tou theou (Gal. vi. 16), must be studied. See also sperma Abraam ii. 16 (note).
In itself the title 'Hebrew' is not local but national. It describes a quality of race and not of dwelling. We have to inquire therefore whether the Epistle enables us to define this wide term more exactly.
At once we find that the book contains numerous indications of the circumstances and character of those to whom it was written.
There is no trace of any admixture of heathen converts among them; nor does the letter touch on any of the topics of heathen controversy (not xiii. 9, see note). It is therefore scarcely possible that it could have been written to a mixed Church generally, or to the Jewish section of a mixed church. In either case allusions to the relations of Jew and Gentile could scarcely have been avoided.
They were a small body (v. 12), and they were addressed separately from 'their leaders' (xiii. 24). At the same time they were in a position to be generous, and for this trait they were and had been distinguished (vi. 10).
Their special trials came through disappointment of their first expectations. They had failed to grow under the discipline of experience, and so had degenerated: v. 11 f. (nothroi gegonate); vi. 1; x. 25.
The widening breach between the Church and the Synagogue rendered it necessary at last to make choice between them, and 'the Hebrews' were in danger of apostasy: ii. 1, 3; iii. 6, 12 ff.; iv. 1, 3, 11; vi. 6; x. 25, 29, 39. They had need therefore of effort and patience: iv. 14; vi. 11 f.; x. 23, 36; xii. 1, 3 ff., 12 ff.
In earlier days they had borne reproach and hardships: x. 32 ff.; still they 'had not yet resisted unto blood': xii. 3 ff.; though some at least 'in bonds' claimed their sympathy and help: xiii. 3; and perhaps their former 'leaders' had suffered even to martyrdom: xiii. 7.
From these individual traits it is clear that the letter is addressed to a definite Society and not to 'Hebrew' Christians generally. This is proved yet more directly by the feet that the writer hoped to visit them (xiii. 23) as he had been with them before (xiii. 19). At the same time, though he spoke of them as 'brethren' (iii. 1 note) and 'beloved' (vi. 9, note), he does not speak of them as 'children' (tekna).
The living picture of the character and position of this definite and marked Society will repay careful study (v. 11 ff.; vi. 9 ff.; x. 32 ff.; xii. 3 ff.); and whatever obscurity may hang over its local position, its spiritual features stand out with vivid clearness. We have in the Epistle to the Hebrews a picture of early Christian life such as is drawn in detail nowhere else (compare 3 John), and which still, as we must see, represents a necessary phase in the growth of the Church. The first enthusiasm and the first hope had, as we shall notice later, passed away. Believers began to reckon loss and gain. Some were inclined to overrate the loss; and we learn elsewhere that dark clouds hung over the close of the apostolic age. Compare 2 Tim. i. 15; Apoc. ii. iii.; 2 Pet. iii. 1 ff.; 1 John ii. 18 ff.
We might have expected it to be otherwise, and we do in fact unconsciously clothe the first centuries in light But in this Letter the reality of imperfection meets us; and in the very sadness of the portraiture we feel with fresh forpse that Christianity is historical, entering into life and subject to the common influences of life.
And more than this: we learn from this Epistle that the early difficulties of Churches were not dealt with tentatively, as if the truth were the result of the free conflict of thought. The false view was met at once by the corresponding lesson. Error called out the decisive teaching but it had no part in creating it.
The phase of feeling traced in the Epistle has been spoken of as a necessary one in the development of Christian life. It is not difficult to see how this was so. Those who suffered in the trial were Jews; and the narrative of the Acts shews plainly with what loyal devotion the first believers from among the Jews observed the Law. Even at a later date St Paul before the Sanhedrin claimed to be a true Jew. For a time this fellowship of the Church and Synagogue was allowed on both sides. Little by little the growth of the Gentile element in the Church excited the active hostility of the Jews against the whole body of Christians, as it troubled the Jewish converts themselves. This hostility could not fail to be intensified in Palestine by the spread of aggressive nationalism there shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish war (comp. Jos. de B. J. ii. 23, 29 ff.; iv. 11 ff.); and it is not unlikely that the solemn cursing of the heretics (Minim) in the Synagogues. which became an established custom after the fall of Jerusalem (Weber Altsynag. Theol. 147 f.), may have begun from that time (comp. Just M. Dial. 16 and Otto's note; Epiph. Haer. xxix. 9, i. p. 124).
Meanwhile the Jewish converts had had ample time for realising slowly the true relations of Christianity and Judaism. Devotion to Levitical ritual was no longer innocent, if it obscured the characteristic teaching of the Gospel. The position which rightly belonged to young and immature Christians was unsuited to those who ought to have reached the fulness of truth (v. 11 ff.). Men who won praise for their faith and constancy at the beginning of a generation which was emphatically a period of transition! might well deserve blame and stand in peril of apostasy, if at the end of it they simply remained where they had been at first When as yet the national unbelief of the Jews was undeclared, it was not possible to foresee that the coming of Christ would bring the overthrow of the old order. The approaching catastrophe was not realised in the earlier apostolic writings. In the Epistle to the Hebrews it is shewn to be imminent. In the Gospel and Epistles of St John it is, as it were, lost in the fulness of the life of the Church.
The very remarkable account which Hegesippus has given of the death of James the Just (c. 63 a.d.), the brother of the Lord, preferred by Eusebius (H. E. ii. 23), supplies, with all its strange and exaggerated details, a commentary both on the Jewish feeling towards Christians and on the Christian feeling towards Jews in Jerusalem about this time.
We can see then generally what was the character of the body to whom the letter was addressed. Where can we look for such a body. Some have found it in the 'Hebrew» Christians of Asia Minor generally, or in some special congregation of Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy or Africa, and more particularly at Antioch or Rome or Alexandria. Lately the opinion that the letter was addressed to the Roman Church has found considerable favour. But the dominant conception of the Old Testament Institutions as centering in sacrificial and priestly ordinances seems to be fatal to all these theories which are not supported by any direct evidence, for no conclusion can be fairly drawn as to the original destination of the Epistle from the fact that Clement of Rome was acquainted with it. Such a view, unlike that of the observance of special days or meats, must be generally dependent in a large measure upon local circumstances of a narrow range. It is possible indeed that special circumstances with which we are unacquainted may have influenced the feelings of a small society, and there was in fact a 'Synagogue of Hebrews' at Rome (Schürer Gesch. d. Jüd. Volkes....ii. 517 sunagoge Aibreon), but we naturally look, if there is nothing to determine our search otherwise, to some place where Judaism would present itself with practical force under this aspect.
In this way our choice is limited to Egypt, with the Temple at Leontopolis, and to Palestine, with the Temple at Jerusalem. Nowhere else would the images of sacrifice and intercession be constantly before the eye of a Jew.
There is very little evidence to shew that the Temple at Leontopolis exercised the same power over the Alexandrian Jews as that at Jerusalem exercised over the Palestinian Jews and the Jews generally. Even in Egypt the Temple at Jerusalem was recognised as the true centre of worship. Nor is there the least ground for thinking that any of the divergences in the Epistle from the details of the Temple ceremonial coincide with peculiarities in the service at Leontopolis. On the contrary, the furniture of the Temple at Jerusalem was more like that of the Tabernacle, which is described in the Epistle, than was that of the Egyptian Temple. But on the other hand it is certain that the kind of feeling which the Epistle is designed to meet must have been powerful at Jerusalem and in its neighbourhood. The close connexion of the early Church with the Temple, the splendour and venerable majesty of the ritual, could not fail to make the thought of severance from Judaism most grievous to those who had hitherto been able to share in its noblest services according to the custom of their youth.
Nor is it a serious objection to this conclusion that the Temple is nowhere mentioned in the Epistle and that the ritual details are those of the Tabernacle and not those of the second Temple. The readers were influenced by the actual form in which the Mosaic ordinances were embodied. The writer, perhaps from his external circumstances or more probably in order to lay his reasoning on its deepest foundation, goes back to the first institution of the system. He shews how the original design of the priestly ritual of the Law, and therefore of necessity of all partial and specific embodiments of it, was satisfied by Christ The Temple service, with all its peculiarities, finally drew its sanction from the Law. The ritual of the Tabernacle was the divine type of which the ritual of the Temple was the authoritative representation. And according to the popular tradition it was believed that 'the tabernacle' and its furniture, which had been removed by Jeremiah from the first Temple before its destruction, would in due time be restored (2 Macc. ii. 4 ff. and Grimm's notes).
And further it must be added that the Temple, like the Kingdom with which it was coordinate, was spiritually a sign of retrogression. It was an endeavour to give fixity to that which was essentially provisional. And thus the writer of the Epistle, by going back to the fundamental legislation, significantly indicates that the Mosaic Law first found accomplishment in Christ and not in that outward Levitical system in which it seemed superficially to receive its perfect embodiment.
It is then most reasonable from general considerations to find the Society to whom the letter was addressed in Jerusalem, or in the probably neighbourhood of Jerusalem.
In accordance with this view it may be added that Eusebius speaks on another authority (ex engraphon) of the Church of Jerusalem up to the time of the revolt under Hadrian as having 'been wholly composed of Hebrews' (sunestanai ten pasan ekklesian ex Ebraion piston H.E. iv. 5; comp. vi. 14). Up to the same date all the bishops were 'of the circumcision' (l.c.).
So also in the Clementine Homilies (xi. 35)'James that is called brother of the Lord' is said to be 'entrusted with the administration of the Church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem' (pepisteumenos en Ierousalem ten Hebraion diepein ekklesian), and 'the letter of Clement' prefixed to the same work is addressed to 'James the Lord and bishop of bishops, who administers the holy Church of Hebrews in Jerusalem' (dieponti ten en Irouslem hagian Hebraion ekklesian).
It may therefore be fairly concluded that when the title pros Hebraious was added to the Epistle, it was an expression of the belief that the letter was addressed to the Church of Jerusalem or some sister Church in Palestine dependent upon it.
In this restricted sense the title might perhaps be original, though this supposition is, as has been seen, otherwise unlikely. Compare the title to kath' Hebraious euangeliov.
The conclusion which has been reached is not beyond doubt, but it satisfies the conditions of the problem most simply. It is indeed possible that exceptional circumstances, which it is impossible for us now to determine, may have given occasion to the letter. It is, for example, quite conceivable, as has been already admitted, that a society of 'Hebrews' at Rome may have been led to develop the sacrificial theory of Judaism and to insist upon it and so to call out 'the word of exhortation.' Such conjectures, however, need not detain us. It is well to recognise how little we can determine by the help of the data at present available. That which is beyond doubt, that which indeed alone concerns us, is the spiritual character of the readers of the Epistle. This we can definitely grasp wherever it may have been developed. And it is unquestionable that it would be likely — most likely — to be developed in Palestine.
W. Grimm has discussed in considerable detail (Zeitschrift f. wissensch. Theol. 1870, 19 ff.) the claims of Rome, Jerusalem, and Alexandria to be considered as the place to which the Epistle was directed. He decides against all, and suggests Jamnia. It is better however to acquiesce in simply recognising the conditions which the place must satisfy.
VI. DATE.
The The date of the Epistle is fixed within narrow limits by its written contents. A generation of Christians had already passed away (xiii. 7; iii. 3). There had been space for great changes in religious feeling (x. 32) and for religious growth (v. 11 f.).
On the other hand the Levitical service is spoken of as still continued (viii. 4 f.; ix. 6, 9; x. 1 ff.; xiii. 10 ff.); and, even if the references to its present continuance could be explained away (comp. Just. Decl. 117; Orig. c. Cels. v. 25), it is inconceivable that such a national calamity as the Jewish war should be unnoticed if it had already broken out, and still more, if it had been decided. Indeed the prospect of exclusion from the privileges of the old service is the very essence of the trial of 'the Hebrews'; and the severity of the trial k in itself a decisive proof of the influence which the Temple ritual exercised at the time.
The letter may then be placed in the critical interval between a.d. 64, the government of Gessius Florus, and 67, the commencement of the Jewish War, and most probably just before the breaking of the storm in the latter year, as the writer speaks of the visible signs of the approach of 'the day' (x. 25; comp. viii. 13 engus aphanismou); and indicates the likelihood of severer trials for the Church (xii. 4 oupo, xiii. 13 f.).
In order to place the Epistle in its historical setting it may be added that Nero was in Greece at the time, endeavouring to enter into the old spirit of Greek art; Apollonius of Tyana was teaching at Rome. The fire at Rome, which first brought the Christians into popular notice, took place in a. d. 64, and St Paul was martyred in the next year.
This general conclusion can hardly be questioned if the significance of the Fall of Jerusalem is realised. That catastrophe was not relieved, as the Babylonian overthrow had been, by any promise of restoration. To the Christians it was the fulfilment of the Lord's final judgment, the sign of His coming. No event in such a connexion could mark more distinctly the close of the old Dispensation; and no one who sympathised with the best hopes of Israel could have failed to leave some trace of the effect of the visitation in his argument, when the tragic event was not only fresh in his memory but also had a close connexion with his theme.
The theories which assign the Epistle to a later date, after the persecution of Domitian, or in the time of Trajan, seem to be utterly irreconcilable with the conditions and scope of the writing.