SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
TYPES IN HEBREWS
CHAPTER 2
OTHER
TESTIMONY
"GOD, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the
prophets
spake unto us in His Son."
Does the "us" here refer to us
Christians of the Gentile dispensation? The question is not whether the Epistle
has a voice for us; "Every student of Hebrews must feel that it deals in a
peculiar degree with the thoughts and trials of our own time,"1 but what was
the meaning which they to whom it was primarily addressed were intended to put
upon the words. The opening verses are an undivided sentence; and as "the
fathers" were Israel, we may assume with confidence that the "us" must be
similarly construed. There was no "us" in the Apostle Pauls references to
the revelation with which he was entrusted as Apostle to the Gentiles. "My
Gospel" he calls it. And again, "that Gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles." It was the precious charge, "the good deposit" (Timothy 2:1-4)2
which, in view of his passing from his labours to his rest, he very specially
committed to his most trusted fellow-worker. But much as he "magnified his
office" as Apostle to the Gentiles, he never forgot, and never ceased to boast,
that he was an Israelite. And he had a special ministry to the covenant people.
To them it was that he first addressed himself in every place he visited
throughout the whole circuit of his recorded labours.3 Even in Rome, although
his relations with the Christians there were so close and so tender, his first
care was to call together "the chief of the Jews." And, assuming the Pauline
authorship of Hebrews, the book was the work, not of "the Apostle to the
Gentiles," but of Paul the Messianic witness to Israel - "our beloved brother
Paul," as "the Apostle to the Circumcision" designates him with reference
(ex hypothesi) to this very Epistle. This lends a special significance
to the tense of the verbs in the opening sentence. "God, having spoken to the
fathers in the prophets, spake to us in the Son." In the one case as in the
other the reference is to a past and completed revelation. It is not the
distinctively Christian revelation which was still in course of promulgation in
the Epistles to Gentile churches, but the revelation of the Messiah in His
earthly ministry - that ministry in respect of which He Himself declared "I am
not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." For, as the inspired
Apostle wrote,
"Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of
God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might
glorify God for His mercy." (Romans 15:8-9)
Promises for Israel, but mercy
for those who were
"strangers to the covenants of promise." (Ephesians
2:12)
These words may remind us of the distinction already noticed between
the Judaism of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Judaism of the Pharisees. Using
the word "religion" in its classical acceptation, the religion of the
Pentateuch is the only divine religion the world has ever known; for in that
sense Christianity is not a religion, but a revelation and a faith. The little
company of spiritual Israelites who became the first disciples of Christ
accepted Him because He was the realization and fulfillment of that divine
religion. But the religion of the nominal Jew was as false as is the religion
of the nominal Christian. And while "the Jews' religion," which rejected
Christ, is denounced in the Apostle Pauls ministry toward Judaisers, the
divine religion which pointed to Christ is unfolded in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.
"That gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." These words are
usually read with a false emphasis. It is not "the gospel which I preach,"4 as
contrasted with the preaching of the other Apostles, but "the gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles," as contrasted with his own preaching to Israel. And
the contrast will be clear to any one who will compare his epistles to Gentile
churches with his sermon to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia. (Acts 13:16-41)
There was not a word in that sermon which might not have been spoken by any Jew
who had embraced the faith of Christ at or after Pentecost. It is based
entirely on the history, and the promises and hopes, of Israel, and upon the
coming and work of Christ as recorded in the Gospels - the salvation, as
Hebrews expresses it, "confirmed unto us by them that heard Him." Writing as an
Israelite to Israelites, the words of (Hebrews 2:2) are just what we should
expect from the Apostle Paul. They are the precise counterpart of his words
recorded in (Acts 13:26-33). And if the one passage be proof that he could not
have been the author of Hebrews, the other is equal proof that he could not
have been the preacher at Antioch.5
We thus see that what appeared to be a
fatal bar to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews admits of a solution which is
both simple and adequate. And we can understand why the Apostle did not declare
himself in the opening words, according to his usual practice. For the writer,
I again repeat, was not "the Apostle to the Gentiles," but Paul "of the stock
of Israel," "a Hebrew of the Hebrews." To describe the book as "anonymous" is a
sheer blunder; for the concluding chapter gives the clearest proof that the
writer was well known to those whom he was addressing.
Due weight has never
been given to this fact in estimating the value of the general testimony of the
Greek Fathers that the writer was the Apostle Paul. To attribute equal value to
the statements of certain Latin Fathers of a later date betrays ignorance of
the science of evidence. The testimony of the earlier Fathers, moreover, is
confirmed in the most striking way by the explicit statement of 2 Peter 2:3-15,
that Paul did in fact write an Epistle to Hebrews. And if this be not that
Epistle, what and where can it be? But this is not all. Writers without number
have noticed the striking fact that the book is a treatise rather than an
epistle. This is met, however, by pointing to the strictly epistolary character
of the closing chapter. But may not the twenty-second verse of that chapter
afford the solution of this seeming paradox? "Bear with the word of
exhortation, for I have written unto you in few words."6 Apart, from the
authorship controversy no one would venture to suggest that this could refer to
the book as a whole. Even in these days of typewriters, such an ending to a
letter of some 8000 words would be worthy of a silly schoolgirl! To common men
the suggestion will seem reasonable that Chap. 13 is "a covering letter,"
written to accompany the treatise. And if that letter stood alone no one but a
professional skeptic would question that it emanated from the Apostle Paul.
For, in every word of it, as Delitzsch so truly says, "we seem to hear St. Paul
himself and no one else."
Unless therefore such a conclusion is barred on
the grounds already indicated, the presumption is irresistible that the author
of the letter was the author of the book:. And if the solution here offered of
the doctrinal peculiarities of Hebrews be deemed adequate, the whole question
becomes narrowed to a single issue. It is an issue, moreover, which cannot be
left to the decision of Greek scholars as such. For even if they were agreed,
which they are not, we should insist on its being considered on more general
grounds. Will any student of literature maintain that so great a master of the
literary art as the Apostle Paul might not, in penning a treatise such as
Hebrews, display peculiarities and elegancies of style which do not appear in
his epistolary writings?
Some people might object that this remark ignores
the divine inspiration of the Epistle, which is the one question of essential
importance, the question of the human authorship being entirely subordinate.
But if the objectors estimate of inspiration be of that kind which
eliminates the element of human authorship, cadit quoestio. If, on the
other hand, that element be recognized, it is easy to conjecture circumstances
which would account for any peculiarities of style. Here, however, I should
repeat, scholars differ. The following is the testimony of one of our most
eminent Greek scholars: "After a study of the Greek language as diligent, and
an acquaintance with its writers of every age, as extensive probably as any
person at least of my own country now living, I must maintain my decided
opinion that the Greek is, except as regards the structure of sentences, not so
decidedly superior to the Greek of St. Paul as to make it even improbable that
the Epistle was written by him."7
Any one who is accustomed to deal with
the evidence of witnesses would here consider whether circumstances may not
have existed to account for "the structure of sentences" in the Epistle, and
for the occasional use of words not found in the Apostles other writings.
Let us suppose, for example, that Hebrews was written with "the beloved
physician" by his side, either in "his own hired house" during his Roman
imprisonment, (Acts 28:30) or in the house of some Italian Christian after his
release, may he not have accepted literary suggestions from his companion? No
"theory of inspiration" is adequate which does not assume Divine guidance in
the very terminology of Scripture. But God makes use of means. When he fed
Elijah, He used the birds of the air. And when the Lord fed the multitudes, He
did not "command the stones to become bread," as the Devil suggested in the
Temptation, but utilized the disciples little store, utterly
insignificant though it was. And no devout mind need refuse the suggestion that
as the Apostle read (or possibly dictated) Hebrews to his companion, the
Evangelist would suggest that this sentence or that might be made more forcible
by transposing its clauses, or that some other word would more fitly express
the Apostles meaning than that which he had employed. It is, as Bengel
declares, "with the general consent of antiquity" that the authorship of
Hebrews is attributed to the Apostle Paul. And the only other witness I will
here call is another eminent German expositor, whose great erudition is but one
element in his competence to deal with this question. Franz Delitzschs
words are always weighty; but the value of his testimony to the Pauline
authorship is all the greater because he ranks with those by whom the Epistle
is attributed to the Evangelist. In the introduction to his Commentary he
writes as follows: -
"We seem at first to have a treatise before us, but
the special hortatory references interwoven with the most discursive and
dogmatic portions of the work soon show us that it is really a kind of sermon
addressed to some particular and well-known auditory; while at the close the
homiletic form (the Paraclesis) changes into that of an epistle (Ch. 13:22).
The epistle has no apostolic name attached to it, while it produces throughout
the impression of the presence of the original and creative force of the
apostolic spirit. And if written by an Apostle, who could have been its author
but St. Paul? True, till towards the end it does not make the impression upon
us of being of his authorship; its form is not Pauline, and the thoughts,
though never un-Pauline, yet often go beyond the Pauline type of doctrine as
made known to us in the other epistles, and even where this is not the case
they seem to be peculiarly placed and applied; but towards the close, when the
epistle takes the epistolary form, we seem to hear St. Paul himself, and no one
else.8
Chapter Three
Literature | Photos | Links | Home