The Letter to the Hebrews is one of the riddles of the New Testament. It is a genuine letter and
not a theological treatise, because there are several personal references in the text that indicate
that the author is actually writing to a specific group of people, and not writing for a general audience. In addition, the Letter to the Hebrews has a conclusion, standard for the epistolary form
used at that time (13:22-25). But, unlike other letters in the New Testament, it does not have an
introduction, which would serve to identify the author and the intended readers; it simply begins
with the main body of the letter.
1. Who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews?
1.1. Internal Evidence
Because there is no salutation to the letter, there is no internal, direct evidence for authorship.
Any conclusion for authorship must derive from internal, indirect evidence.
1.1.1. What can be inferred about the author from Heb 2:3?
1.1.2. In Heb 13:23, the author says that he and his readers were acquainted with Timothy: “Take
notice that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you.”
In addition, the author had some connection with “those from Italy” (13:24). The former datum
may be relevant since not everyone had an association with Timothy, but the latter datum is not
much use in determining the identity of the author, since the identity of “those from Italy” is un-
known. In addition, whether “those from Italy” were in Italy or were somewhere else at the time
of the writing is unknown. Thus one cannot definitely conclude that the author was in Italy at the
time of writing.
1.1.3. The use of the masculine participial form (diêgoumenon) implies the author is a man (Heb
11:32). Of course this does not narrow down the possibilities much.
1.1.4. As will be explained below, the church has sometimes attributed the Letter to the Hebrews
to Paul, but the internal evidence supporting such an attribution is weak.
A. There are a few, loose literary parallels between the Letter to the Hebrews and Paul’s letters.
See Appendix H: Parallels between Hebrews and Paul’s Letters.
There is also an extended loose parallel between Heb 3:7-19; 12:18-25 and 1 Cor 10:1-11.
Both texts draw typological parallels between their respective readers and the experience of the
generation of the exodus. There is no enough in common between the two texts, however, to justify the hypothesis of a common author.
Heb 3:7-19; 12:18-25
7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if
you will hear His voice, 8 Do not harden your
hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of trial in
the wilderness, 9 where your fathers tested Me,
tried Me, and saw My works forty years. 10
Therefore I was angry with that generation, and
said, “They always go astray in their heart, and
they have not known My ways.’ 11 So I swore in
My wrath, “They shall not enter My rest.”‘ 12
Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an
evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while
it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened
through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have
become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,
15 while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His
voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” 16 For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led
by Moses? 17 Now with whom was He angry
forty years? Was it not with those who sinned,
whose corpses fell in the wilderness? 18 And to
whom did He swear that they would not enter
His rest, but to those who did not obey? 19 So
we see that they could not enter in because of
Heb 12:18-25
18 For you have not come to the mountain that
may be touched and that burned with fire, and
to blackness and darkness and tempest, 19 and
1 Cor 10:1-11
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be
unaware that all our fathers were under the
cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were
baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank
the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them, and that
Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God
was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should
not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7
And do not become idolaters as were some of
them. As it is written, “The people sat down to
eat and drink, and rose up to play.” 8 Nor let us
commit sexual immorality, as some of them did,
and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor
let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor
complain, as some of them also complained, and
were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all
these things happened to them as examples, and
they were written for our admonition, upon
whom the ends of the ages have come.
Introducing the New Testament
the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words,
so that those who heard it begged that the word
should not be spoken to them anymore. 20 (For
they could not endure what was commanded:
“And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow.”
21 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses
said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”)
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the
city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the
general assembly and church of the firstborn
who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge
of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24
to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and
to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better
things than that of Abel. 25 See that you do not
refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth,
much more shall we not escape if we turn away
from Him who speaks from heaven.
Why do these few loose literary parallels not support the conclusion of Pauline authorship for the
Letter to the Hebrews?
B. As already indicated, in Heb 2:3 the author includes himself with the readers as among those
who were dependent upon the testimony of the original eyewitnesses and transmitters of authoritative traditions about Jesus. But Paul did not see himself as dependent upon human intermediaries, which suggests that he is not the author (Gal 1:1, 12; Eph 3:2-4). This conclusion is consistent
with the fact that the author nowhere in the letter claims to be an apostle or to have ecclesiastical
authority over the readers, unlike Paul (see Phil 2:12; 2 Thess 3:4; Philemon 21). In fact, again
unlike Paul, the author only once refers to himself in the first person (10:32).
C. Much of the imagery used in the Letter to the Hebrews is unique, not to be found in any of
Paul’s letters: “to drift away” (2:1); “house” of God (3:2); “to mix faith and with what is heard”
(4:2); “rest for the people of God” (4:9); the word of God as a “two-edged sword” (4:12); being
“naked and exposed to view to his [God’s] eyes” (4:13); “to lay a foundation of repentance from
dead works” (6:1); “to crucify again” (6:6); land as either fruitful or barren (6:7-8); hope as an
“anchor” (6:19); seeing the promises “from afar” (11:13); covenant as “growing old” (8:13); “a
living way” (10:20); hearts “sprinkled” from an evil conscience (10:22); suffering as the “discipline” of a heavenly father (12:7-11); spiritual “lameness” (12:13); “city of the living God”
(12:22); “festal gathering” (12:22). What does this suggest about the authorship of the Letter to
the Hebrews?
D. The vocabulary and style of the Letter to the Hebrews are different from those found in Paul’s
letters. Because of Paul’s practice of using amanuenses, it is precarious to argue non-Pauline authorship based on the vocabulary and style of a given letter, for differences in style and vocabulary between one letter and another may be due to the contributions of different amanuenses. (In
the case of Paul, the definition of author must be expanded to allow for the contribution of amanuenses.) What can be said, however, is that, since they are unlike any of Paul’s extant letters, the
vocabulary and style of the Letter to the Hebrews provide no basis by which to conclude that Paul
was its author. The Letter to the Hebrews most closely resembles the style and vocabulary of the
Luke’s writings, as Clement of Alexandria noticed, but not so much as to suspect Lukan authorship of the former.
1. Vocabulary
The Letter to the Hebrews has 154 hapaxlegomena, words that are found in it but nowhere else in
the New Testament. To have so many hapaxlegomena is significant but, given the length of the
Letter to the Hebrews and the uniqueness of its subject matter, does not ineluctably point to nonPauline authorship. Romans has 113 and 1 Corinthians ninety-nine hapaxlegomena, which are
fewer than Hebrews has, but not disproportionately so, especially considering that twenty of the
hapaxlegomena in Hebrews are found in citations of the LXX. (Only the Pastoral Letters have a
greater number of hapaxlegomena relative to their length.)
Frequently-used words in Paul’s writings that are also found in the Letter to the Hebrews include:
hagiasmos (holiness); apolutrôsis (“release”; “redemption”); epaggelia (“promise”); epouranios
(“heavenly”); metanoia (“repentance”); suneidêsis (“conscience”); aggelos (“angel”); aiôn
(“age”); hamartanô (“to sin”); hamartia (“sin”); hamartôlos (“sinful”); gê (“earth”); eirêrê
(“peace”); elpis (“hope”); elpizô (“to hope”); ergon (“work”); hêgeomai (“to lead”); kardia
(“heart”); katargeô (“nullify,” “abolish”); klêronomeô (“to inherit”); klêronomia (“inheritance”);
klêronomos (“heir”); martureô (“to witness”); martus (“witness”); menô (“to remain”); peirazô
(“to test”); peirasmos (“testing”; “trial”); sôtêria (“salvation”); huios [of Christ] (“son”). This
shared vocabulary, however, is not enough to support the conclusion that Paul wrote the Letter to
the Hebrews, because there are also many differences in vocabulary that are unexplained on the
Introducing the New Testament
hypothesis of Pauline authorship. Now it is true that the unique subject matter of the Letter to the
Hebrews could be responsible for the existence of its hapaxlegomena and the absence of certain
Pauline words and phrases not needed to express that unique subject matter. Nonetheless, there
are some words and phrases that are either found in Paul’s letters but unexpectedly absent from
Hebrews or present in Hebrews but surprising not found in Paul’s letters. For example, the frequently used Pauline phrase “Christ Jesus” does not occur in Hebrews, whereas the use of the
absolute use of the term “son” to refer to Jesus in Hebrews (1:2; 5:8; 7:28) is foreign to Paul’s
letters. (More frequently than in Paul’s letters, in the Letter to the Hebrews, Jesus is referred to
simply as “Jesus,” with no accompanying title.) Similarly, in Hebrews God is never referred to
simply as “father,” except in a quotation from Ps 2:7 (1:5) and in the phrase “father of spirits”
(12:9), whereas Paul frequently refers to God as “father.” The term euaggelion (“gospel”) never
occurs in Hebrews, unlike its many occurrences in Paul’s letters. The same is true of the distinctively Pauline words such as apokalupsis (“revelation”) and apokaluptô (“to reveal”), gnôsis
(“knowledge”), mustêrion (“mystery”), plêroô (“to fulfil”), dikaioô (“to declare righteous”),
phroneô (“to think”), to name a few. Conversely, the Letter to the Hebrews has words that do not
occur in Paul’s writings or occur infrequently as compared to the former: to hagion (“the sanctuary”), kreittôn (“better”) teleioô (“to perfect”), hiereus and archiereus (“priest” and “High
Priest”). More examples could be cited.
2. Style
As Origen pointed out, the style of the Letter to the Hebrews is more literarily polished and therefore is “better Greek in the framing of its diction” (sunthesei tês lexeôs ‘Ellênikôtera) than Paul’s
letters and does not have Paul’s typical “awkwardness of speech” (to en logô idiôtikon). Unlike
Paul, the author of Hebrews makes copious use of complicated participial constructions. Also, his
use of particles is different from Paul’s. A particle is a part of speech, such as a preposition or
conjunction, which functions to connect other parts of speech; an author’s use of them tends to
constitute a stylistic distinctive independent of the particular subject matter of a text. The author
of the Letter to the Hebrews uses the particle hothen (“whence,” “for this reason”) six times
(2:17; 3:1; 7:25; 8:3; 9:18; 11:19), whereas the same particle does not occur in Paul’s letters. The
same is true of the particles eanper (if indeed) (3:14; 6:3). The particle mêpote (“lest”) occurs
four times in Hebrews (2:1; 3:12; 4:1; 9:17) but only in 2 Tim 2:25. On the other hand, many of
Paul’s frequently used particles or combinations of particles do not occur at all in Hebrews, such
as arti (“now”), ge (“even,” “at least”), êdê (“now,” “already”), epeidê (“when,” “since”), pote
(“once”), eite (“if”), eige (“if indeed”), ei tis (if anyone), ei de kai (“but if,” “if even”), ektos ei
mê (“unless”), mê pôs (“lest”), mêketi (“no longer”), nai (“yes”), dioper (“therefore”), men oun
(“so then”), eiper (“if indeed”), sun (“with”).
Also, typically Pauline rhetorical expressions are absent from the Letter to the Hebrews: ti
oun; (“What then?”), ti gar (“What therefore?”), all’ erei tis... (“But someone will say...”), ti oun
epoumen; (“What shall we say?”), epeis oun (“So you say”), mê genoito (“May it never be”), ara
oun (“So therefore”), ouk oidate; (Do you not know?), touto de phêmi (“But I say this”). The author of Hebrews, however, has his own unique rhetorical devices: “About this we have much to
say” (Heb 5:11); “Now the point of what we are saying is this” (Heb 8:1); “What more shall I
say? Time would fail me” (Heb 11:32). He also uses the literary technique of alliteration in Heb
11:28: pistei prpoiêken to pascha kai tên prosuchusin tou haimatos (“By faith he kept the Passo-
ver and the sprinkling of blood”). In addition, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews introduces
his quotations from the Old Testament with the formula “The Holy Spirit says” (legei to pneuma
to hagion) (3:7) or “He [God] says” (legei) (1:6, 7; 5:6; 8:5, 10), whereas Paul introduces his quotations by the formulas “It has been written” (gegraptai) or “The scripture says” (legei hê graphê).
Finally, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews scatters his exhortation sections throughout the
letter, whereas Paul tends to keep doctrinal and exhortation sections separate, placing the latter at
the end of his letters before the conclusion. These stylistic differences detract from the hypothesis
that Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, or at least someone else had a hand in its composition.
E. Whereas fewer than half of the Old Testament quotations in Paul’s letters are from the LXX,
all quotations from the Old Testament in the Letter to the Hebrews with the exception of Heb
10:30 are from the LXX. Why does this datum support the view that Paul did not write the Letter
to the Hebrews?
F. Another indicator of non-Pauline authorship is the different exegetical use made of Hab 2:4
(see 10:37-38; Rom 1:17 / Gal 3:11). While it is not impossible, it seems improbable that an author would use an Old Testament text in two different ways. This is even more true of Paul because he interprets Hab 2:4 in the same way in two different letters, so that this Old Testament
text seems to have the status of programmatic text for him. The same could also be said the use of
2 Sam 7:14 by both authors (Heb 1:5 / 2 Cor 6:18).
G. There are some theological commonalties between Paul’s letters and the Letter to the Hebrews, but these tend to be too general to be significant. Both Christ the Son as the pre-existent
agent of creation (see Col 1:16 and Heb 1:2) and the idea of the new covenant occur in both (see
1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14; Gal 4:24 and Heb 8-10). Also both agree that with the death and resurrection of Christ the Law has been abrogated, but each makes a different application of this. In
fact, there are more differences in theological emphasis between the Letter to the Hebrews and
Paul’s letters than there are commonalties. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews makes extensive use of typology relating to the tabernacle, the Day of Atonement and the high priesthood,
which is absent from Paul’s letters. Unlike Paul, he interprets Jesus as a High Priest according to
the order of Melchizedek who enters the heavenly sanctuary to offer his own blood as an atoning
sacrifice. Absent from Paul’s letters also is the idea of perfection or to perfect as applied both to
Jesus and believers, so prevalent in Hebrews (Paul’s use of “to be perfected” in Phil 3:12 is not
quite the same as that found in Hebrews, since it refers to eschatological perfection.) Likewise,
unlike many of Paul’s letters, there is no interest in the Letter to the Hebrews in addressing the
question of how a person is declared righteous (dikaioô and dikaiosunê), the status of the Law
and its relation to being declared righteous or how faith and works relate to each other. In fact, in
Hebrews, the term “righteousness” (dikaiosunê) is used in an ethical sense not Paul’s forensic
Introducing the New Testament
sense. As already indicated, the author uses Hab 2:3-4 to make a different theological point as
compared to Paul (Heb 10:37-38; Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17). (The phrase in Heb 11:7 “the righteousness according to faith” does not have a Pauline meaning.) Unlike Paul, the Letter to the Hebrews
says nothing about gentiles and the church, nor is the uniquely Pauline distinction between the
Spirit and flesh to be found in the letter. Paul’s idea of spiritual union with Christ expressed by
the phrase “in Christ” (or a synonym) does not occur in Hebrews. Now some of the omissions of
typical Pauline theological ideas may be attributable to the intended readership and purpose but
probably not all, given the length of the Letter to the Hebrews. Thus, these data suggest that Paul
did not write the Letter to the Hebrews.
1.2. External Evidence
Given the indeterminate nature of the internal evidence concerning the authorship of the Letter to
the Hebrews, it is necessary to turn to the external, direct evidence.
1.2.1. Eusebius records the following information about the views of Clement of Alexandria on
the composition of the Letter to the Hebrews (in the latter’s Hypotyposeis), who seems to be dependent on Pantaenus (died c. 190): “As for the Epistle to the Hebrews, he [Clement] says that
indeed it is Paul’s, but that it was written for Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke, having carefully translated it, published it for the Greeks; hence, as a result of this translation, the
same complexion of style is found in this Epistle and in the Acts: but that the [words] ‘Paul an
apostle’ were naturally not prefixed. For, he says, ‘in writing to Hebrews who had conceived a
prejudice against him and were suspicious of him, he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name’” (H.E. 6.14.2-3). Clement quotes from the Letter to the Hebrews in his
own writings, sometimes attributing the text to Paul (Strom. 5.10.62; 6.8.62). How did Clement of
Alexandria explain the non-Pauline character of the Greek style of the Letter to the Hebrews and
the absence of any salutation?
Eusebius then quotes Clement’s statement about the elder Pantaenus’ view of the authorship of
Hebrews: “But now as the blessed elder used to say [Pantaenus], since the Lord, being the apostle
of the Almighty was sent to the Hebrews, Paul through modesty, since he had been sent to the
gentiles, does not inscribe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, both to give deference to the
Lord and because he wrote to the Hebrews also out his abundance, being a preacher and apostle
of the gentiles” (H.E. 6.14.4). Why, according to the elder Pantaenus, did Paul not identify himself as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews?
1.2.2. In the third century in the eastern church, Origen, also from Alexandria, in his Homilies, as
quoted by Eusebius (H.E. 6. 25. 11-14) wrote: “That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews’ has not the apostle’s awkwardness of speech, who confessed himself
awkward in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the
other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable and not inferior to the acknowledged
writings of the apostle, to this everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading
the apostle....But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts
are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teaching and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore,
holds this epistle to be Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the
men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.” How did
Origen explain the composition of the Letter to the Hebrews? Which other possibilities for its
authorship had he heard?
In another of his works, Origen attributes fourteen letters to Paul (Seventh Homily on Joshua, PG
12.857) and in other texts introduces a quotation from Hebrews with “The apostle says” (Commentary on John 1.20) and “Paul says” (De Prin. 1.5.1).
Since the third century, beginning with Clement of Alexandria and Pantaenus, the eastern
church in general has accepted Pauline authorship of the letter. Origen gives evidence that many
in the eastern church accepted the Pauline authorship of the letter: “For not without reason have
the men of old handed it down as Paul’s” (H.E. 6. 25. 13). Eusebius, representing the position of
the eastern church writes in the fifth century: “And the fourteen letters of Paul are obvious and
plain” (H.E. 3.3.4). Yet he also concedes that this judgment is not universally held, in particular
by the church in Rome: “Yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the Letter to the Hebrews,
saying that it was rejected by the church at Rome as not being by Paul” (H.E. 3.3.4).
Introducing the New Testament
1.2.3. In the Latin or western church, the situation is somewhat different. Eusebius reported that
in the western church the Letter to the Hebrews was not universally accepted as being written by
Paul. Early evidence for the rejection of Pauline authorship comes from a certain Gaius (c. 200);
Eusebius referred to a work called Dialogue of Gaius, in which the author mentioned only thirteen letters of Paul, excluding the Letter to the Hebrews. Eusebius concluded, “Seeing that even
to this day among the Romans there are some who do not consider it to be the apostle’s (H.E.
6.20.3). Also, Tertullian held that the letter was not written by Paul, but by Barnabas; he mentioned this only once in his writings (de pudic. 20). This is not to say that the authority and canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews was rejected in the western church, for its influence is clearly
evident upon Clement of Rome, who wrote his two letters as early as the late first century (1
Clem. 36.2-5 = Heb 1:3-4; 1 Clem. 36.1, 12 = Heb 2:18; 3:1; 1 Clem. 19.2 = Heb 12:1-2; 1 Clem.
21.9 = Heb 4:12. Subsequent writers from the Western church also bear the influence of the Letter to the Hebrews.
1.2.4. What contribution does the external evidence make in the determination of the authorship
of the Letter to the Hebrews?
1.3. From all the evidence considered, what do you conclude about the authorship of the Letter to
the Hebrews?
2. To whom was the Letter to the Hebrews written?
Because there is no salutation, there is no internal, direct evidence for the intended readership.
Most commentators agree that the intended readers are Christians, whom the author urges not to
apostatize (see Heb 2:1, 3; 3:6, 12-19; 4:1, 3, 11; 6:6; 10:29, 39). The fact that the title “To the
Hebrews” (pros Hebraious) is attached to the letter in the oldest manuscripts (p46, ℵ, A, B), however, means at least that the early church believed that the intended readers were Jews. The Greek
term Hebraios was commonly used to denote Jews in contrast to gentiles. It is also used in to distinguish Palestinian Jewish believers from their Hellenistic counterparts (Acts 6:1; 2 Cor 11:22;
Phil 3:5), but this does not seem to be the meaning in the title “To the Hebrews.” Rather the term
means Jewish Christians generally (Tertullian gave the letter the same designation, although he
attributed it to Barnabas: Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos [de pudic. 20].)
2.1. Internal Evidence
A partial identification of the intended readers can be made from an examination of the internal,
indirect evidence.
2.1.1. History of the Readers
What do the following passages imply about the history of the intended readers that might serve
to identify them further?
A. Heb 10:32-34; 12:3-13
It is possible, however, that the persecutions to which the author refers are not otherwise found in
the historical sources, unlike, for example, the persecution of the church by Herod Agrippa I (see
Introducing the New Testament
Acts 12), Nero and Domitian. It is even conceivable that the persecution of the readers is the result of the rise of an aggressive and uncompromising Jewish nationalism about this time, which
eventually led to the Jewish war with Rome (War 2.457-80; Justin, Dial. Tryph. 16; Epiph., Haer.
B. Heb 5:11-14; 6:9-10; 10:32; 13:19-23
2.1.2. Group within a Group
The intended readers could be a part of a larger group. The author distinguishes the readers from
their “leaders” and “the rest of the saints” (Heb 13:24); the implication is that the readers are a
sub-group of the church in the city where they reside. What distinguishes them from their leaders
and other believers presumably are the issues dealt with in the letter. The author may view the
readers as the potential leadership of the larger Christian community to which they belong (Heb
5:12; 10:25). But the readers have not reached their potential as teachers (Heb 5:12), and have
separated themselves off from those they should have been teaching (Heb 10:25).
2.1.3. “Those from Italy”
Since the author sends greetings from “those from Italy” (hoi apo tês Italias) (Heb 13:24). What
might this imply about the identity of the intended readers?
It should be noted that the phrase hoi apo tês Italias could also mean “those in Italy,” in the sense
of those who reside in Italy, as opposed to designating place of origin, in which case the author
would be writing from Italy and the readers would be elsewhere.
2.1.4. Readers as Greek-Speaking
The author wrote to the intended readers in Greek, which means naturally that they were Greekspeaking, and perhaps only spoke Greek, as opposed to Aramaic the vernacular of Palestine. The
assertion of Clement of Alexandria that the Letter to the Hebrews was originally written “for Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke, having carefully translated it” seems to be mere supposition, unsupported by the evidence. That the Letter to the Hebrews was originally written in
Greek is suggested by the fact that the vast majority of Old Testament quotations in the work are
taken from the Septuagint (LXX) even when the LXX differs from the Hebrew text (see the exception in Heb 10:30). Of the thirty-eight quotations from twenty-two Old Testament passages,
only six do not agree with LXXA or LXXB. (How to explain these six discrepant passages is a
problem for the exegete.) To argue that the translator of the alleged original Hebrew or Aramaic
text simply used the LXX version of Old Testament when translating the letter into Greek, however, does not seem possible, because, in some cases, the author’s argument depends upon the
LXX reading, on “peculiarities of the LXX” (e.g., Heb 1:10-12; 10:5-10; 12:26-27). Examples
In Heb 1:10-12, the author quotes LXX Ps 101[102]:25-27 to reinforce the point that the
son reigns. In Ps 102, the Lord (Yahweh) is being addressed, but the author applies this to
the son. He can do so apparently at vs. 22 (LXX 101:23) the author understands that the
psalmist’s monologue to end and an answer given by the Lord to begin. LXX 101:24 begins with “And he answered to him” [apekrithê autô]). The Hebrew word used in the MT
that is translated in the LXX as “he answered” can mean both “to answer” and “to bend
down, be wretched”; in the MT the meaning is the latter, given the context. But the author prefers the LXX reading, which allows him to conclude that, if he is speaking from
102:24 (LXX 101:24) onwards, God could not be speaking to the psalmist, but to a third
party. This is because what God says about his interlocutor in 102:25-27 (the portion
quoted in Hebrews) is scarcely appropriate to be said to a human being. The new addressee would have to be someone like God, i.e., the son.
In Heb 2:7, the MT Hebrew text of Ps 8:6 has “He made him a little less than the angels,”
whereas the same passage in the LXX reads “He made him for a little time less than the
angels,” which the author uses to explain to his readers the necessity of the temporary
humiliation of the son.
Introducing the New Testament
The MT Hebrew text of Hab 2:4a differs from the LXX and the LXX version quoted by
the author: “See he is puffed up; his soul is not upright” instead of the LXX “And if he
shrinks back I [my soul] will not be pleased in him.” The author’s argument depends upon the LXX version insofar as he appeals to his readers to persevere. His point is that
Christ will come and that only those who have waited patiently for him and have not
shrunk back by abandoning their faith will be found pleasing.
In Heb 10:5-10, according to the author, the Messiah, when he comes into the world, says
to God that God does not desire sacrifices, but a body he has prepared for him. In this
context, the author quotes from LXX Ps 40:6-8. The LXX version differs, however, from
the MT Hebrew text, for the latter has “Ears you have cut for me.” The LXX version obviously is indispensable to the author’s argument.
The author’s eschatological interpretation of Haggai 2:5 depends upon the LXX version;
in particular, the phrase in LXX Haggai 2:5 “once again” allows the author to find the
prediction of a future, eschatological shaking.
In addition, the argument about the necessary connection between the ratification of a covenant
and death in Heb 9:16-17 depends upon the dual meaning of the Greek diathêkê: “covenant” and
“last will.” The fact that the author’s argument only works in Greek, insofar as he depends on the
dual meaning of diathêkê (covenant and last will), which is not possible if he were writing in Hebrew or Aramaic, confirms that the original language of composition was Greek.
It should be stressed that being Greek-speaking does not necessarily exclude a Palestinian
readership, because there were Greek-speaking Jews who lived in Jerusalem, as witnessed by the
existence of Greek-speaking synagogues in the city (Acts 6:9). Such Jews would no doubt have
been immigrants to Palestine from the Greek world (In the case of the synagogue in Acts 6:9,
they came from Cyrenaica, Cilicia Asia and the city of Alexandria.) Thus it is possible that the
author was wrote to Hellenistic Jews living in Jerusalem.
2.1.5. Readers as Jewish
In addition to the general conclusions above, it seems further that from the contents of the letter
the intended readers were Jewish. The most obvious reason for concluding this is the fact that, in
the author’s opinion, the readers are in danger of reverting to participation in the Levitical sacrificial system, which would only be possible for Jews. The author intends to forestall such an apostasy by explaining to them the full salvation-theological significance of Christ’s death and resurrection/exaltation. Moreover, the inclusion of ritual purifications (“baptisms”) as part of the theological “foundation” of the readers certainly implies that they are Jewish believers.
Since the intended readers were probably a sub-group of a particular church, it is possible that
what distinguishes them from the “the rest of the saints” (13:24) is the fact that they are Jewish
Christians, which means that the latter are gentile converts. This is only a hypothesis, however.
2.1.6. Readers in or near Jerusalem
The fact that the author attempts to convince his readers not to revert to participation in the
Levitical sacrificial system implies that they are in or near Jerusalem because Jews farther away
from the Temple would not have the same opportunity to take part in the Temple cult. (Only
when they visited the city would they, but this could be very infrequent.)
2.2. External Evidence
There is no reliable external evidence by which to determine the intended readership of the letter.
2.2.1. It may be noteworthy that the term “Hebrew” (Hebraios) in the New Testament seems to
have the meaning of a Palestinian Jew or a Jew with Palestinian roots, as opposed to a diasporan
or Hellenistic Jew (Acts 6:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5). Similarly, Eusebius says that the church in
Jerusalem was exclusively composed “of Hebrews” (ex Hebraiôn) (H.E. 4.5.2), and in the Clementine Homilies, James is said to be the one “to whom was entrusted to administer the church of
the Hebrews in Jerusalem (en Ierousalêm tên Ebraiôn...ekklêsian). The fact that the early church
gave the letter the title “To the Hebrews” as early as the early third century (p46) is evidence that
the intended readers was the Jerusalem church or at least churches in Palestine. This argument,
however, is weak.
2.2.2. As already indicated, Clement of Alexandria believed that the intended readers of the Letter
to the Hebrews were Jews (“Hebrews”). Eusebius wrote about Clement’s view that “As for the
Epistle to the is Paul’s, but that it was written for Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue,”
and quoted Clement as follows: “In writing to Hebrews who had conceived a prejudice against
him [Paul] and were suspicious of him, he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name” (H.E. 6.14.2-3). What were Clement of Alexandria’s views about the intended
readers? How trustworthy do you think Clement’s testimony is?
3. When was the Letter to the Hebrews written?
3.1. Internal Evidence
3.1.1. It is clear that some time has passed between the conversion of the intended readers and the
composition of the Letter to the Hebrews: the readers are exhorted not to forsake their Christian
confession (Heb 3:12), told that they have become dull of hearing and should be teachers by now
Introducing the New Testament
(Heb 5:11-12) and it is said of them that they have ceased meeting together (Heb 10:25). The intended readers have a history of service to their co-religionists (Heb 6:10; 10), and have suffered
persecution for their faith in the past (10:32-34). How much time has passed, however, between
their conversion and when the author sent his letter to them is impossible to determine. Likewise,
when they became believers in Christ is not known.
3.1.2. Timothy is referred to as being alive at the time of the writing of the letter (Heb 13:23).
According to a fourth century source called Acts of Timothy (Acta S. Timothei), which may or
may not be correct, Timothy died in 97. If this tradition is true, then the Letter to the Hebrews
must have been written before Timothy died in 97. But this is not a significant finding, since all
the New Testament writings were written before then.
3.1.3. There are reasons to believe that the Jerusalem Temple was still standing when the Letter to
the Hebrews was written, which would mean that it was written before 70.
Nothing is said about the destruction of the Temple when it would have been to the advantage of
the author to do so. (By contrast, in Letter of Barnabas 16, the author did use the fact of the Temple’s destruction as part of his argument that the Levitical sacrificial system was obsolete.) In particular, what the author writes in Heb 10:2-3 implies that the Temple has not yet been destroyed:
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of things,
can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who
draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having
once been cleansed, would no longer have had a consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there
is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away
If the Levitical sacrifices have ceased at the time that the author writes his letter one would expect
that he would have made use of this fact in support of his argument. He no doubt would have said
something to the effect that the fact that the sacrifices have ceased proves that they were ineffective, for otherwise God would not have allowed their cessation. Moreover, his statement in Heb
8:13 that the fact that God has called the new covenant “new” “has made the first one obsolete
and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” implies that participation in the Temple cult
is still possible. If the Temple has already been destroyed, the author would probably have written
that the old covenant “has disappeared,” not “will soon disappear,” since the Temple was so central to the Mosaic covenant.
B. The author refers to the tabernacle and its operations in the present tense: Heb 7:8; 8:3-5; 9:67, 8-9, 13; 10:1-3; 13:10 (see also 9:25; 10:11-12). The use of the present tense may imply that
the Temple is still in existence at the time of writing, thereby placing the date of the Letter to the
Hebrews before 70. In other words, when he writes of the tabernacle in the present tense, the author is really referring to the Temple. This argument is convincing, however, only when one assumes that the author does in fact mean to refer to the Temple when he describes the tabernacle.
On this basis it is argued that the reason that he uses the tabernacle in his argument is because the
Old Testament never gives instructions for the building of a Temple, but the design of every
Temple that was built, including that of Herod, is based on the instructions given for the construc-
tion of the tabernacle. Yet, it must be stressed that the present tense in Greek does not always or
necessarily refer to the present time, for the use of the “historical present” is common in Greek.
There are examples of authors writing after the destruction of the Temple who use the present
tense in describing the Temple and its operations (see 1 Clem. 41; Diogm. 3). Similarly, when
describing the tabernacle and its furnishings (Ant. 3.102-50) as well as the vestments of the high
priest (Ant. 3.151-87), Josephus alternates between the past and the present tenses. In addition,
the author may use the tabernacle simply because he seeks to give a biblical basis to his argument, and this may imply nothing about whether the Temple is still in existence or not.
C. The option to return to the Levitical sacrificial system, the undesirability of which the author
attempts to convince his readers, would not have been available to Jewish Christians after 70. After that date, the status of the Temple and the Levitical sacrificial system could not longer be a
live issue. This implies that the Temple was still standing when the Letter to the Hebrews was
D. The manner in which the author speaks of Jerusalem in Heb 13:14 implies that the city has not
yet been destroyed by the Romans: “For we do not have here an enduring city but we seek one
that is to come.” Such a statement would be difficult to make if there was no longer any “earthly”
Jerusalem, because what is implied is that the city that does not endure nevertheless still exists for
the time being at least. If he were writing after 70, the author would probably have said that
something to the effect that the now-destroyed Jerusalem was certainly not an enduring city,
proof of which is the fact of its destruction, but “we are looking for the city that is to come.”
What does the probability that the Jerusalem Temple was still standing when the Letter to the Hebrews was written imply about the date of the composition of the Letter to the Hebrews?
3.2. External Evidence
Clement of Rome, writing c. 95, made clear allusions to the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 11:7 and
1 Clement 9:4; 12:1; Heb 1:3-4 and 1 Clement 36:1-2). What does this imply about the terminus
ad quem of the composition of the Letter to the Hebrews?
Introducing the New Testament
3.3. What do you conclude about the date of the composition of the Letter to the Hebrews?
4. Where was the Letter to the Hebrews written?
It is impossible to determine place of origin of the Letter to the Hebrews. The only clue is found
in Heb 13:24, where the author sends greetings to the intended readers from “the ones from Italy”
(hoi apo tês Italias). What may this verse indicate about where the letter was written?
5. What is the Letter to the Hebrews?
5.1. Religious-Historical Background of the Letter
Until the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was generally accepted that the religioushistorical background of the Letter to the Hebrews was some form of Hellenistic Judaism influenced by the Platonic distinction between the ideal or spiritual and the material realms. The fact
that the author writes in Greek and uses the LXX as his scriptures would seem to support this hypothesis or, at least, gives no support to the hypothesis that the intended readers were Palestinian
Jews. Not surprisingly, scholars sought affinities between the Letter to the Hebrews and the writings of Philo of Alexandria, who was viewed religious-historically as closest to the author and his
readers, since Philo was a Jew. The goal was to use Philo’s writings to supply the background to
the theological concepts of the Letter to the Hebrews. (For this reason, the author and the readers
were sometimes identified as being Alexandrian Jewish Christians.)
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has necessitated a fundamental shift in the approach to
the interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Religious terminology in the letter once thought to
express concepts adapted from Hellenistic Judaism were discovered to exist in these Palestinian
Jewish texts from the second-Temple period; thus in many cases it was no longer necessary and
indeed actually misleading to interpret the author’s assertions exclusively against a Hellenistic
religious-historical background, and especially Jewish adaptations of Platonism. The strong eschatological thread that runs through is thoroughly consistent with Palestinian Jewish thought, as
represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such an interest in salvation-history militates against an interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews in exclusively Platonic terms. This is not so say that the
author never made use of Hellenistic Jewish ideas, but only that his basic orientation is not Hellenistic, if spite of writing in Greek. (Although he does occasionally use concepts and terms from
Hellenistic Judaism, the author gives no evidence of a direct dependence on the works of Philo of
Alexandria. It is possible to reconstruct the views of the readers by negating the clearly polemical
statements of the author (a method known as “mirror reading”). Most of the reconstructed points
have parallels in the one of more of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems more probable that the Letter
to the Hebrews should be interpreted against the conceptual world of Palestinian Judaism, especially as it finds expression in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This means that the intended readers, whose
erroneous views on various matters the author attempts to correct, should be understood as
Greek-speaking Jewish Christians who were largely non-Hellenistic in their theological outlook.
5.2. Literary Structure of the Letter
In the Letter to the Hebrews, the smaller literary units, which could be called paragraphs, and
some larger units composed of these paragraphs are easily identifiable; there are few scholarly
disputes about this. The general theme—the superiority of the person and work of the Son—is
likewise not in dispute, nor is the fact that the Letter to the Hebrews is consists of a mixture of
discourse and exhortation. What is not so obvious, however, is the overall structure of the book,
how all the smaller literary units and the few larger units are related to one another. Attempts
have been made to analyze the Letter to the Hebrews according to its surface structure (form) and
its deep or semantic structure (contents). But unanimous agreement so far has eluded New Testament scholars. It seems that no proposed literary structure is able completely to account for all
the data.
All attempts to determine the structure of the Letter to the Hebrews presuppose that there is
an over-arching literary structure that is clearly-identifiable literary structure. This is probably not
true. In other words, the Letter to the Hebrews may simply be a collection of thematically-related
paragraphs and a few larger literary units. Put positively, one could say that there are numerous,
mutually-compatible literary structures. Not only is there room for both surface structure and
deep structure analyses, but also different versions of each. Organizing the smaller units of Hebrews is different ways may serve to illuminate aspects of meaning of the letter, and may be
complementary to one another. But to insist on one literary structure as the “intended” or correct
one may lead to a skewing of meaning. It is best to extract from the letter the theological ideas
without regard for its larger literary structure.
A. 1:1-13:17: This represents the main body of the letter
1. 1:1-3: The author argues that the revelation through the son is superior to the older revelation.
He says about the son that he is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of God’s
being. Having made purification for sin, the son sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high,
becoming much superior to angels.
Introducing the New Testament
2. 1:4-14: The author attempts to prove that the Son’s is superior to angels. To this end, he shows
that what is said to or about the son in the scriptures is superior to what is said to or about angels
(Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; Deut 32:43; Ps 104:4; Ps 45:6-7; Ps 102:25-27; Ps 110:1).
3. 2:1-4: The author exhorts his readers not to neglect such a great salvation.
4. 2:5-9: Exegeting Ps 8:4-6, the author affirms that God has placed all things under Jesus’ feet,
unlike the angels. Jesus for a time was made lower than the angels, but is now crowned with glory
and honor because he suffered death; by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone.
5. 2:10-18: The author says that God made Jesus, the author of salvation, perfect in suffering. He
adds that Jesus is not ashamed to call those who are made holy brothers, quoting Ps 22:22; Isa
8:17; Isa 8:18. Jesus shared in their humanity in order to destroy the devil, who has the power of
death, and to become a merciful and faithful high priest, making an atonement for sins. Because
Jesus suffered when tempted, he can help those who are being tempted.
6. 3:1-6: The author argues that Jesus is superior to Moses, being over the house rather than a
servant in the house.
7. 3:7-4:11: The author exhorts his readers not to yield to unbelief, using the generation of the
exodus as an illustration that punishment follows unbelief; to this end he quotes Ps 95:7-11. He
points out that only the one who holds firmly to the end has come to share in Christ. The author
also exhorts his readers to be sure to enter the rest that the wilderness generation was unable to
because of unbelief. This rest is the same as the Sabbath rest into which God entered after creating the world (Gen 2:2), and remains open for them to enter.
8. 4:12-13: The author compares the word of God to a sharp sword, and adds that nothing is hidden from God, before whom the author and his readers must stand and give an account.
9. 4:14-16: Based on the fact of Jesus’ high priestly ministry, the author exhorts his readers to
hold fast to their faith. Jesus as high priest can sympathize with their weaknesses, because he was
tempted in every way, but without sin.
10. 5:1-10: The author describes Jesus’ high priesthood, claiming that God has appointed him
high priest (Ps 2:7; Ps 110:4). Jesus learned obedience as a son from what he suffered, and being
made perfect, is now the source of eternal life. He is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
11. 5:1-6:12: The author exhorts and warns his readers about the dangers of apostasy and spiritual
a. 5:11-14: The author exhorts readers not to remain spiritually immature.
b. 6:1-8: The author warns that there can be no restoration for those who apostasy, because they
are crucifying the son of God again and subjecting him to public shame.
c. 6:9-12: The author exhorts readers to persevere in faith and patience in order to inherit what
has been promised.
12. 6:13-20a: The author explains that the steadfastness of God’s promise and the hope that believers have are confirmed by the fact that God swore an oath by himself. The hope is the salvation that Jesus the great high priest accomplishes.
13. 6:20b-7:28: The author develops further the ideas that Jesus’ high priesthood is of the order of
Melchizedek and is superior.
a. 6:20b: The author makes the general statement that Jesus is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek
b. 7:1-3: The author gives information about Melchizedek, the king and priest. He says that Melchizedek was without parents and genealogy; like the son of God he remains a priest forever.
c. 7:4-10: The author describes the greatness of Melchizedek is described in comparison to Abraham. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek and received a blessing from him, the inferior from the superior. In a sense, it was Levi who did these things, because Levi was in the loins of Abraham.
d. 7:11-19: The author argues that the Levitical priesthood is imperfect and another priesthood in
the order of Melchizedek, not Aaron, is required to be established. Proof of this is Ps 110:4, in
which God appoints Jesus a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. A change in
priesthood, however, means a change in law (Torah).
e. 7:20-22: The author says that Jesus’ priesthood is superior because it was established by an
oath (Ps 110:4); Jesus becomes the guarantee of a better covenant.
f. 7:23-25: The author adds that Jesus’ priesthood is superior because it is permanent, for he never
dies, unlike the Levitical high priests.
g. 7:26-28: The author then says that Jesus’ priesthood is superior because he is holy and does not
need to offer sacrifices for himself, unlike the Levitical priesthood.
14. 8:1-6a: The author affirms that Jesus as high priest serves at the heavenly tabernacle, the true
one, of which the earthly one is a copy. Proof that there is a heavenly tabernacle is found in Exod
25:40). Thus, Jesus’ ministry is superior to that of the Levitical priesthood.
15. 8:6b-13: The author adds that Jesus’ is the mediator of a new covenant, founded on better
promises, which is better than the old covenant (Jer 31:31-34); new implies that the old is obsolete.
Introducing the New Testament
16. 9:1-14: The author says that the regulations for worship under the old covenant were ineffectual; the fact that priests repeatedly offered sacrifices and year after year the high priest was required to make sacrifices on the Day of Atonement indicated that these sacrifices were not able to
cleanse the conscience. Jesus’ ministry as high priest, however, offering his own blood at the
heavenly tabernacle is effective.
17. 9:15-20: The author affirms that, through his high priestly work, Jesus has become a mediator
of a new covenant. Covenants are instituted through blood, both the old covenant and the new
covenant, through Jesus’ own blood. Jesus died as a ransom to release those who sinned under the
first covenant.
18. 9:21-28: The author argues that, in the same way that blood is required in the earthly sanctuary for cleansing and forgiveness, so Jesus entered the heavenly sanctuary to offer his own blood
as sacrifice for sin. He will appear a second time to bring salvation to those who are expecting
19. 10:1-18: The author describes Jesus’ once and for all sacrifice.
a. 10:1-4: The repeated sacrifices of the Levitical system cannot make the offerer perfect; it is
impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
b. 10:5-14: Using Ps 40:6-8, the author argues that Jesus came to offer himself once and for all as
a sacrifice for sin. By one sacrifice Jesus makes perfect those who are being made holy. When
Jesus made his sacrifice he sat down at the right hand of God, where he waits for his enemies to
be made his footstool.
c. 10:15-18: Quoting Jer 31 again, the author says that Jesus’ death established the new covenant,
bringing forgiveness. Where there is forgiveness there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
20. 10:19-23: The author admonishes his readers, being cleansed of conscience and having their
bodies washed with pure water, to approach God through the blood of Jesus, the new and living
way opened up through the curtain, that is, Jesus’ body. He also encourages them to hold fast to
21. 10:24-25: The author also exhorts his readers to spur one another to good deeds and not to
give up meeting together.
22. 10:26-31: The author warns that continual and deliberate sin will not be forgiven.
23. 10:32-39: The author admonishes his readers to persevere in their persecution in light of their
previously successful endurance. He quotes Hab 2:3-4 to make the point that God is pleased only
with those who do not shrink back.
24. 11:1-12:1: The author gives numerous examples of faith--meaning hopeful belief resulting in
perseverance--from history as encouragement to his readers to persevere.
25. 12:2-3: As an example of perseverance, the author exhorts readers to look to Jesus, who endured opposition from sinful men.
26. 12:4-11: The author encourages his readers to bear their present suffering as the discipline of
God. To this end he cites Prov 3:11-12: God is disciplining them as beloved sons. Their discipline
will produce a harvest of righteousness and peace.
27. 12:12-17: The author gives various exhortations to persevere and to avoid sin.
28. 12:18-24: The author expresses again the superiority of the new covenant mediated by Jesus;
Mt. Sinai and Mt Zion are symbolically contrasted as representatives of the two covenants.
29. 12:25: The author warns his readers not to refuse God who speaks to them, because they will
fall under the judgment of God.
30. 12:26-29: The author speaks of God’s promise to shake the earth once again (Hag 2:6), which
he interprets as the removal of all created things; afterwards an unshakable kingdom will appear.
31. 13:1-17: The author gives various moral and practical instructions to his readers.
B. 13:18-25: This represents the conclusion of the letter, including a request for prayer, a benediction, and greetings.
6. Why was the Letter to the Hebrews written?
6.1. What does Heb 13:22 imply about the author’s intentions in writing? (“Word of exhortation”
is the term used in Acts 13:15 for the homily given in the synagogue after the reading of the
6.2. From the fact that the author constantly warned his Jewish readers against apostasy, what was
his purpose in writing his “word of exhortation”?
Introducing the New Testament
6.3. In order to convince his readers of the undesirability of returning to a participation in the
Levitical sacrificial system, the author must correct their misunderstanding of the salvationhistorical significance of Christ. To do so required a refutation of those theological views that are
incompatible with his assumption of the salvation-historical supremacy of Christ. Although he
does not explicitly state the views that he is refuting, on the assumption that he is indeed refuting
such views, one can reconstruct those deficient views that the readers held or were inclined to
hold by negating the author’s own affirmations (the so-called method of “mirror-reading”). These
views may relate to the salvation-historical role of angels, including Melchizedek, the nature of
work of the Davidic Messiah and the expectation of a priestly Messiah, the Davidic Messiah’s
status relative to Moses, the Levitical priesthood and its connection to the angelic priesthood and
whether the Law is eternal. The views that the readers probably held or were moving towards are
consistent with Second-Temple Judaism. It must be kept in mind, however, that the author argues
extensively from typology. In typological interpretation a person, place, thing or event in the Old
Testament is used to foreshadow an eschatological reality to which it is analogically or functionally similar. Unless the author’s typological approach is appreciated, the interpreter may wrongly
assume that the author is making literal statements about the salvation-historical significance of