By any standard, it is one of the most impressive works in the NT. Consciously rhetorical, carefully constructed, skillfully written in quality Greek, and passionately appreciative of Christ, Hebrews offers an exceptional number of unforgettable ideas that have shaped later Christianity.

Yet in other respects, the epistle to the Hebrews is an enigma. Our treatment of the Pauline letters usually begins with a subsection entitled Context, based on the information contained in the respective letter about the author, place, circumstances and recipients. Yet Hebrews tells us virtually nothing specific about any of these matters, and almost all of our information about context must come from an analysis of the argument the author is making.

1. General Analysis of the Message
   1. Introduction: 1: 1-3

      In the eschatological context of the last days, this introduction immediately affirms the superiority of Christ over all that has gone before in Israel. The main contrast is between two divine revelations: one through the prophets and the other through a pre-existent Son through whom God created the world and who now speaks to us. The description, in language that could be taken from a hymn, shows that the author interprets Christ against the backdrop of the representation of divine Wisdom in the OT. Just as Wisdom is the outpouring of God's glory, the unblemished mirror of God's power to do all things (Wisd 7:25-27), so the Son of God is the reflection of God's glory and the imprint of God's being, sustaining the universe with his word of power (Heb 1:3). However, beyond the model of Wisdom, the Son is a real person who has accomplished the cleansing of sins; and this accomplishment is intimately linked to the fact that the Son has taken his place at the right hand of the Majesty.

   2. Superiority of Jesus as God's Son: 1: 4 - 4: 13

      This extraordinarily "elevated" Christology is now translated into the superiority of the Son over the angels and over Moses.

      1. Superiority over angels: 1, 4 - 2, 18

         This superiority is expressed in a chain or catenary of seven OT quotations in 1:5-14 that correspond to the designations of the Son in the introductory description of 1:1-3. The super-gospel status of Christ as Son is indeed a sublime exaltation, if we remember that in the Jewish heritage angels were "sons of God", that in the Dead Sea Scrolls two angels who were respectively the spirits of truth and falsehood dominated all humanity, and that angels were the mediators of the Law. The text of Heb 1:8-9 is particularly significant: using the words of Ps 45:7-8, the author asks God to address words to Jesus that have never been addressed to an angel: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever... Therefore (O) God, your God has anointed you with the oil of joy" - one of the important texts in the NT where Jesus is called God. In the NT era, there was a danger of placing angels above Christ, but we must be careful before assuming that such an error was circulating among the recipients of Hebrews. To affirm Jesus' exalted status, superiority over angels may have seemed to the author an obvious illustration.

         As is often the case in Hebrews, the descriptive (doctrinal) part leads to a moral exhortation (2:1-4): If the message of the Law declared by the angels was valid, how can we escape if we neglect the great salvation declared by the Lord Jesus and "attested by those who have heard him"? We find introduced in 2:5-18 a perspective that colors Hebrews' Christology, namely the combination of humility and exaltation. Drawing on Ps 8:5-7, the author emphasizes that the Son of God, who for a time was lowered to the level of the angels, now has everything under his control. To a community discouraged by trials, the author presents Christ as God's plan for humanity: not exaltation without suffering, but exaltation through suffering. If the exaltation of the Son of God was soteriological, it was not about saving angels. On the contrary, Christ tasted death for every human being; and God led many to glory through Jesus, the pioneer of their salvation made perfect through suffering (2:10). This theme of the wandering of God's people, led by Jesus the forerunner to the heavenly sanctuary and place of rest, will return in 4:11,14 and 6:20. In his pioneering role, the Son took on the flesh and blood of God's children, and was made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order to become a merciful and faithful high priest to atone for the sins of the people. Because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted (2:14-18). This portrait, which will be developed in more detail in chapters 4 and 5, represents one of the great testimonies of the NT on the incarnation.

      2. The superiority over Moses: 3: 1 - 4: 13

         This superiority is illustrated in 3:1-6 by the fact that the builder of the house is more honored than the house itself, that the son is more honored than the servant in a household (cf. John 8:35).

         In 3:7 - 4:13, the author turns again to exhortations based on Scripture, but focused on the exodus of Israel. The Christians he addresses are in danger of becoming weary because of discouragement. Those of the Israelites who disobeyed did not achieve the goal of entering God's rest in the Holy Land. Likewise, it is a test for those who believe in Jesus, as Hebrews 4:12 makes clear in one of the most famous passages of the NT, describing the word of God as sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between the soul and the mind, able to discern the thoughts and reflections of the heart.

   3. Superiority of Jesus' priesthood: 4: 14 - 7: 28

      The opening verse states the dominant theme: "Having therefore a high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God." Although Hebrews and John share the notion of incarnation, we do not find in John a description of the reality of Jesus' humanity comparable to that offered by this section of Hebrews. As a high priest capable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, Jesus was tested in every way like us, yet without sin (4:15). Like the Israelite high priest, Christ did not exalt himself but was appointed by God, which is illustrated in the royal coronation psalms (5:1-6). Describing Jesus' suffering in the days of his flesh, as he brought prayers and supplications to the One who had the power to save him from death (5:7-9), the author asserts that Jesus learned obedience in spite of his status as a Son (these verses show familiarity with the tradition of Jesus' passion, according to which he prayed to God about his imminent death). When he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him (cf. Phil 2:8-9).

      In 5:11-14, the author turns again to exhortation, rebuking the immaturity of the recipients who can still only take milk, not solid food. The description of six basic teaching points in 6:1-27 is a bit embarrassing for Christians today. That apostasy from Christ is a concern of the author becomes clearer in 6:4-8 (also 10:26-31), when he warns that there is no repentance after being enlightened, i.e. baptized. Yet he gives the rhetorical assurance that he has no doubt about the future of his recipients, whose labor of love will not be forgotten by God (6:9-12). God is faithful to his promises, which guarantees the effectiveness of Jesus' intercession in the inner heavenly sanctuary as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (6:13-20). The whole of chapter 7 is devoted to the superiority of this priesthood possessed by Jesus over the Levitical priesthood. The Dead Sea Scrolls (11Q Melchizedek) have given us some insight into the mysticism surrounding Melchizedek as a heavenly figure. In reality, however, to understand Heb's argument, we need a little more than the OT and the rules of contemporary exegesis; for example, the failure to mention Melchizedek's ancestry allows us to pretend that he had no father or mother. Melchizedek's superiority is based on several points: he blessed Abraham; his priesthood was accompanied by the Lord's oath; and above all a priest according to the order of Melchizedek is eternal (Ps 110:4). There is no need for many (Levitical) priests who are replaced after death, for Jesus, who has the priesthood of Melchizedek, continues forever to intercede (7:23-25). By offering himself, this holy, blameless and spotless high priest, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens, has made a unique sacrifice (7:26-27).

   4. Superiority of Jesus' sacrifice and his ministry in the heavenly tabernacle inaugurating a new covenant: 8: 1 - 10: 18

      The idea that Jesus is a high priest before God leads to the notion of a heavenly tabernacle. Exodus 25:9,40; 26:30, etc., describes how God showed Moses the heavenly pattern according to which the earthly tabernacle was built. In Heb 8:2-7, this antecedent may be influenced by a Platonic scheme of reality in which the heavenly tabernacle established by God is the real one, while the earthly tabernacle is a copy or shadow. The Levitical priests who serve this shadow sanctuary have an inferior ministry to that of Christ, just as the first covenant is inferior to the second covenant of which Christ is the mediator. Hebrews 8:8-13 (see also 8:6), using the language of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, makes it clear that the first covenant made with Moses is now a thing of the past, obsolete and outdated.

      In chap. 9, the author presents an extended comparison between the death of Jesus and the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) performed in the transportable sacred edifice of Israel's wandering in the wilderness, the Tabernacle or Tent with its divisions, curtains, and altars. Although the comparison developed may have come from the author, the fact that both he (9:5) and Paul (Rom 3:25) appeal to the image of the hilastērion, the place of atonement where the blood of the sacrifices was sprinkled to wash away sins, suggests a broader awareness that Jesus' death could be compared to the Levitical sacrifices. What is unique to Heb is the parallel drawn between the high priest who entered the Holy of Holies once a year with the blood of goats and bulls and Jesus who entered the heavenly sanctuary once and for all with his own blood, thus ratifying the new covenant. There he now appears in the presence of God "on our behalf" (9:24); and after having been offered once to bear the sins of the multitude, he will appear a second time to save those who eagerly await him (9:28).

      The superiority of Jesus' sacrifice made with his own blood is emphatically reiterated in 10:1-18, for example, "after offering a single sacrifice for sins" (10:12). The basic thesis is that God prefers obedience to a multiplicity of sacrifices. The obedience of Jesus' sacrifice is expressed in 10:5-9 by a passage from Ps 40:7-9: "You did not ask for a burnt offering or atonement. Then I said, 'Behold, I come with a scroll of a book written for me'". This sacrifice has made perfect forever those who receive a share in Jesus' own consecration; their sins are forgiven, and so there is no longer any need for sin offerings.

   5. Faith and endurance: availing oneself of Jesus's priestly work: 10: 19 - 12: 29

      By the way opened by Jesus, those whom the writer calls "brothers" must enter the holy place through the blood of Jesus with faith, hope and love, gathering in community (10:19-25). If they sin deliberately, there is no longer a sacrifice for sins, but a horrible punishment: "It is terrible to fall into the hands of the living God" (10:26-31). Yet there is no reason to be discouraged. In the past, after their conversion and baptism ("enlightenment"), they gladly accepted abuse, affliction and persecution. Even today, they need endurance and faith to save their souls (10:32-39).

      In 11:1-40, the author, after beginning with a famous description of faith ("the assurance [or reality] of things hoped for, the conviction [or evidence] of things not seen"), launches into a long list of OT characters who had this kind of faith or faithfulness. At the end (11:39-40), in keeping with his contrast between the old and the new, he points out that not all these people of faith received what was promised, because "God planned better for us; they were not to come to the fulfillment without us.

      As a transition (12:1-2), the writer urges his readers, "surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses," to keep their eyes fixed on Jesus, "the pioneer of faith and the one who leads it to its fulfillment." In 12:3-13, he emphasizes that they would not truly be children of God without the discipline of suffering that God applies. Jesus endured great hostility while the readers have not yet endured to the point of shedding their blood. Heb 12:14-29 dramatizes the OT penalties for disobedience; it ends with the warning that God is a consuming fire, echoing Deut 4:24.

   6. Injunctions about practice: 13: 1-19

      It is in this area, which contains the only concrete and detailed ethical injunctions, that Hebrews comes closest to the Pauline style. After some imperatives on matters of community life, characteristic of NT works, Hebrews 13:7 appeals to the faith of past leaders who, in the history of the community, have preached the Gospel. The past can be appealed to because "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and for all eternity" (13:8) - another unforgettable example of the writer's eloquence. But the writer also calls to obedience the present leaders who watch over the souls of the readers (13:17).

   7. Conclusion: blessing and greetings: 13: 20-25

      The exhortation ends with a blessing invoked by "the God of peace who raised from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep" (13:20). In the midst of the greetings, the references to Timothy being released and to those coming from Italy are some of the very few clues in Hebrews as to the place of origin and destination.

2. Literary Genre, Structure

   Since the beginning of the 20th century, the epistle to the Hebrews has been perceived as an enigma. Some have seen it as a variety of literary genres: it begins as a treatise, continues as a sermon and ends as an epistle. Yet the application of each of these genres to the epistle to the Hebrews is problematic. Despite its careful exposition of the superiority of Christ, the epistle to the Hebrews is not simply a theological treatise. The author set forth his doctrine with the apologetic purpose of preventing his recipients from abandoning faith in Christ in favor of the idealized values of Israelite worship. In terms of the sermon genre, Hebrews calls itself a "word of exhortation" (13:22), and there are clauses like "we speak" (2:5; 5:11; 6:9). Using the categories of Aristotelian rhetoric, some see it as the oratorical art of praise and accusation to celebrate the importance of Christ. But there is also an element of deliberative rhetoric, as Hebrews calls for action in terms of faithfulness and perseverance. Today, some distinguish a homily (which is closely tied to the text of Scripture) from a sermon (which is more topical) - the argument in Hebrews relies heavily on Scripture. As for the fact that it is a letter, only the instructions in chap. 13 and, in particular, the conclusion in 13:20-25, give Hebrews any resemblance to the letter form known in Paul's writings. Perhaps we should be satisfied with the relatively simple description of Hebrews as a sermon or homily written with an epistolary ending.

   The structural analysis of Hebrew by A. Vanhoye has been very influential. Working with features such as key words, inclusions (i.e., the end of a section corresponds to the beginning), alternations in genre, Vanhoye detects an elaborate concentric composition, consisting of an introduction (1:1-4) and a conclusion (13:20-21), surrounding five chiastically arranged sections, with the eschatological and ecclesiological sections forming circles around the center, the sacrifice (see the formal division).

   Certainly, many of the characteristics Vanhoye points out are present in Hebrews; it is an artistically planned work with a careful structure. However, an overly formal approach may risk separating Hebrews from the clear apologetic goal it seeks to achieve by emphasizing the superiority of Christ. Is it a contradiction to encourage attention to both a formal approach that respects the complexity of the work and a more thematic study? For our part, we will propose a thematic approach, but readers are encouraged to pursue a deeper investigation using the insights of the formal approach.

3. Thought Milieu

   Beyond the question of structure, there is the question of the intellectual milieu and the training of the writer.

   1. Philo of Alexandria

      The author of Hebrews displays allegorical skill in his appeals to Scripture, a skill similar to that displayed by Philo and the epistle of Barnabas. Hebrews' description of the penetrating power of God's word (4:12) resembles Philo's language (Quis rerum divinarum heres, 26; #130-31). As with Philo, the categories of thought he employs sometimes have parallels in contemporary philosophy, especially middle Platonism. This does not mean that the author of Hebrews was a formal or well-trained philosopher. Heb is less thorough in terms of philosophy and Platonism than Philo, but he at least had a popular knowledge of the ideas of his time. In both authors, cultic images are used to symbolize other elements. For Hebrews 8:5 and 9:23-24, the Israelite sacrifices and liturgy in the earthly sanctuary are copies or shadows of the corresponding realities in the heavenly sanctuary, just as the Law is a shadow of the goods to come (10:1). However, the contrast Hebrews makes between the earthly and the heavenly with regard to worship does not simply follow from the nature of the factors involved. It arises in part from the eschatological change introduced by Christ, and eschatology is not one of Philo's (or Plato's) strong points. The relationship with Philo is thus at most indirect: some of the same background of thought but no direct familiarity.

   2. The Gnostic background

      The attempt to find a Gnostic background in the imagery of Hebrews is much more dubious. In Gnostic thought, souls or divine sparks from another world who are lost in this material world are led by the revelation of the Gnostic redeemer from this world into the world of light. There are also examples of dualism in Hebrews, e.g., the earth here below and the heavenly country (11:15-16); two ages (2:5; 6:5; 9:26). There are, however, serious objections to the Gnostic proposal. Although we know that middle Platonism existed in the atmosphere of thought of the late first century world in which Hebrews was written, we are not sure how developed or widespread Gnosticism was. Dualism was not confined to Gnosticism. The portrayal of a pioneer leader of God's people has sufficient backdrop in the role of Moses/Josue, who leads Israel to the Promised Land, and who is prominently mentioned in Hebrews. Moreover, the way Jesus played a pioneering role was through his suffering (2:9-10) - a very un-Gnostic idea.

   3. Qumran

      After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, there was considerable enthusiasm for thinking that Hebrews could be associated with Christian Jews of that origin, or even be addressed to Essene priests. The Qumran sect was fiercely opposed to apostasy, and those who had become Christians might therefore have had a guilt complex about returning. The Qumran community also had a strong priestly and liturgical component and was very close-knit; those who had left it to follow Christ might have felt a deep nostalgia for what they had left behind. It is generally believed that the Qumranians did not participate in the worship of the Temple of Jerusalem, hence perhaps the fact that Hebrews did not appeal to this Temple for his examples. Qumran uses the motif of the new covenant, as does Hebrews. Most scholars, however, are skeptical about the influence of Qumran on Hebrews. The Qumran Temple Scroll shows that God directs the building of the Temple, so there should be no reluctance in Hebrews to appeal symbolically to an ideal Temple. The author's idea of Jesus as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek is almost the opposite of the Qumran expectation of a priestly Messiah descended from Aaron. As recipients, Christians from a Qumran background are not a more plausible target of Hebrews than Christians influenced by another form of Judaism.

   4. The Hellenist milieu

      Another hypothesis appeals to Acts 6:1-6 (and to the sequel constituted by Stephen's speech in Acts 7) which distinguishes between two types of Jewish Christians (both of whom had converted from paganism): the Hellenists who, in the person of Stephen, took a radically depreciatory stance towards the Temple in Jerusalem (Acts 7:47-50), and the Hebrews who, in the person of Peter and John, regularly visited the Temple (Acts 3:1). Could the author of John have been a Hellenistic preacher trying to win Hebrew Christians to his cause? Many consider John to be a gospel of Hellenistic theology, and Hebrews is close to John in its attitude toward the replacement of Israelite worship. Although the title "To the Hebrews" is much more likely to derive from a content analysis, could it have had more literal roots? While attractive, this hypothesis too remains unprovable.

4. By Whom, From Where, and When?
   1. By Whom?

      Some call Hebrews a pseudonym, but the term "anonymous" is more accurate, as the work contains no claims about its author. Yet, by the end of the second century, some attributed it to Paul. Reflecting the Alexandrian tradition, Beatty's Papyrus II (P⁴⁶), our earliest preserved text of the Pauline letters (which contains ten addressed to communities), places Hebrews after Romans. The acceptance of Hebrews as Paul's work was slower in the Western Church. However, in both Alexandria and Rome, in the official canonical lists of the late fourth and early fifth centuries, Hebrews was counted among the fourteen Pauline letters, sometimes placed before the personal letters (1-2 Tim, Titus, Phlm), more often at the end of the collection. Gradually, Paul's name was introduced into the title of the work, appearing both in the Vulgate (and the English translations that came from it) and in the King James. Factors that contributed to its attribution to Paul are:

      1. The appearance of the name "brother Timothy" in 13:23 - otherwise, Timothy's name is found only in Acts and in ten letters of the Pauline corpus, and he is called "brother" by Paul in 1 Thess 3:2; Phlm 1; and 2 Cor 1:1 (and Col 1:1). Yet Timothy must have been close to many other Christians.

      2. The blessing and greetings in 13:20-24 (and, to a lesser extent, the ethical imperatives of chapters 12-13) sound like the end of a Pauline letter.

      3. Habakkuk 2:3-4, quoted in Heb 10:37-38, is used by Paul in Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17. Yet the author of Hebrews does not link this passage to justification by faith rather than by works, which is the Pauline interpretation.

      4. Elements of the wording and theology of Hebrews have parallels in works bearing Paul's name.

      Nevertheless, the evidence against Paul's writing of Hebrews is overwhelming. The elaborate and studied Greek style is very different from Paul's, as Clement and Origen already recognized. Common Pauline expressions ("Christ Jesus," some ninety times) never appear in Hebrews. More importantly, the perspective is not that of Paul. While the resurrection is a major factor in Paul's theology, it is mentioned only once in Hebrews (13:20, in a subordinate clause); and conversely, the major Hebrews theme of Christ as high priest does not appear in Paul. Paul denies that he received his gospel from other human beings; it was God who revealed the Son to him (Gal 1:11-12). How could he have written that the message was first declared by the Lord "and attested to us by those who heard it" (Heb 2:3)?

      Among those who do not accept Paul's authorship, the two most common suggestions for the author involve a known companion of Paul's or a totally unknown figure, the latter being the more common choice. The most erudite figure of the patristic era, Origen, was content to leave the actual author (whom he considered a possible secretary of Paul) anonymous, noting that only God knew who wrote Hebrews. Others speculated about the author or (if they assumed it was Paul) the secretary he employed. Tertullian attributed Hebrews to Barnabas and, in fact, Barnabas' early second century epistle has an Alexandrian style of allegory similar to that of Hebrews. However, this "epistle" is also anonymous and its attribution to Barnabas is no more solid than the attribution of Hebrews to Paul. Other early attributions of Hebrews were to Luke and Clement of Rome. Luther attributed it to Apollos, described in Acts 18:24 with attributes that might fit the author (a Jew, a native of Alexandria, eloquent, well versed in the Scriptures); and this suggestion attracted a considerable number of supporters. Priscilla and Aquila were in contact with Apollos (Acts 18:26), and each of them was proposed as an editor. Silas and Philip were also proposed.

      We must be satisfied with the irony that the most sophisticated rhetorician and the most elegant theologian in the NT is an unknown. To use his own description of Melchizedek (7:3), the author of Hebrews remains fatherless, motherless, and genealogical. The quality of his Greek and his command of the Greek Scriptures suggest that he was a Jewish Christian with a good Hellenistic education and some knowledge of Greek philosophical categories. His allegorical style of hermeneutics has parallels in Philo and in Alexandrian interpretation; but this interpretation was taught elsewhere, so the claim that the author of Hebrews came from Alexandria is not proven. Those from whom he learned of Christ (2:3) may have had a theological perspective similar to that of the Hellenistic movement and its freer attitude toward the Jewish cultic heritage.

   2. From Where?

      The dubious thesis that Hebrews was written from Alexandria would be of little use anyway, for we know nothing of the origins of the Christian church in Alexandria. Hebrews' argument based on Jewish liturgy and priesthood made Jerusalem or Palestine a more important candidate. (Yet the presentation of liturgy in Hebrews reflects more of the "book knowledge" of the LXX than the attendance at the Jerusalem Temple, which is never mentioned.) As we have seen above, parallels have been found between the attitude of Stephen, the Hellenistic leader in Jerusalem, and that of the author of Hebrews; both depend heavily on the Scriptures and are suspicious of a divine house made by human hands. In reality, however, according to Acts 8:4; 11:19, the Hellenists were operating mostly outside Jerusalem and even Palestine. The greetings to the readers from "those who come from Italy" (Heb 13:24) remind some of the presence of Roman Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and indeed, if the letter was addressed to Roman Christians, Acts 28:21 suggests a frequent correspondence between Judea and Rome. Nevertheless, theories about where Hebrews was sent from are almost as much guesswork as theories about the author.

   3. When?

      This question is partly related to the answer to the previous questions. At the lower end of the spectrum, the author of Hebrews does not belong to the first generation of Christians since he apparently depends on those who have heard the Lord (2:3); and his readers/listeners have been believers for some time (5:12; 10:32). At the upper end, a limit is set by 1 Clement 36:1-5 (probably written in the late 90s, but no later than 120) which echoes Heb 1:3-5.7.13. Thus, the most common range suggested for the writing of Heb is AD 60-90, with scholars divided on whether to date it before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (thus in the 60s) or after (thus in the 80s). If Paul, Apollos, Aquila or Priscilla wrote the book, a date no later than the 60s would be suggested since most of them would have died in the 80s. Timothy's release (from captivity: 13:23), an apparently historical factor, is not an obstacle to a later date; for Timothy was younger than Paul and could well have lived to be 80.

      The main factor in favor of a dating in the 60s is Hebrews' silence on the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 AD). A reference to this destruction might have strengthened the author's thesis that Jesus replaced the Jewish liturgy, priesthood and holy place. However, nowhere in the letter does the author show any interest in the Temple (and it may not be a major holy place for him since God did not order its construction in the OT), so we have no way of knowing how its destruction would have fit into his argument. References to worship in the present tense (Heb 8:3; 9:7; 13:11) do not prove that sacrifices continued in the Temple; for Josephus' Judaic Antiquities, written twenty years after the destruction of the Temple, also uses the present tense.

      The emphasis on the replacement of Jewish feasts, sacrifices, priesthood, and places of earthly worship is a factor that argues for a writing date in the 80s; indeed, the first or old covenant is replaced by the new (8:7-8, 13). The earlier Christian image was one of a radical renewal of Israel's institutions; but after 70 and the destruction of the Temple, the perception changed, as John testifies. Christ is now seen as having replaced what had gone before. Similarly, it was in the last third of the century that the habit of using "God" for Jesus took hold. However, although theologically Hebrews seems more comfortable in the 80s, it must be recognized that an argument for dating based on comparative theology is very weak, since not all "advanced" theological ideas arrived at the same time and in all places. Nothing conclusive can be decided on dating, but the discussion of recipients that we are now entering favors the 80s.

5. To Which Addressees?

   Let's start with the title of the letter. Most scholars agree that the title "To the Hebrews" was not provided by the author. Yet it appears in the Beatty II papyrus (P⁴⁶), the oldest manuscript we have, and was already in use around 200 in Egypt and North Africa. This is almost certainly a conjecture attached to the work because of the analysis of its content, which deals so extensively with Israelite worship.

   What can we determine about the recipients and their location from the content of Hebrews? Three stages are reflected in the letter, the first two of which are in the past.

   1. At first, in the author's estimation, they were properly enlightened (and baptized into Christ). The community received the Christian message from evangelists whose work was accompanied by the performance of miracles. The activity of the Holy Spirit was part of this experience (2:3-4; 6:4-5). Whether through Jewish education or Christian evangelization, the recipients appreciated the religious richness of Judaism. The argument assumes that the community of Christians who read/heard Hebrews understood the allusive reasoning based on the Jewish scriptures and had both a good knowledge of and a favorable attitude toward Israel's worship liturgy.

   2. Then they were afflicted by some kind of persecution, hostility and/or harassment (10:32-34). They were deprived of their property, and some were put in prison. Imprisonment suggests the involvement of local authorities against the Christians.

   3. By the time Hebrews is written, the crisis of active persecution seems to have passed, but there is continuing tension and discouragement, and future danger. Abuse by outsiders is still a problem (13:13), but more seriously, members of the group are becoming "dull" and "sluggish" (5:11; 6:12) and have wrong ideas. An exaggerated nostalgia for the Jewish roots of the Christian proclamation seems to be part of the picture. Specifically, the author believes that some value the Israelite cultic heritage too much, without appreciating the enormous change wrought by God through Christ, whereby what belongs to the old covenant is disappearing. Moreover, it seems that some were even in danger of abandoning completely the riches that faith in Christ brought them. Apparently, those who were concerned about this prospect had already stopped meeting in prayer with other Christians (10:25). The arguments in Hebrews about the superiority of Christ (especially over Moses) and the replacement of the Jewish sacrifices and high priesthood, as well as the exhortations that accompany these arguments, are intended to instill a proper understanding of the gospel and to discourage any backsliding. The author sternly warns of the difficulty of receiving forgiveness for a deliberate sin committed after having received the knowledge of the (Christian) truth. He uses the example of endurance in past persecutions to encourage steadfastness today, in the midst of present hostility that may well increase.

   What emerges from the analysis of the letter on the history of the recipients is very general; thus the Christian community of almost all the cities of the ancient world was, at one time or another, suggested as the destination of the Hebrews. The greatest attention, however, has been paid to Jerusalem and Rome.

   The suggestion about the Jerusalem area is related to the hypothesis that the recipients were Jewish Christians who were constantly tempted to return to their ancestral religion by the lure of the Temple liturgy and sacrifices they saw continuing in Jerusalem. In this theory, a Christian from Italy, writing to those Jewish Christians living in Palestine or Jerusalem to urge them not to abandon Christ, included greetings from "those in Italy" (13:24). By way of assessment, the idea that some of the recipients were Christians of Jewish descent is not implausible. However, Gentile Christians often shared the mentality of the line of Jewish Christians who had converted them, so it is quite possible that a mixed community of Christians was addressed rather than just Jewish Christians. The idea that proximity to the Temple was the magnet that drew recipients to Israelite worship ignores the fact that there is no reference to the Temple in Hebrews, and that a bookish knowledge of the Scriptures through the Septuagint could provide the image of worship in Hebrews. In fact, the absence of any mention of the Temple argues against Jerusalem/Palestine being the intended location. Moreover, how could Hebrews' persuasive impulse match what we know about Christians in Jerusalem? Our evidence suggests that after the Hellenists were driven out around 36 AD, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem continued to worship in the Temple (Acts 21:23-24, 26), so if Hebrews was written to them before 70, why would they need a directive not to return to what they had abandoned? If Hebrews was written after 70, how could Christians return to sacrificial worship that no longer worked?

   Some difficulties are avoided by the thesis that Hebrews was addressing a special group in Jerusalem, e.g., the converted priests (Acts 6:7) who presumably would not have been allowed to offer sacrifices after professing Jesus, or the Jewish Christians who fled Jerusalem in the 60s rather than join the revolt against Rome and who could no longer go to the Temple daily. Yet even with these groups, could a second-generation Christian without apostolic rank, writing in the 60s, hope that his corrective or deterrent message would have influence in a city where James, the Lord's brother and faithful adherent of the Jewish cult, had such eminence? Why would the author compose a dissuasive text in elegant Greek for Jewish Christian priests who would have known Hebrew as part of the liturgy, or for Jewish Christians in Judea for whom Hebrew or Aramaic would have been a native language?

   The theory that Hebrews was addressing the Christian community in the Rome area is more recent (it seems to have been first proposed around 1750). What are the factors that support it? Acts 18:2 implies that Jewish Christians were among the Jews expelled from Rome under Claudius (ca. AD 49?); thus, whatever the origin of the sending of the epistle to the Hebrews to Rome, there could have been Christians from Italy to send greetings back. The reference to the past suffering and imprisonment of the community being addressed (10:32-34) would be totally understandable if Hebrews was addressing Rome in the 80s, for Roman Christians had been fiercely persecuted by Nero in 64-68, when Peter and Paul died there. Hebrews' challenge to the current generation of recipients, "You have not yet resisted to the point of blood in your struggle against sin" (12:4), may suggest a date earlier than the 90s, when, under the emperor Domitian, investigations into exclusive Eastern cults put Christians in danger.

   The parallels between the themes of Paul's letter to the Romans in c. 58 and those of Hebrews could be explained if this letter were written to the same community a decade or two later. Of all Paul's letters, Romans is the most sensitive to Jewish values; it also uses a considerable amount of Jewish liturgical language. The epistle to the Hebrews may have been written to correct the exaggerations of these attitudes. Paul exhorted the Romans (12:10) to be leaders (prohēgoumenoi) of one another in honor. Heb 13:7 refers to the leaders (hēgoumenoi) of the recipients who in the past set an example by "the result of their conduct" (their death? their martyrdom?) and their faith (those who died under Nero?), and 13:17 refers to the leaders who at the time of writing (80s?) are responsible for the care of souls. 1 Clement 21:6, written from Rome around 96-120, speaks of honoring "our leaders." There are also parallels between the letters 1 Clement and 1 Peter, written from Rome.

   A major argument for a Roman destination is that knowledge of the existence of the epistle to the Hebrews was attested in Rome earlier than in any other place. As we saw in the discussion of dating, a passage from Hebrews is quoted in the letter 1 Clement, written in Rome, so relatively soon after Hebrews was written. In the middle of the 2nd century, Justin, writing to Rome, shows that he knows Hebrews. This cannot be easily explained by claiming that the letter to the Hebrews was known in Rome because it was sent from that city, for the writers of the Roman Church have different views from those of Hebrews. It is more likely that this epistle, conceived as a corrective work, was received by the Roman Church, but not enthusiastically appropriated by it. In fact, such an explanation is almost necessitated by Rome's attitude toward the canonical status of Hebrews. Even though Alexandrian and Eastern knowledge of Hebrews is first attested almost a century after Roman knowledge, the letter was accepted as canonical in the East quite quickly and attributed to Paul. Apparently Rome did not accept such an attribution, for throughout the second century Roman authors do not mention Hebrews as Scripture or among the letters of Paul. One might think that the Roman community that received the epistle to the Hebrews knew that it was not from Paul but from a second generation Christian teacher. Although it was worthy of respect, it did not have the authority of an apostle (an understandable attitude in a church that boasted of two apostolic "pillars," Peter and Paul [1 Clement 5:2-7]). Trinitarian controversies helped change the picture, for Hebrews (especially 1:3) was invaluable in the orthodox defense of the full divinity of Christ against the Arians. Then, the opinion that Paul wrote Hebrews won over the great Church (around 400), and Rome was ready to accept it as the fourteenth letter of the apostle.

6. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. The (high) priesthood of Jesus Christ is a major theme of Hebrews. To some extent, this development is surprising, since the historical Jesus was essentially a layman, critical of Temple procedures and treated with hostility by the Temple priesthood. Hebrews' solution that his priesthood was in accordance with the order of Melchizedek may be original, but the idea of Jesus' priesthood is found in other NT works, mainly in connection with his death. In particular, John 10:36 and 17:19 use in reference to Jesus "to consecrate, to make holy" the verb used by Exodus 28:41 for Moses' consecration of the priests. Many believe that the description of the seamless tunic removed from Jesus before his death was influenced by the tunic of the Jewish high priest (Josephus, Judaic Antiquities, 3.7.4; #161). Does the idea of Jesus' priesthood come from the image of his death as a freely offered atoning sacrifice? Rom 3:25 describes Christ in this way (see also 1 John 2:2).

   2. After reflecting on the texts in the previous paragraph, one might ask how Jesus' appropriation of Israelite liturgical language (Tabernacle, Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, feasts) affects the use of this language by later Christians. The attitude has not always been consistent. Even some literalist groups have no problem with referring to the church or Christian community as a temple; tabernacle or temple language is used for the Christian meeting house by groups who claim to be biblical Christians. Many people have no objection to describing Maundy Thursday/Easter as a Christian Easter. Yet they may vigorously reject the terminology of sacrifice and priest in Christian worship, despite the fact that already around 100 AD, the Didache 14 finds that Mal 1:11 ("pure offering") is fulfilled in the eucharist. True to the perspective of Hebrews, churches that use sacrificial terminology often emphasize that the eucharist is not a new sacrifice but the liturgical presentation of Christ's sacrifice. Although as early as around 100 AD, 1 Clement 40:5; 42:1,4 juxtaposes the Jewish high priest, priest, and Levite with Christ, bishop, and deacon, the first clear use of the word "priest" for the primary Christian eucharistic minister (the bishop) dates from the late 2nd century. By the 4th century, all Eucharistic ministers were considered Christian priests, participating in the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchizedek. It is worth reflecting on the values that the use of Israelite worship language preserves, and the problems it raises.

   3. A somewhat different question is raised by comparing Hebrews with other NT thoughts on the eucharist. Except for a possible reference in 9:20, Hebrews does not mention the eucharist; but it seems very unlikely that the author was unaware of it. Is this silence accidental? In other NT thoughts, Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, "Do this in remembrance of me," and 1 Corinthians 11:26, "Every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes," imply an ongoing Eucharistic ritual re-presenting the sacrificial death of Jesus. How would the author of Hebrews, with his idea of a once-for-all offering of Christ (7:27), have reacted to this view? Some radical scholars have argued that the epistle was written in part to reject a permanent eucharistic cult. Scholars also debate whether, for Hebrews, Jesus' unique sacrificial offering on the cross continues in heaven, the sphere of the eternal. If so, can we do justice to Hebrews' thought by suggesting that the Eucharist should be seen as an earthly participation in this ongoing sacrifice?

   4. While continuity is not totally rejected, more specifically than any other NT book, Hebrews speaks of the obsolescence of the diathēkē, "covenant," that God made with Moses, e.g., in 8:13. This covenant is becoming obsolete, it is growing old, it is ready to disappear (see also 10:9: He takes away the first to establish the second). On the other hand, some today would like to do away with the terms "Old" and "New" in reference to the covenant or testament altogether, and replace them with "First" and "Second", or "Israelite" and "Christian". Does this change do justice to the various ideas of newness in the NT (especially with its references to the "new covenant") that do not have the connotation of replacing what is obsolete? At a deeper level, many Christian theologians deny that God's covenant with Israel (through Abraham? through Moses?) has become obsolete or has been replaced. In its Nostra Aetate declaration, the Second Vatican Council warned that "the Jews must not be presented as rejected ... by God, as if such views followed from the Holy Scriptures." However, leaving aside any connotation of rejection, how should Christians respond to the covenant between God and Moses? Can they say that it is still valid and yet, out of loyalty to Paul and Hebrews, not be bound by its requirements?

   5. By the time the epistle to the Hebrews was written, the Tabernacle had not existed in Israel for a thousand years. Why does the author of Hebrews draw his analogies from the Tabernacle or Tent rather than the Temple? Was his choice dictated by the fact that God was described as instructing Moses on how to build the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-26) whereas God is not recorded in the OT as dictating how to build Solomon's Temple (2 Chr 2-3) or the Second Temple after the Exile (Ezra 3)? Moreover, the Temple had been subjected to many denunciations by the prophets, which was not the case for the Tabernacle in the desert. Moreover, even if God had dictated the way the earthly Tabernacle was to be built, it no longer existed; this fact may have served the author as a model for reasoning on how the Levitical sacrifices and the priesthood could cease to exist, even if God had dictated their execution. Finally, the Tabernacle was Israel's sacred place of worship in their wilderness wanderings, and Hebrews addresses Christians described as a wandering people on their way to heavenly rest. Jesus could be represented as entering the heavenly sanctuary, of which the earthly Tabernacle was only a copy, and preparing the way for the people to follow him.