Imagine that you are in a library. You take down a volume from a shelf and, on opening it, you find an old document. On reading it you learn that someone was writing to a group of people whom he knew well. However, you do not discover the identity of either the author or those addressed and that makes you curious. Then you realise that, whether you find that out or not, you have what the writer wanted the readers to know and that, after all, is the main thing. To have a piece of paper with only a 'Dear so and so' at the top and a 'Yours sincerely' at the end cannot be compared with having what lies between them!

This scenario bears some similarities to the Epistle to the Hebrews and to the way in which it should be regarded. Although it is anonymous, it has only to be read for something of its importance and relevance to be perceived. There is, therefore, a sense in which too much should not be made of the fact that it lacks both a signature and an address. This is neither a total loss, because it is the content of the letter that matters, nor is it an insuperable hindrance to its being understood, because the letter is not written in code. (After all, its ultimate author is God and its intended readership is the church in every age and place.)

Accepting the letter in this way, does not, however, mean that nothing would be gained if the identities of its human author and original addressees were to become known, together with other data like its place of origin, destination and date. Such inquiries are usually made at the outset of the study of any book of the Bible even if there is nothing in the book itself which bears directly on those matters. In the case of Hebrews there are three statements which have to be faced and considering them will help us find our bearings for a study of this letter.

1. 'What Shall I More Say?' (11:32)⤒🔗

This is the first of several times in the letter (see also 13:19; 22-23) when the author refers to himself in the first person singular, yet not once does he give his name. Even more surprising is the fact that while he was well known to those whom he addressed there was no agreement about his identity in the first three centuries. Furthermore, when Hebrews was included in the list of recognised books in the fifth century, no agreement had been reached about its authorship. That was still the case at the time of the Reformation, and it is so today.

Three factors constitute obstacles to its being regarded as Pauline:

1. The Epistle is itself anonymous and it was Paul's stated practice, when he had dictated a letter to an amanuensis, to conclude it in his own hand (see 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Romans 16:22; Colossians 4:18 and Philemon 19). He did this to expose counterfeit letters which were in circulation (see 1 Thessalonians 2:2). If Paul had written Hebrews he would not, therefore, have concealed his identity.

2. The structure and style of Hebrews is markedly different from the other Pauline letters in the New Testament. Paul regularly used the contemporary letter form in his writings and usually set out the whole of his doctrinal teaching first before drawing from it his practical instruction, whereas, in Hebrews passages of doctrine are repeatedly interspersed with exhortations.

3. Finally, it is very difficult to see how Paul, who made a point of asserting that he had received the gospel message by 'revelation' (see Galatians 1:11, 12), would have said that the gospel was 'confirmed to us by those who heard (the Lord)' (Hebrews 2:3)

We therefore conclude that Paul was not the author, but who might he have been? Suggestions have been numerous, but a credible candidate needs to have had close links with Paul because of the strong Pauline flavour in some statements in the letter (see 6:9-11; 10:34; 13:18, 23).

Three individuals have been suggested: Luke, Barnabas and Apollos. Priscilla (Acts 18:26) has also been suggested but the presence of a masculine pronoun in Hebrews 11:32, means that the author must have been male. However, this is all in the realm of speculation, even if the identifications are attractive. As far back as 225 AD, Origen of Alexandria said, not flippantly, 'But who wrote the Epistle, God only knows certainly'.

Does not the denial of Pauline authorship have consequences for the authority of the letter? Was it not the case in the Early Church that the authority of a piece of writing was bound up with the apostolicity of its origin? Yes, it was — but not in the sense that writings had to have apostles for their authors for them to qualify as authentic revelations of the mind of Christ. What of the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles? Known companionship with an apostle was adequate as a formal test of authenticity and, more importantly, so was consonance with apostolic teaching.

Hebrews therefore provides an example of how 'the canon was drawn up', namely by way of the church's formal acknowledgment of the effect which sacred literature had on those who heard it. It was the church's 'Amen' to the Holy Spirit's testimony and not a conferral of its own 'imprimatur' and 'nihil obstat'.

2. 'They From Italy Greet You' (13:24)←⤒🔗

We re in a somewhat better position with regard to identifying the 'you' in this verse than the 'I' in the verses just referred to. This is because of two factors. First, the letter has a title (To the Hebrews) which should not be dis­counted although it is not corroborated within the actual letter. This title is found in the earliest extant manuscript of the letter and it appears in some form or other in most English translations. It identifies those addressed as Jewish Christians and this is the predominant view which we accept. In addition, the fact that the author everywhere quoted from the Greek Old Testament, points in the direction of Greek as their first language.

Secondly, the verse quoted tells us that greetings were being sent to them by Italian believers who were in the company of the writer. But where was the writer? Was he in Italy, in which case greetings were being sent from Christians there to believers in Judaea (or elsewhere), or was he in Judaea (or elsewhere) and, as he was writing to Christians in Italy, included greetings from Italian Christians in that place? Neither possibility can be ruled out, because people of different nationalities were to be found throughout the Graeco-Roman world of the first century. Was the author in Rome or Judaea? Were those addressed in Judaea or Rome? Those are the favoured possibilities.

Making a choice between these alternatives is related to another problem­atical question, namely the date of the letter. It is known that Clement of Rome showed acquaintance with Hebrews in a letter which he wrote about 95/96 AD to Christians in Corinth, although, interestingly, he did not attribute it to Paul. There is therefore general agreement that Hebrews was written before that time. But the real debate is over whether it was more likely to have been written before or after 70 AD, when the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple by the Romans took place.

A date before 70 AD is much more likely if the letter were written to 'Hebrews' who were living in Judaea. This is because it is very difficult, on a post-70 dating, to make sense of 8:13 and 10:1-2 which make clear that the old covenant was 'about to disappear' and of 9:6-9, and 13:10 which speak of sacrifices 'being offered'.

We favour an early dating in spite of the testimony of 2:3 and 10:32-33. With regard to 2:3 it is often said that those addressed were 'second-generation Christians'. Although it is not wholly inaccurate to describe them in that way, it is misleading, because it invites a reckoning being made on the basis of the lifespan of a generation and a little bit longer. Doing that would, of course, take one well past 70 AD. But all that is being pointed out by 2:3 is the difference between receiving information first and secondhand, and that does not require a forty-year interval. It is therefore quite possible, even allowing for the length of time that those addressed had been Christians, to locate the letter before 70 AD. With regard to the sufferings referred to in 10:32-33, these do not have to have occurred during the time of Nero (64­ - 68 AD), because of the expulsion referred to in Acts 18:2 which took place in 49 AD. In addition, a pre-70 AD date can accommodate the fact that some leaders had died (see 13:7) and that Timothy was still alive (see 13:23), and allow time for spiritual declension to occur, since it can set in with frighten­ing rapidity.

Accepting a pre-70 AD date, what can be said about the destination of the letter? Where were the 'Hebrews?' Currently, the weight of opinion favours Rome as their location. In support of that is the following. We have seen that the letter was known in Rome about 95 AD and the Acts of the Apostles and Romans make clear that there was indeed a Jewish presence in the churches there (see Acts 2:10; 28:15-24; Romans 14:1-15:7). We also know that Christians were persecuted in Rome as well as Jews (see Acts 18:2) and that could be what is in view in 10:32-34. Hebrews 13:24 could therefore mean 'Christian Jews in Italy greet you'. But against that is the fact that Hebrews was not favoured in Rome (or the west) for some time.

Were they therefore in Jerusalem/Judaea? It is easy to assume that those addressed were in Palestine because of the many references in the letter to Jewish ritual. In addition, we know from John and Acts that those Jews who were the first converts to Christianity suffered at the hands of their fellow nationals. That can fit 10:32-34. But the statement that those addressed had not actually heard the Lord, the fact that the letter is written in polished Greek and that all the Old Testament quotes come from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, combine to cast doubt on this. Even so, a congregation of Hellenistic Jews who had become Christians could have been found somewhere in Judaea. Another possibility, and a very interesting one, is that they were a congregation in which former Essenes were found. This Jewish sect, brought to light through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls were a desert community, fascinated with angels, Moses and Melchizedek and they expected two messiahs, one priestly and the other kingly. The links with the content of Hebrews are obvious.

By way of conclusion to these uncertainties, we can console ourselves with two facts and learn from them. The first is that those who received the letter were well aware of who the author was and that the letter was meant for them. Equally, we must regard our possession of this letter as having been directed by the Lord and receive its message from him.

3. 'A Word of Exhortation ... I have Written to You Briefly' (13:17)←⤒🔗

Although it is not incorrect to refer to Hebrews as a 'letter', a more accurate and helpful way of thinking about it is as 'a written word of exhortation'. That says something about its form and its content. We will consider it along those lines.

First, in relation to its form, we note that an exhortation is being conveyed by means of 'a letter'. Whenever New Testament Epistles are being consid­ered, reference is made to the widespread practice and pattern of letter-writing in the Graeco-Roman background of the first century. While the opening of Hebrews does not conform to that recognisable literary pattern, its conclusion does contain resemblances to it. However, the Old Testament background to letter writing should also be borne in mind. It also contains letters, for example Ezra 4 and 5.

But it did something else, or something more important. It was not just the answer to the problem of distance between people but also to the related, and greater problem of their absence from each other. By means of a letter someone could, therefore, make himself present to another. This is what the Old Testament shows because it points out that a king could become present to officials in an outpost of his realm, for example Ezra 4, and that a prophet could become present to people in another country, for example Jeremiah who wrote a letter to the exiles in Babylon (see 29:1). A letter, therefore, conveyed a king's edict and a prophet's message and both of these were a word from the Lord. Just as Artaxerxes became present in Judah by his letter, so did Jehovah in Babylon through what Jeremiah wrote. Similarly, in the New Testament, an apostle or teacher could 'become present' to a congregation when his letter was being read to them (see 1 Corinthians 5:4). This is true of the other New Testament letters as well.

Applied to the case of Hebrews, the writer's exhortation (1:1-13:21) and brief personal note (13:22-25) was intended as a substitute for his presence until he could come and minister to them in person once more (13:19, 23). He was probably one of their leaders. Extra interesting sidelights are cast on this in Acts. In the synagogue at Antioch (13:15), Paul and Barnabas are invited, following the public reading from the Law and the Prophets, to give a 'word of exhortation' to the people. In 15:31-32, the content of the letter which summarised the conclusions of the council in Jerusalem and the ministry of those who commended it, is also described as an exhortation.

It is clear that the author of Hebrews thought of himself as speaking rather than writing, and of those he addressed as listeners rather than readers (see 2:5; 5:11; 6:9; 8:1; 9:5; 11:32). Because of this, the hortatory element rather than the epistolary style dictated the form of the 'letter'. Writing could therefore convey preaching and through it all, God spoke. Hebrews is preaching via writing. New Testament letters (even Philemon and 3 John) are an extension of oral preaching ministry and they point to God's living, speaking presence among his people. Holy Scripture is primarily God's Word to his church.

But, secondly, in relation to content, we remind ourselves that exhortation is a means of helping people who are in real difficulty of some sort. Why did the Hebrews need help and how did the writer provide it? This is another way of asking the old questions 'Why was Hebrews written' and 'What did its author say?' As the Greek word for 'exhortation' relates closely to the term 'Paraclete' which designates the Holy Spirit in his ministry to believers (John 14:16), we can ask, 'What was the Holy Spirit saying in and through the letter?' By bringing God's truth in Christ to believers and impressing it on their minds and hearts, the Holy Spirit expresses his care and imparts his strength. Hebrews is an explicit and urgent exhortation from the Spirit of God. We will look first at the need for exhortation and then its message.

The Need←⤒🔗

Wherever these Jewish Christians lived, the important fact is that they were professing Christians. That is incontestable and we will have to refer to it repeatedly as we consider what is said about them.

It is clear from the closing part of the letter that they formed a distinct group and that they gathered together for worship and fellowship (10:25). They had their own leaders who had succeeded the founders of the church (13:7, 17). Given the details of 13:1-14 and 24, they probably lived in a large town or city, as there were other Christians in their general vicinity.

What is disclosed about their need is presented by means of a review of their history as Christian people. Certain terms are used to describe their past and present, and to explore their future.

Their Christian beginnings are referred to as 'the former days' (10:32), and the interval between that and the writing of the letter, by the words 'for the time' (5:12). That stands for the past.

Their present condition is indicated by the repeated use of 'Today' (3:7-4:9) and what is said about them in relation to it.

Their future is described in connection with 'the day approaching' (10:25) and what that involves.

What the writer is wanting to bring to their notice is the dissimilarity between their present condition and their past and, on that basis, to provoke serious thought about their future. Let us amplify each of these three expressions a little.

The 'Former Days'←↰⤒🔗

As has been pointed out, they had heard the good news of God's 'so great salvation' from those who had heard the Lord Jesus Christ; had seen the miraculous signs by which God had confirmed the authenticity of the message and the messengers (2:3-4) and had confessed faith in Jesus as their 'apostle and high-priest' (3:1). This was as a result of light from above having been graciously given to them (10:32).

They were no strangers to suffering. Scorn and loss in no small measure crossed their path. Joyful expectation of heavenly glory and gain invigorated them. When they could (conceivably) have enjoyed some respite, they laid themselves out for other believers who were being persecuted (10:32-34). By such exertions, they had displayed brotherly love, brave faith and confident hope in God (6:10) and showed that they could indeed be called 'holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling' (3:1).

'Today'←↰⤒🔗

But a change had set in and their condition was no longer what it had been. Indolence seems to be the root-cause of their decline as sluggishness is twice specified in 5:11-14, where a diagnosis of their current condition is presented. The imagery of the gymnasium is used in verse 14 to point out, by implication, that the Hebrews had not been engaging in daily 'work-outs', but had become 'lay-abouts'. It was a case of pilgrims' regress and not pilgrims' progress. There are many calls to action in the letter — the exact opposite of the malaise which had set in. Their lives are depicted with refer­ence to a ship which is drifting wherever the current may take it (2:1).

They should have become teachers but instead they needed to be re­taught what once they knew (5:11-12). Instead of having cut their teeth on God's solid truth, they were back on the diet of infants. As a result, they were unable to pay attention to the word of God properly (5:11) and to live strongly and expectantly in the light of it. Confidence had waned (3:6, 14; 6:11; 10:23, 35, 36). The practices of other religions together with their teach­ings were constituting a danger to them (13:9-10). The prospect of further and more severe suffering made them more than apprehensive. 'Today' — the day in which God was repeating his word and renewing his call to them through it — was a time in which the 'Hebrews' had become 'hard of hearing'. Their plight was serious.

'The Day Approaching'←↰⤒🔗

A more critical day, however, was drawing near, and the terse way in which it is designated means that no further description of it is needed in order for it to be identified. In the Old Testament, 'the day' would be 'the day of the Lord', when he would personally intervene; in the New, it is the day when the Lord Jesus will return. If the Hebrews ought to heed God's Word which they had been told and which he was still saying to them, 'all the more' (10:25) ought they to do so in the light of the Lord's return because, on that day, their response would reap everlasting consequences. Persevering would be rewarded but drawing back would be punished (10:35-39).

This is why, alongside the many encouragements which are given in the letter to persevere, for example, 'to pay closer attention', 'to hold fast', 'to be diligent', 'to draw near', 'to press on', 'to encourage one another' and the like, there are severe warnings in terms of their opposite. There is the danger of 'drifting', of 'being hardened', and most seriously 'departing', 'drawing back' and 'sinning defiantly'. Apostasy is irreversible.

It was in the light of all these considerations that this letter was written. The Hebrews were at a critical stage in their spiritual history. But what did the writer have to say to them?

The Message←⤒🔗

What the writer has to say to them is related to another use of the noun 'day'. He wants to make it clear to them that they are living in a period which he calls '(the) last days' (1:2). He sees the beginning of all things as marked by the creation, and their end, by the incarnation of Christ (10:26), which has, of course, already taken place. This is the 'age to come' (2:5). Christians are therefore living on the borders of eternity. All the writer has to say to them relates to what characterises this era whose hallmark, so to speak, is that the Messiah has come and 'so great salvation' is available. This is the answer to their need.

This era is a time of glorious privilege. But it is a serious time too, because, unlike the old (Sinaitic) covenant which preceded it, there is nothing temporary about the new covenant. It is unshakeable (12:27-28). It will not be succeeded by another. To reject it — especially after professing to receive it — leaves one in a worse position than those who rejected the Mosaic covenant. There is no other sacrifice for sin (10:26) and no other way to escape the awesome judgment of God (2:3 and 10:28-31).

Jesus the Christ who is ever 'the same' is, therefore, to be the focus of Christians' trust and perseverance. The apostle and highpriest par excellence has come (3:1). Like Moses and Joshua (3:2 and 4:8) he is sent by God, but he brings the rest which they could not give. Like Aaron, but more like Melchizedek, he is king as well as priest (5:1-10 and 6:20-10:18), and actually deals with sin and its consequences for his people. This supplies the undergirding for the repeated use of the comparative adjective 'better' (see 1:4; 7:19,22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16,35) with reference to a name, hope, covenant, promises, sacrifices, substance, country and resurrection. Jesus Christ brings in something altogether better than the old, preparatory era could actually provide (11:40).

The last days are the era between the two comings of the Lord Jesus Christ (9:28). It is a glorious time to be living in. By his first coming, he accomplished atonement and, in heaven, intercedes for those for whom he lived and died. Through him there is open entry into God's presence (10:19); mercy and grace are available (4:16) and salvation 'to the uttermost' for all who keep coming to God (9:27). There is help to keep looking to him and to keep running the race (12:1-2) — to keep on believing, as did many before he came and as he did himself. There is therefore no excuse for not persever­ing. He will neither be ashamed of his pilgrim people nor forget them. But let them not forget him!