The Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Epistle to the Hebrews.

§ 274. To the canonical books of the New Testament of the second rank belong the following: the Epistle to the Hebrews. Some in the Church used to doubt and still doubt whether this Epistle should be numbered with Paul’s Epistles. Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Arnobius quote it nowhere. Tertullian mentions it no more than once (De pudicit., c. 20), but he claims: “It was not written by Paul but by Barnabas.”

Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 3, c. 3: “Fourteen Epistles of Paul are obvious and clear. But it would not be right to ignore the fact that some rejected the letter to the Hebrewis—those of the church at Rome—as if it were not Paul’s, asserting that it is spoken against. And what those who preceded us have said about it, I shall add in its own place.” In the same book, c. 32:

In his epistle that he wrote in the persona of the Roman church to the Corinthians, Clement drew many ideas from the Epistle written to the Hebrews. In fact, he even uses certain expressions from it word for word (), which proves clearly that this is not a recent and new writing. For this reason, it did not seem wrong to list it among the rest of the apostle’s writings. You see, because in this writing Paul spoke to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke translated this Epistle; others, that Clement did, something that seems to be more in harmony with the truth for this reason: both the epistle of Clement and that written to the Hebrews contain a similar character of diction, and the ideas of each do not differ much from each other.

 

Hist., bk. 6, c. 20: “There has come to us the disputation of Caius, a fluent man, delivered at Rome under Zephirinus against Proclus, proponent of the Cataphrygian heresy. In it, to shut up the rash audacity of the opposing party by which they were bringing some new scriptures, he mentions only thirteen Epistles of the holy apostle and does not count Hebrews among the others. Up till now also, some of the Romans do not think it is of the apostle.”

Origen, in a homily on that Epistle recorded by Eusebius in Histor., bk. 6, c. 25: “The character of the diction of the Epistle entitled ‘to the Hebrews’ does not have in its words the style of the apostle (), for he confessed that he was unskilled in his speech, that is, in his diction. The Epistle, however, is quite Greek in the composition of its diction (). Anyone skilled in differentiating among styles will admit this. Again, anyone who pays careful attention to reading the apostle will admit that the ideas of this Epistle are great ones and by no means inferior to those letters that are, without contradiction, apostolic, and that this is true.” And later:

To state my opinion, I, on the other hand, would have said that the ideas of this Epistle are of the apostle, but the style and structure are of someone else who took notes of the apostle’s statements and put them down—like lecture notes [scholia] that he heard from his teacher. It is of someone who remembed apostolic things and as of one who took notes of the things said by his teacher. So if a church has considered this Epistle as being by Paul, let it embrace and approve it also by this name (), for it was not for no reason that ancient men handed down that it was Paul’s. God knows who wrote it, but the story has come to us that some say it was written by Bishop Clement of Rome but that others say it was written by Luke, who also gave us his Gospel and the Acts.

 

Nazianzen, letter to Seleucus, writes: “Some consider the Epistle to the Hebrews to be spurious.”

Jerome, Catal. viror. illustr., on Caius: “Caius, a certain ancient and learned author, listed no more than thirteen Epistles of Paul. The fourteenth, which is called Hebrews, he says is not Paul’s. Yet also among the Romans up to this day, it is still not considered to be of the apostle Paul.” Ibid., on Paul: “The Epistle that is called ‘to the Hebrews’ is not considered his because of a dissonance of style and speech.” On Isaiah 6: “Latin custom does not accept this Epistle.” On Isaiah 8: “The Latin Church does not accept the Epistle to the Hebrews among canonical Scripture.” On Isaiah 50: “This is said also in the Epistle that is called ‘to the Hebrews.’ “On Jeremiah 31: “The apostle Paul, or whoever else wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, used this testimony.” On Zechariah 8: “Nevertheless if the Latin language does not reject taking up the Epistle by authority of the Greeks ….” On Matthew 26 he writes: “Many of the Latins had doubts about it.”

Augustine speaks frequently about this Epistle as if it were of doubtful authority, as one may see in his Enchir., c. 8; De peccat. merit. et remiss., bk. 1, c. 27, etc. In De civ. Dei, bk. 10, c. 5, he speaks in this way: “… in the Epistle that is entitled ‘to the Hebrews.’ “Vives comments on this passage: “He means that the author is uncertain.” De civ. Dei, bk. 16, c. 22: “Many say that the Epistle to the Hebrews belongs to the apostle Paul, but some deny it.” On this passage, Vives makes the following comment: “Jerome, Origen, Augustine, and other ancients are undecided about this. Before the time of Jerome, the Latins did not accept this Epistle among the sacred books.”

Platina, Vita Petri, p. 10: “The Epistle to the Hebrews, which is published abroad under the name of Paul, was considered uncertain because of a difference of style and speech. Also, there used to be those who ascribed it to Luke and Barnabas and Clement.”

Cajetan says that it is not a canonical Epistle—it proves the eternity of Christ from the figurative sense of 2 Samuel 7 (Heb. 1:5).

In Bibl., bk. 7, Sixtus Senensis says, “Some attribute it to Tertullian,” which is a completely absurd statement because Tertullian himself attributes it to Barnabas.

Erasmus, Annot. on Acts 1, p. 199: “The Epistle to the Hebrews was accepted late.” On Hebrews 2, p. 493: “Stapulensis brings the interpreter of this Epistle to court; whoever he may have been is uncertain, so it is not likely that Paul wrote it. Actually, there are those who think that Luke was its interpreter.” Page 498: “It is uncertain whether Paul is the author of this Epistle.” He discusses this matter most broadly toward the end of his commentary on this Epistle, where he says (p. 517): “It differs far and wide from Paul’s style as regards diction, but it comes very close to Paul’s heart and spirit.” Also: “One can conclude from many indications—if not certain, at least probable—that it was written by someone other than Paul.”

Of our people, blessed Luther (on Genesis 48, f. 643) thinks that Apollos is its author. In his preface to this Epistle, he claims: “It belongs neither to Paul nor to another apostle because its author (in 2:3) declares that he is a disciple of the apostles, something that Paul denies about himself (Gal. 1:12),” and also because in 6:4 and 10:26 “it seems to deny repentance to sinners after Baptism.” Nevertheless he concludes: “This is a beautiful and especially outstanding Epistle, written by a disciple of the apostles.” Dr. Hunnius, on Hebrews 2 and in his Exam. Bellarm., bk. 1, de verbo Dei, c. 17, p. 153, likewise denies that Paul wrote it. Dr. Lucas Osiander, preface to this Epistle: “It is proved that it is not Paul’s because the style is not Pauline and because the author professes to be a disciple of the apostles, which Paul denies about himself. Perhaps we ought to attribute it to Barnabas or Apollos, but more to the latter because he was of a more favorable spirit.” Dr. Andreas Osiander, Anal. de eccles. contra Greg. de Valent., p. 484: “It is written in the apostolic spirit, but it is not Pauline.” Dr. Mentzer, Apol. cont. Pistor., p. 247: “I admit that I do not know who the author of this Epistle is. Other arguments as well as especially the passage 2:3 completely persuade me that it does not belong to Paul.”

Of the Calvinists, Beza, Hemmingius, Aretius, and Whitaker leave the matter of its author undecided. Calvin, Marloratus, and Arminius say that it is Paul’s.

Of the Photinians, Eniedinus says that this Epistle is not canonical because in 11:21, 9:19, and 9:4 things are quoted from the Scripture of the Old Testament that are not extant there and because in 1:6 and 10:5, 13, and 16 some things are not cited carefully enough. Nevertheless in De auctorit. Script., p. 70, Socinus acknowledges that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul’s. In Solut. scrupul., p. 34, he calls the author of that Epistle “a divine writer.” In the Theses de offic. Christ., 4: “We think that no sufficiently firm reason can be given as to why the Epistle to the Hebrews ought not have authority in deciding controversial questions.”

§ 275. On the other hand, however, some of the ancients, as well as more recent people, affirm that this Epistle is both canonical and Pauline. Clement of Alexandria, Hypotypos., according to Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 6, c. 11: “This Epistle clearly is Paul’s and was written in Hebrew for Hebrews but was translated into Greek by Luke.” It is placed in the catalog of Holy Scripture under Paul’s name by the Council of Laodicea, canon 59; the third Council of Carthage, canon 47; the Council of Rome under Gelasius; etc. It is numbered among the Pauline Epistles by Athanasius (Synopsis), Cyril (Thesaurus, bk. 12, c. 9), Nazianzen (Carmina), Amphilochius (Carm. ad Seleucum), Chrysostom (commentary on this Epistle), Epiphanius (Haeres. 76), John of Damascus (bk. 4, c. 18), etc. Dionysius (Epistle ad Tit.) quotes it under the name of Paul. Theophylact wonders at the shamelessness of those who deny this. Athanasius, Dial. 1 de Trinit.: “This Epistle is believed to be by Paul, who announced the Gospel of Christ.” In Catal. haeres., Philaster numbers those who reject this Epistle or who deny that it is Paul’s among the heretics.

Also, some of the Latin fathers acknowledge that this Epistle is Pauline. Jerome, Epistle 29 ad Dardanum:

Our people must say this: that this Epistle that is entitled “to the Hebrews” is accepted as if Paul’s, not only by the Eastern churches but also by all the churches formerly and the writers of the Greek language, though most think that either Barnabas or Clement is the author. It makes no difference whose it is, because it is by a churchman and is honored by being read daily in our churches. However, if the custom of the Latins does not accept it among the canonical Scriptures, if the churches of the Greeks do not accept the Apocalypse of John with the same freedom, we nevertheless accept both because we follow certainly not the custom of this time but the authority of the ancients, who frequently use the testimonies of both, not as they at times are accustomed to do in regard to apocryphal writings—and indeed they use examples of heathen literature not rarely—but as if from the canonical, ecclesiastical writings.

 

Hilary (De Trinitat., bk. 12), Ambrose (De Cain, bk. 2, c. 2), Augustine (De doctrin. Christ., bk. 2, c. 8), Rufinus (Symb.), Avitus Viennensis (Carm.), Isidore (Origin., bk. 6), and Cassiodorus (Div. lect., bk. 1, c. 4) claim it is Pauline. Ambrose, on Psalm 119, calls it Pauline, and he wrote commentaries on it as a Pauline Epistle. Gregory quotes it in Moral., bk. 5, c. 3.

Of the more recent theologians, the following make the same claim: Flacius (Annot. N. T., in the introduction to this Epistle), Chytraeus (Onomast., p. 186), Palladius (Isag. Bibl.), Gesnerus (Comp. doctr. coelest., locus 1, p. 13), and many others.

Of the Calvinists, almost all teach this. Calvin, bk. 3, c. 3, § 21: “Some good men, offended by the harshness of the passages (of Hebrews 6 and 10) have believed that this is a spurious Epistle. Nonetheless in every part it has the true flavor of the apostolic spirit.” Whitaker, Controv. de Script. 1, q. 1, c. 16: “We all concede that in every way this Epistle is canonical; it is not just as clear, however, whether Paul wrote it.” Paraeus, Disput. de Script., thesis 106: “The Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul’s; thus we deduce clearly that it is divine and canonical from Scripture, 2 Thess. 3:17.” (Cf. Piscator, Anal.; Keckermann, Syst. theol., p. 184.)

Of the Papists, Lindanus affirms: “One must believe that Paul wrote it no less than he must believe it is canonical Scripture” (Panop., bk. 4, c. 100). Bellarmine (De verb. Dei, bk. 1, c. 17) claims that “one can prove easily that it is both canonical and by Paul.” Estius makes the same claim in his preface to this Epistle.

§ 276. Arguments are not lacking by which it could be proved that Paul wrote this Epistle. (1) The author of this Epistle recommends a certain well-known disciple: Timothy (13:23). But no one had such a disciple besides the apostle Paul. Oecumenius urges this argument in his preface to this Epistle.

(2) The author of this Epistle makes mention of his bonds (10:33). We have this frequently in Paul: Phil. 1:7ff.; Col. 4:18; 2 Tim. 2:9; Philem. 9-10.

(3) We conclude its truly apostolic majesty and truly divine spirit from many indications.

(4) It has many of the same axioms as Paul has: compare Heb. 1:2-3 with Col. 1:14-17; Heb. 5:12-13 with 1 Cor. 3:1-2; Heb. 9:15 with Rom. 3:25; Heb. 10:34 with 1 Thess. 2:14; Heb. 11:11-12 with Rom. 4:18-19; Heb. 12:1 with 1 Cor. 9:24; Heb. 13:9 with Eph. 4:14; Heb. 13:15-16 with Rom. 12:1-2; Heb. 13:18 with 2 Cor. 1:11-12; etc.

(5) Second Peter 3:15 witnesses that Paul wrote to the Hebrews when it says, “Just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you,” namely, to the Hebrews; for it is concluded that 1 Peter was written to them from 1:1 and that the second was written to them from 3:1. Either that Epistle has disappeared or this is it. It is not likely that it has perished because divine kindness has preserved the Epistle to Philemon, which is brief and appears to discuss only private business. Because the apostle wrote so many Epistles to churches gathered from the Gentiles, it is likely that he would have written at length and accurately about the mystery of salvation through Christ to Hebrews who had been brought up under the divine Law. The subject matter itself says that this is being done in this Epistle.

(6) Peter (loc. cit.) witnesses that Paul wrote to the Hebrews concerning those things about which he himself writes to them in his own Epistle. Now, a comparison shows that the same subjects are being treated in Peter’s Epistle and in this letter to the Hebrews. Peter teaches that all things that have to do with life are given us through Christ, who is the Son of God and our Mediator, about whom the prophets prophesied. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews shows the same thing at length. Peter urges the Hebrews to pursue piety and holiness and gives a grave warning about the destruction awaiting the apostate. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches the same thing at length.

(7) Peter says that Paul wrote “according to the wisdom given him” (2 Pet. 3:15). But that divine wisdom glows in the sentences and words of this Epistle.

(8) In the same place Peter bears witness about those things Paul writes about in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in his other Epistles, that there “are some things difficult to understand [], which the ignorant and unstable twist …” (2 Pet. 3:16). But such things occur in Hebrews 6 and 10.

(9) In 2 Thess. 3:17, Paul affirms that he closes all his Epistles with the subscript of human words: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” With this mark he wants his Epistles to be recognized and distinguished from others. But now, this little statement is found at the end of this Epistle (Heb. 13:[25]).

(10) We observe the same technique in this Epistle as we note in the rest of the Pauline Epistles. For he first explains the mystery of salvation given us through Christ, and from that he then draws exhortations to pursue piety.

§ 277. The following are the more significant arguments that are brought for the opposite position. (1) “In his Epistles, Paul generally sets down his name first, but this is not done in this Epistle.” We respond. Jerome, in his preface to the Epistles of Paul, responds violently that if it is not Paul’s because it does not bear his name, then no one wrote it because it bears the title of no one. First John likewise has no name added in the title; nonetheless no one doubts that it is John’s. Others respond that Paul did not want to make express mention of his name because he knew that it was hateful to the Hebrews, who indeed had accepted the rumor that he taught people to revolt from the Law. By the omission of his name, then, Paul wanted to take care, lest the Hebrews see the title and immediately reject the Epistle. This is the view of Athanasius (Dial. 1 de S. Trinit.). Some respond that the greeting and name were omitted because this Epistle was written in book style rather than in letter style, for it says at the end: “For I have written to you briefly” (13:22), something he did not intend to say about the Epistle, since this is a long letter. Jerome offers another reason for the omission of the name (on Galatians 1): “Because the apostle intended in this Epistle (3:1) to call Christ ‘the Apostle of our confession,’ he did not want to call himself the ‘apostle’ Paul at the beginning, according to his usual custom, lest he appear to compare himself with Christ in some respect.” (See the statement of Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, Histor., bk. 6, c. 13.) In his preface to this Epistle, Theodoret and, from him, Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary, respond that the name was omitted “because Paul was not an apostle for the Jews but for the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:9; 1 Tim. [2]:7). This, however, must by no means be taken exclusively, but rather comparatively, for the apostle did preach quite often to the Jews (Acts 13:46; 28:23; etc.). Beza testifies (Annot.): “In all my codices, with only one exception, I found this inscription: ‘The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews.’ “Therefore it is likely that the name of Paul was ascribed at first but was later removed.

(2) “In Heb. 6:1-2, mention is made of catechizing, yet that custom appears to have started only after Paul’s time.” We respond. On the contrary, we see from Gal. 6:6 that the custom of catechizing was already in use at Paul’s time: “Let him who is taught in the Word [] share all good things with him who teaches.” Acts 18:25-26 says the following about Apollos: “He had been instructed [] in the way of the Lord.”

(3) “The author of this Epistle counts himself in the number of the disciples of the apostles (2:3). But now, the apostle Paul strongly denies that he had learned anything in the Gospel from men” (Gal. 1:22; 2:6). Bellarmine responds: “Paul is not speaking here about confirmation through instruction, which he is discussing in the Epistle to the Galatians, but about confirmation through miracles, for he says that salvation, that is, the preaching of salvation, was confirmed through the apostles as God bore witness through signs and miracles.” It is more simple to respond that these things are to be understood through communication [per ] or by considering as common [], by which the person who speaks or listens associates himself with the hearers or readers and transfers to himself what properly belongs to them. Examples of this occur in Isa. 53:3; 1 Cor. 4:6; 11:31-32; 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:17; especially 1 Pet. 4:3; and in this Epistle, 3:6, 14; and, in fact, in this passage 2:3.

(4) “In Chapter 6 and 10 there seems to be a denial of repentance and forgiveness to sinners after Baptism. In 12:17 Esau is said not to have found a place of repentance. These points seem to be opposed to the analogy of faith.” We respond. By this argument not only the author of this Epistle but also its actual canonical authority would be called into doubt, something that no one will say easily. We have explained how one must take those passages in our articles On Repentance [Commonplace XVIII] and On Actual Sins [Commonplace XIII].

(5) “Until the time of Jerome, the Latins did not accept it.” We respond. Judgment on this matter can be drawn from the testimonies we cited from the ancients on each side of the question. Bellarmine asserts: “All the Latins after Lactantius acknowledge this Epistle as Pauline,” though Jerome, nearly two hundred years later than Lactantius, says in c. 8 on Isaiah: “The Latin Church does not accept this Epistle.”

(6) “Some things in it are quoted as if from the Old Testament that are not held among the Hebrews as, for example, Heb. 12:21: ‘(Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that) Moses said: “I tremble with fear.” ‘ It was not the custom of the apostles, however, to use testimonies from apocryphal writings.” We respond. Paul even cites some things from the heathen, namely, from Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides. It is probable that Paul had this from tradition, just as in the case also of the names of the mages Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8). Thomas Aquinas responds: “This very fact proves that Moses said it.” Some respond that Exod. 19:19 says of Moses that which agrees with this passage, namely: “And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him with a voice.” From this they conclude that Moses was terrified by the trumpet blare, that he complained about his fear, and that God lifted him up with His gentle voice.

(7) “The style and character of speech have no affinity with Paul’s diction” (Jerome, Catal. illustr., on the word “Paul”). We respond. The opposite conclusion is drawn from the similarity of phrases and from the methodology. Moreover, also in the other Pauline Epistles a certain diversity of style occurs.

(8) “The author of the Epistle says that he is not laying a foundation of doctrine (6:1). Yet the apostles do do this.” We respond. We take [“first principles,” Heb. 5:12] to mean the rudiments and beginnings of doctrine for beginners that, at this time and in this Epistle, he did not consider necessary to set down. Otherwise he most especially laid the foundations of heavenly doctrine concerning Christ’s person and office, faith, forgiveness of sins, etc.

(9) “The passage Heb. 9:4 seems to speak contrary to a canonical book (1 Kings 8:9), where we read: ‘There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone.’ “This is Cajetan’s argument. Theophylact responds: “At Solomon’s time there was nothing else in the ark except the tables of the Law (as 1 Kings 8 says), but later the Jews also placed the urn and rod within the ark.” From Hebrews, Lyra and Vatablus respond: “At first, indeed, manna and Aaron’s rod were in the ark, and it is about this time that the Epistle to the Hebrews is speaking. Later, they were taken from the ark, and the discussion (in 1 Kings 8) concerns this time.” Some refer the relative pronoun [“which”] in the apostolic passage not to the closest noun, [“ark”], but to a more distant one, namely, [“tabernacle”]. Some respond that the preposition [“in”] has the same force in this passage as “near.” In either case, it remains true that only the tables were within the ark, for the vase and the rod were before the ark (Exod. 16:34; Num. 17:[8]; 1 Kings 8:9). We say that the noun “ark” is taken in two ways: first, for the entire body of the ark, which includes also the side compartments in which lay Aaron’s rod and the urn with the manna; second, for the interior and what we would call the belly of the ark, in which lay only the tables of the Law.

(10) “In c. 1, the author of the Epistle proves that Christ is the Son of God from the words of 2 Sam. 7:14: ‘I will be his Father.’ Yet these words are understood literally of Solomon. Firm arguments, however, are drawn only from the literal sense” (Cajetan, ibid.). We respond. On the contrary, the apostles are able to seek firm arguments even from the allegories of the Old Testament, because they wrote by the immediate impulse of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, 2 [Sam.] 7 contains some things that in the literal sense fit Solomon but also some that fit Christ, as is explained more fully in its own place.

(11) “In 9:20, the author of the Epistle, speaking about a testament in its proper sense as something that is confirmed by the death of its testator, quotes the words of Exod. 24:8: ‘This is the blood of the testament that God has commanded you.’ Yet in Exodus, according to the Hebrew verity, a ‘pact’ is mentioned, not a ‘covenant.’ “This is Erasmus’s argument. We respond. Not only the author of this Epistle but also the Septuagint translators translate the word as (“testament”). In fact, the apostle himself uses it this way in Rom. 9:4; Gal. 3:17; and 4:24. The matter itself proves this, because the promise of eternal life published in the Old Testament was a covenant and testament in diverse respects, as we explain elsewhere.

§ 278. Therefore we show our agreement with this latter position and claim that the Epistle to the Hebrews is (1) a letter of Paul himself; (2) canonical, but it is of the second rank because some people in the Church once had doubts about it; (3) written in Greek.

Clement of Alexandria (Stromat., bk. 4), Eusebius (Hist. eccles., bk. 3, c. 32), Jerome (Catal. script. illustr.), and certain others of the ancients think that it was written in Hebrew and was translated into Greek by Luke or Barnabas. We think, however, that it is more likely that Paul himself wrote it in Greek: (1) Because the Greek language at that time was familiar to most Jews, especially to those who were living in Asia Minor. (2) Since Peter and James wrote their Epistles addressed to the scattered Jews in Greek, it is likely that Paul did the same thing. (3) Since Paul wrote all the rest of his Epistles in Greek, it is likely that in this Epistle, too, he used the same character of speech followed by the canonical books of the New Testament. (4) With this Epistle, the apostle wanted to advise not only the Hebrews but also other nations, among whom the Greek language was in use. (5) The style and diction of this Epistle have the flavor of Greek eloquence, not of Hebrew. (6) Had the Epistle been written in Hebrew, Hebraisms ought to appear here and there in the Greek translation. Hebraisms, however, are less frequent in this Epistle than in the rest. (7) There is no ancient writer who testifies that he saw a Hebrew copy of this Epistle. (8) The Old Testament Scriptures are quoted in it not according to the Hebrew sources but according to the Septuagint translation. (9) The Hebrew name Melchizedek is translated as “king of righteousness” and Salem as “peace.” This, however, in no wise fits, if he wrote in Hebrew. (Cf. Franciscus Junius, Paral., bk. 3, on c. 9 of this Epistle, p. 479.)

The subscript shows that it was sent from Italy through Timothy. Chrysostom adds that it was written from prison in Rome.

Athanasius explains the theme of this Epistle in his Synopsis in this way: “Because the Jews were devoting themselves to the Law and its shadows, for this reason the apostle Paul became the teacher of the Gentiles and was sent to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel to them. When he had written to all the Gentiles, now, finally, he writes also to all the Hebrews—those of the circumcision who had believed. He writes to them this Epistle that is filled with statements and proofs of the coming of Christ and the Law’s shadow, which Christ’s coming brought to an end.” Thomas notes: “This Epistle was written against the errors of certain people who, after their conversion from Judaism to faith in Christ, wanted to observe the legal matters of the Old Testament along with the Gospel, as if the grace of Christ were not sufficient for salvation.” The aim and sum of the entire Epistle consists in this: that Jesus Christ, true God and true man, was promised in the Old Testament and revealed in the New as the Messiah, the only prophet, priest, and king of the Church; that He was foreshadowed by the Levitical ceremonies; that by Him the entire Church of God must be illumined and sanctified; that embracing His Gospel by faith, we should produce fruits worthy of the Gospel.

It consists of thirteen chapters in which are discussed (1) Christ and His person and office; (2) the duties of Christians by which they must show their gratitude to their Redeemer, to which pertains also patience, which must be shown in persecutions suffered because of Christ.

↑ Back to top