Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HEBREWS
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
BY
SAM HARRELSON
25 NOVEMBER 2008
Hebrews stands apart as a unique text in the New Testament addressing a specific
historical issue to which we as later readers are not able to fully pin down or understand.
The implied geography, makeup of community initially being addressed and date of
composition are all variables that cannot firmly be grasped from the text or the received
tradition. So, we are left to reconstruct the historical situation as best as we can with only
the document of Hebrews itself. Interestingly, the historical situation being addressed by
the author of Hebrews gives the text a unique flavor compared to the rest of the New
Testament. Common New Testament themes such as faith and sacrifice are covered, but
their treatment gives the impression that the author knew very little of figures such as
Paul or early movements underway in the first century Jesus movement. The overall
“high Christology” of Hebrews is also a unique feature of the text that has historically
given the book a spotlight and caused its status within the canon and traditional
Nevertheless, this reliance solely on the text of Hebrews does offer interesting
conclusions about the actual dating of the text. In this paper, I propose a pre-Temple
Destruction composition of the book based on the practical nature of the argument being
presented by the author to address a very real and very local theological situation.
First, we’ll look at the distinctiveness of theology in Hebrews and how the book
stands apart from the New Testament because of this specific historical situation that we
know so little about. Initially, it is easy to assume that the audience is neither Pauline nor
Johannine in makeup or influence. Similarly, the intended audience also does not belong
to the mother church in Jerusalem.1 Instead, the theology and argument of the text is a
1
Barnabas Lindars SSF, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, ed.
very practical response to an urgent historical situation.2 This practical nature involves an
community being addressed to demonstrate the dangers and shortfalls of returning to the
practices and liturgies of the Judaism (out of which this community evidently evolved)
for their needs regarding a notion of atonement. This practical argument is based heavily
on a rhetoric of persuasion for the right action of remaining within the confines of a faith
in Christ as the sole arbiter and insurance of atonement using common themes, texts and
allusions that only an audience heavily steeped in Jewish traditions would fully grasp.
Given that the text is so practical in its main thrust, it is reasonable to assume that this
intended audience grappling with the question of adequate atonement. In this scheme,
the intended audience is tempted to take a course of action, which is inconsistent with the
intensely “high” in its appropriation of the figure of Jesus for the majority of the book.
The reason for this is that the atonement question, for the author of Hebrews, lies at the
very axis of the Christian faith and that explains the impassioned rhetoric being employed
to make the case that Christ’s one sacrifice provides sufficient atonement now and forever
to those waiting on the arrival of parousia. This emphasis is made throughout the book
with the remarkable number of allusions and connections between traditional sacrifices
and atonement themes in Jewish tradition with the act (and superseding function) of
Christ. The central argument of the letter is to offer a compelling case for the complete
the need for atonement from sin in a post-baptismal and pre-parousia experience.
community on the verge of readopting some or all of their Jewish heritage and traditions
to placate the need for atonement in the growing and unexpected length of time before
the return of Christ and after the baptismal events of individuals within the community,
the author of Hebrews frames the central question of the book. This question is why has
the intended audience lost confidence in the power of the sacrifice of Christ to deal with
their consciousness of sin?5 To understand more about this question, we can turn to a
place where there is convergence between Hebrews and another instance of a historical
situation being addressed by a concerned elder or leader on the basis of the community’s
growing and evolving needs due to a period of extended waiting for the return of Christ.
1 Thessalonians 4:13 has Paul addressing the community at Thessolonica over their
concerns about members of the community who have died (and others who continue to
do so) event though it seems they were assured that the second coming would happen in
this generation:
5
Ibid, 12.
Lindars makes this interesting connection with Paul and frames the connection
with the notion of a realized eschatology that is awaiting the imminent return of Christ to
fully establish the Kingdom of God here on earth. In the specific case of the Hebrews’
community, the question is over the very real and practical concern of atonement for sins
that occur post baptismal yet pre-parousia. This framing is important for the construction
of an early dating of Hebrews because the practicality of the message being conveyed is
framed not only with the author’s concern over the question of community members
relapsing6 into Judaism or its rituals, but also is framed by a steady reliance on a realized
eschatology that, while evolving its urgency, is still awaiting the imminent arrival of
Christ.
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the
prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he
appointed the heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.
…for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the
foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the
end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.
writing in the 50’s and 60’s. However, this eschatological urgency loses steam as a prime
6
I use the term “relapsing” a few times in this paper to denote the
attitude of the author of Hebrews. In my own opinion, this term, when
applied to the supersessionist argument presented in Hebrews, does
violence to both Judaism and Christianity in the modern context.
Therefore, modern readers are urged to remember the historical and
practical nature of this book and what the author seems to be arguing
against rather than seeking to use this text as a proof-text for
disgusting anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish rhetoric.
motivator of theology or community association after the destruction of the Temple in 70
and into the closing decades of the first century as the first and second generation of Jesus
followers die off and are replaced by younger (and predominantly more gentile in overall
composition outside of Palestine) followers who begin to set up structures and hierarchies
to meet the needs of Christian communities scattered around the Mediterranean basin. It
makes little sense for such a practical and historical situation being addressed and
author of Hebrews is passionately reminding the community of the very real need to not
turn back to Judaism’s rituals of atonement sacrifices, as they grow impatient waiting for
the return of Jesus in the mid-first century. The parallels to Paul and Thessolonica here
Similarly, one of the main thrusts of the author’s arguments against returning to
Judaism is the assertion that Jesus has become the great high priest who supersedes all
other mortal high priests because a) his sacrifice was perfect and has eternal qualities that
cannot be replicated by mortal high priests in the Temple who must perform the sacrifices
over and over (to which the author has great delight in pointing out) and b) Jesus as high
priest does not need to make satiation for his own sins as mortal high priests do because
and practical local issue, why would the author shift such a persuasive argument based on
priest? The office of the high priest was abandoned with the destruction of the Temple in
70 CE, so if Hebrews is a composition that is written after 70, this main theme of Jesus as
the high priest must have been written with an overtly spiritualized mindset. However,
that dating and that interpretation of Jesus as the high priest fails to be corroborated with
the evidence presented from the text in terms of its practical notions and from specific
passages that speak of the high priests and their actions in a very real and corporeal sense.
Every high priest chosen from among mortals is put in charge of things
pertaining to God on their behalf, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He
is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is
subject to weakness; and because of this he must offer sacrifice for his
own sins as well as for those of the people. And one does not presume to
take this honor, but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was.
Clearly, the address here is in the present tense. The author is not making an argument
about the high priests of the past or their actions in a way that would lead one to infer that
Perhaps most telling, this connecting of Jesus with the office of high priest only
occurs in the book of Hebrews. If the author is indeed following the line of practical
argument setting up Jesus’ sacrifice and function as being superior to that of Judaism and
its rituals, why invoke the office of high priest if the office does not exist anymore? Why
go through so much trouble to make Jesus the greatest high priest if there is no
competition? How would that serve the general argument of the book? It would not,
because the book is composed at a time when the office of the high priest is still very real,
very functioning and very competitive with the evolving personhood of Jesus. Lindars
alludes to this possibility in his section on the sacrifice of Jesus when he off-handedly
(and temptingly) notes: “We may note in passing that these verses support the idea that
7
Ibid, 87.
When taken as a whole, the book of Hebrews is a stirring and very practical
rhetorical argument for the supremacy of Jesus over the rituals and traditions of Judaism
on the question of atonement. The central question being addressed by the author is
whether or not community members should fall back to these Jewish rituals and traditions
in order to find atonement for sin in a post-baptismal and pre-parousia experience. This
important bracketing gives us clues as to the date of composition of this book and allows
us to construct a dating that is pre-70 and much more in line with the eschatological
urgency of Paul and the first to early second generation of Jesus followers rather than the
more established and less urgent christologies and soteriologies that were developing near
the end of the first century. That eschatological subtext combined with the present-tense
notion of the office of high priest and the community’s in-depth familiarity with the non-
pedestrian terms, rituals and offices of Judaism covered in the book make a strong case
for a dating of this work somewhere in the late 50’s to late 60’s rather than post-70 as has