the general circumstances and other details comport with a Roman (or Italian) destination.7 That the audience was in Italy and probably Rome is our own assumption but it can be only speculation. The church may have been in Asia Minor, Syria, Judea, Egypt, or elsewhere. More on their background anon.
If, for the sake of argument, it was written to Jewish believers in Judea (or elsewhere, for that matter) tempted to return to non-Christian Jewish temple worship (whether directly or indirectly via the synagogue) then it would naturally stem from some time before ad 70 when the Romans destroyed the temple. But Hebrews’ argument revolves on Moses’s tabernacle and never mentions the temple. It is also more forward looking than backward looking in this sense: If one used the analogy of two married couples, one of which suffered from a desire of one of the members to return to his parents’ home, the other of which suffered from a simple failure of one of the members to have embraced married life as fully as he should have done, Hebrews sounds more like the latter. Its message is less like, “Do not go back home,” than it is like, “Move forward!” Such a message could be addressed to the church of any time or place. The argument’s strong rootedness in the OT does evidence a readership already fully invested in those Scriptures and, at least in principle, in the sanctuary-centered life of Israel, but the preacher’s theology of divine speech would have required the expositional strategy he follows for Gentile as well as Jewish Christians. Moreover, particular texts (2:3; 5:11–14; 13:7) suggest a later rather than earlier date, as does the way in which the letter’s teachings seem to be building on a theologically developed confession. The church, we theorize, was probably of mixed ethnic character, particularly if we are right in locating it in Italy or anywhere else outside of Judea, and if we are right in thinking that the letter was sent at least as late as the early 60s.8 The invisibility of the Gentiles is part of the larger absorption of the audience into the “heavenly” story of the promise. We may observe that many a Gentile congregation has subsequently believed itself to be directly addressed by this text; the substance of its message has proved meaningful to a Gentile readership. It would be strange if the preacher missed the implications for a decentralized mission that were built into his own argument. The theory that it was written to believers in Rome (or environs) after the experiences of Claudius’ temporary expulsion of the Jews (ad 49; cf. 10:32–34; Acts 18:2) but before Nero’s deadlier persecutions (ad 64–68; 12:4) had taken hold has a satisfying fit. Nothing, however, finally excludes the possibility that the letter was written after the destruction of the temple, albeit prior to the composition of 1 Clement and Timothy’s death (unknown, but likely within the first century).
The lack of precision on such things is a problem that becomes amplified when it is a matter of finely-tuned historical theories, but is a significantly exaggerated problem in other ways. The historical glass is more than half full. There is for us no doubt that the letter emanates from the same period as the rest of the NT writings, that it represents a witness at one with that of the apostles, and that, even if it is not from Paul’s hand, it belongs to the Spirit’s own witness among the other canonical writings.
For the rest, space allows only the stating of our conclusions which will be operative for our own exposition: For all its uniqueness, Hebrews shares particular parallels with the writings of Luke (especially Acts, and particularly Acts 7), Peter (1 Peter), Paul, and John. Its teaching is deeply rooted in the apostolic tradition, which it is faithfully developing. The Timothy mentioned in 13:23 can be taken as Paul’s associate, evidencing a concrete link with Paul’s mission and gospel. Its message is centered on strengthening the core of fellowship in perseverance but it everywhere breathes the theology of a church caught up in mission. It is a church that is the result of mission and its theology is the theology of an inclusive, outward-moving mission. Signs of inner Jew-Gentile tensions over matters of law are non-existent; all believers are together the seed of Abraham (2:16) striving as one people toward the goal.
The beginnings of the church reached to the period relatively soon after the gospel events (2:3) but some time must have since passed (5:11–14; 10:32; 13:7). The earliest history of the church was characterized by a robust life of faith that met with and endured public persecution and that upheld the life of fellowship. Their unbelieving society had attempted to shame them back into conformity; they had suffered loss of property and some had been imprisoned. It is possible that there had been a season of relative calm and that storm clouds now loomed. Whether or not that is the case, there had been a waning of faith among at least some of the church’s members. The specific charges lodged are that some had begun to forsake the Christian assemblies (10:25), that the church as a whole had not matured as it should have done given the time (5:11–14), and that they have forgotten how God addresses them as his children (12:5). Beyond this we note passive (e.g., drifting [2:1]), active (e.g., rebellion), and external (persecution) aspects of the problem9 that are vague enough to accommodate a range of hypotheses. On the one hand there is the failure to persevere in the “approach” to the divine throne with a confidence that is based on Christ’s atonement, with an understanding of the way of salvation, and with a sense of urgency in keeping with the historical moment (inhabiting what is unseen). On the other hand there is a failure to persevere in the life of bodily fellowship and in their public witness (the visible). Hebrews calls them to faithfulness in both spheres but the greater emphasis falls on the former, suggesting that it—the confidence to approach through Christ in the understanding of God’s history—is the real epicenter of their problems. Whether or not this is how the readers would have described their situation, this will have been the preacher’s diagnosis.
Looking in Front of the Text: Hebrews’ Reception (Canonicity)10
Questions of canonicity are by their nature never questions of historical judgments only but nor can our historical judgments about this text go unaffected by our conclusions on canonicity; this holds as much for those who reject Hebrews’ place in the canon or reject the very category of canonicity, as it does for those who affirm these. We therefore pause to enter its consideration here in the midst of our introductory historical and literary comments.
There was no immediate and direct line to acceptance for Hebrews as there was for other parts of the NT. The Western and Eastern branches of the church in the first three centuries handled it differently. In the West, Pauline authorship was doubted or rejected and the letter’s strong wording of 6:4–6, among other things, sat awkwardly with that tradition’s more hopeful views of the restoration of lapsed Christians to fellowship. Hebrews’ authority was accordingly placed in doubt, though it was read and respected. In the East, Pauline authorship was more widely accepted and the letter’s theology resonated with the philosophical and mystical bent of their thought and practices.
Eventually Hebrews found a constructive place in the church’s christological controversies and its teaching on repentance came to be interpreted in ways less problematic for the practices of church discipline. When Jerome (d. ad 420) and Augustine (d. ad 430) leaned toward Pauline authorship—more out of respect for the Eastern church’s tradition than the evidence of the text itself—the recognition of Hebrews proceeded on a steadier track toward broad acceptance. The canonical lists of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed it as such, though it eventually settled into place at the very end of the Pauline collection, on its margins, as it were. Questions of authorship were renewed at the time of the Reformation, with more or less affect on the question of authority. In the modern period Pauline authorship has been widely (not universally) rejected, including among many who fully affirm its canonical character.
One could say in retrospect that Hebrews declared its own authority and its place in the Christian canon, possessing the (finally) irrepressible voice of apostolicity. Direct apostolic authorship has never been a requirement for inclusion (cf. Luke–Acts), and it is to be expected that authentic witnesses will jar us with their unique perspectives as much as they will affirm one another in the unity of their convictions. The church stands under the
