186
04-19-2024, 05:18 PM
Elsewhere this week somebody was commenting on one aspect of the evidence that Paul and the writer of Hebrews were two different people, and I was reminded of an essay with the above title which I wrote a number of years ago. I decided to make a summary and post it. Since I am a member of the Three Forums Club (how many of us are there?) I decided to post it in these places as well.
I started by going through the work of Christ in chronological order.
Firstly, Paul made only brief allusions to the pre-existence of Christ, like Galatians ch4 v4 (“sent forth his Son”) and the reference to Christ “emptying himself” in Philippians ch2 v7. Whereas the very starting point of Hebrews is the majesty of the pre-existent Son in relation to the universe.
Again, Paul made very little use of the earthly ministry of Jesus, for pastoral purposes, mentioning only that he was “obedient to the point of death on a cross”. Hebrews balances the initial stress on the glory of the Son by showing how the Son was not ashamed to be weak like his brethren. It was necessary for him to experience the struggle against sin in order to be a merciful High Priest for the rest of us (ch4 v15).
Yet there is one point here where Paul and Hebrews do come into contact. We are told that the Son “learned obedience” (ch5 v8). This does not mean that his previous state was disobedience. It means that his previous state was “authority”. It’s an echo of Paul’s statement about “emptied himself”.
In both sets of writing, the Cross is absolutely central. But I found Paul reticent about the exact nature of the connection between the Cross and our salvation, possibly because he had taught them all that already. There are references to Christ taking sin upon himself, “made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians ch5 v21). Paul’s characteristic idea is that Christ “died to sin” on the Cross, thus enabling those who are crucified “together with him” to “die to sin” in the same way.
Whereas in Hebrews the death of Christ is explicitly and systematically explained in terms of the Old Testament sacrifices designed to purify men from their sins. Though in the middle of all this he comes back to the obedience of Christ as the key factor (ch10 v7).
Paul lays great stress on the Resurrection of Christ (e.g. Romans ch6) as the sequel to the Cross and the key to our own resurrection. The beginning of Hebrews by-passes the Resurrection to go straight to the Ascension, with the Son sitting at the right hand of the Father. In the later discussion of Christ as the self-sacrificing High Priest, his death seems to take him through the veil straight into the heavenly sanctuary.
In Paul, the sequel to the Resurrection is that Christ becomes Lord, with authority over the whole world. Whereas in Hebrews, the emphasis on Jesus as being “like us” and the forerunner prepares the way for identifying him as High Priest.
Turning to the human side, I found in Paul a theme that the Law cannot prevent sin, and in Hebrews a theme that the Law cannot remove sin. Paul’s favourite expressions about the benefit of Christ’s death belong to the legal sphere or the sphere of human relations, such as “justified”, “acquitted”, “reconciled”. “Washed and sanctified”, in 1 Corinthians ch6 v11, was the only example I could find of the analogy of ritual purification from sin. Of course the argument of Hebrews depends on that analogy.
At the same time, Hebrews contains real echoes of Paul’s language. The fact that Christ “tasted death for everyone” is attributed to “the grace of God” in ch2 v9, and the man who spurns the Son of God has “outraged the spirit of grace” (ch10 v29). Th writer says that the discipline they are receiving shows that they are being treated as sons (ch12 v7, compare Galatians ch4 v7). There is the long ch11 outline of the history of faith. In ch6, he quotes the Genesis ch22 promise to Abraham, and then goes on to say that we are now encouraged “by two unbreakable things”. It seems to me (though this is a later discovery) that the other “unchangeable thing” can only be the Genesis ch15 promise quoted by Paul. That is, he seems to assume that his readers will recognise the allusion even if he doesn’t quote the reference himself. In other words, I think, he takes it for granted that they know the argument of Galatians. If he is not Paul, then he has certainly learned from Paul.
But what I found missing in Hebrews is the rich teaching based on the thought that we are in Christ and Christ is in us, and that this is the foundation of our Christian life. In Paul, “sin after baptism” is not a theological problem but a practical problem, to be dealt with practically by urging men to return to life in the Spirit. The conclusion I reached at the end of the essay, following a long paragraph of examples, was that writer of Hebrews was simply not in touch with an experience of “life in the Spirit” which was a vital reality to Paul, and that he filled the gap by developing his argument from scripture and by analogy.
I started by going through the work of Christ in chronological order.
Firstly, Paul made only brief allusions to the pre-existence of Christ, like Galatians ch4 v4 (“sent forth his Son”) and the reference to Christ “emptying himself” in Philippians ch2 v7. Whereas the very starting point of Hebrews is the majesty of the pre-existent Son in relation to the universe.
Again, Paul made very little use of the earthly ministry of Jesus, for pastoral purposes, mentioning only that he was “obedient to the point of death on a cross”. Hebrews balances the initial stress on the glory of the Son by showing how the Son was not ashamed to be weak like his brethren. It was necessary for him to experience the struggle against sin in order to be a merciful High Priest for the rest of us (ch4 v15).
Yet there is one point here where Paul and Hebrews do come into contact. We are told that the Son “learned obedience” (ch5 v8). This does not mean that his previous state was disobedience. It means that his previous state was “authority”. It’s an echo of Paul’s statement about “emptied himself”.
In both sets of writing, the Cross is absolutely central. But I found Paul reticent about the exact nature of the connection between the Cross and our salvation, possibly because he had taught them all that already. There are references to Christ taking sin upon himself, “made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians ch5 v21). Paul’s characteristic idea is that Christ “died to sin” on the Cross, thus enabling those who are crucified “together with him” to “die to sin” in the same way.
Whereas in Hebrews the death of Christ is explicitly and systematically explained in terms of the Old Testament sacrifices designed to purify men from their sins. Though in the middle of all this he comes back to the obedience of Christ as the key factor (ch10 v7).
Paul lays great stress on the Resurrection of Christ (e.g. Romans ch6) as the sequel to the Cross and the key to our own resurrection. The beginning of Hebrews by-passes the Resurrection to go straight to the Ascension, with the Son sitting at the right hand of the Father. In the later discussion of Christ as the self-sacrificing High Priest, his death seems to take him through the veil straight into the heavenly sanctuary.
In Paul, the sequel to the Resurrection is that Christ becomes Lord, with authority over the whole world. Whereas in Hebrews, the emphasis on Jesus as being “like us” and the forerunner prepares the way for identifying him as High Priest.
Turning to the human side, I found in Paul a theme that the Law cannot prevent sin, and in Hebrews a theme that the Law cannot remove sin. Paul’s favourite expressions about the benefit of Christ’s death belong to the legal sphere or the sphere of human relations, such as “justified”, “acquitted”, “reconciled”. “Washed and sanctified”, in 1 Corinthians ch6 v11, was the only example I could find of the analogy of ritual purification from sin. Of course the argument of Hebrews depends on that analogy.
At the same time, Hebrews contains real echoes of Paul’s language. The fact that Christ “tasted death for everyone” is attributed to “the grace of God” in ch2 v9, and the man who spurns the Son of God has “outraged the spirit of grace” (ch10 v29). Th writer says that the discipline they are receiving shows that they are being treated as sons (ch12 v7, compare Galatians ch4 v7). There is the long ch11 outline of the history of faith. In ch6, he quotes the Genesis ch22 promise to Abraham, and then goes on to say that we are now encouraged “by two unbreakable things”. It seems to me (though this is a later discovery) that the other “unchangeable thing” can only be the Genesis ch15 promise quoted by Paul. That is, he seems to assume that his readers will recognise the allusion even if he doesn’t quote the reference himself. In other words, I think, he takes it for granted that they know the argument of Galatians. If he is not Paul, then he has certainly learned from Paul.
But what I found missing in Hebrews is the rich teaching based on the thought that we are in Christ and Christ is in us, and that this is the foundation of our Christian life. In Paul, “sin after baptism” is not a theological problem but a practical problem, to be dealt with practically by urging men to return to life in the Spirit. The conclusion I reached at the end of the essay, following a long paragraph of examples, was that writer of Hebrews was simply not in touch with an experience of “life in the Spirit” which was a vital reality to Paul, and that he filled the gap by developing his argument from scripture and by analogy.
![[Image: 200.webp?cid=790b7611n510fmw828bisv3abo4....webp&ct=g]](https://media2.giphy.com/media/dOJt6XZlQw8qQ/200.webp?cid=790b7611n510fmw828bisv3abo4omvmcqly6v15tacbemmss&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g)
