Bible Commentary Hebrews (Adam Clarke)

《Bible Commentary –Hebrews》(Adam Clarke)

Commentator

Adam Clarke (1760 or 1762 - 1832) was a British Methodist theologian and Biblical scholar. He is chiefly remembered for writing a commentary on the Bible which took him 40 years to complete and which was a primary Methodist theological resource for two centuries.

Contained in 6 volumes, consisting of nearly 1,000 pages each, it was considered the most comprehensive commentary on the Bible ever prepared by one man. His commentary, particularly that on Revelation, identified the Catholic Church with the antichrist and bordered on antisemitic, as illustrated by the following quote:

"The Jewish philosophy, such as is found the Cabala, Midrashim, and other works, deserves the character of vain deceit, in the fullest sense and meaning of the words. The inspired writers excepted, the Jews have ever been the most puerile, absurd, and ridiculous reasoners in the world. Even Rabbi Maimon or Maimonides, the most intelligent of them all, is often, in his master-piece, the Moreh Neochim, the teacher of the perplexed, most deplorably empty and vain." A.C. 1831 VI p. 486

As a theologian, Clarke reinforced the teachings of Methodist founder John Wesley. He taught that the Bible provides a complete interpretation of God's nature and will. He considered Scripture itself a miracle of God's grace that "takes away the veil of darkness and ignorance."[2] With such an understanding, Clarke was first and foremost a Biblical theologian, often uneasy with purely systematic approaches to theology.

00 Introduction

Introduction

THE chief points in controversy, relative to the Epistle to the Hebrews, though discussed by many, have not in my opinion been treated so successfully by any writer as by Dr. Lardner; he has entered into the whole controversy, and brought his knowledge from far. I shall avail myself of his labors as the best on the subject, and generally use his own words.

“I shall,” says he,” inquire, 1. To whom it was written. 2. In what language. 3. By whom. 4. The time and place of writing it.

“I. In the first place, let us consider to whom this epistle was written.

“Dr. Lightfoot thought that this epistle was sent by Paul to the believing Jews of Judea; ‘a people,’ says he, ‘that had been much engaged to him, for his care of their poor, getting collections for them all along in his travels.’ He adds, ‘It is not to be doubted, indeed, that he intends the discourse and matter of this epistle to the Jews throughout their dispersion. Yet does he endorse it and send it chiefly to the Hebrews, or the Jews of Judea, the principal part of the circumcision, as the properest center to which to direct it, and from whence it might be best diffused in time to the whole circumference of the dispersion.’ Whitby, in his preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews, is of the same opinion, and argues much after the same manner as Lightfoot.

“So likewise Mill, Pearson, Lewis Capellus, and Beza, in his preface to this epistle, and Beausobre and L’Enfant, the editors of the French New Testament at Berlin, in their general preface to St. Paul’s epistles, and in their preface to this epistle in particular.

“Of this Mr. Hallet had no doubt, who in his synopsis of the epistle, says, that this epistle was particularly designed for the Hebrew Christians, who dwelt in one certain place, and was sent thither, as appears from the apostle’s saying, Hebrews 13:19, 23: ‘I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner: I will see you.’ And what particular place can this be supposed to be but Judea? There, the Christians were continually persecuted by the unbelieving Jews, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles; and as St. Paul takes notice, 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 10:32-36; 12:4, 5. By these persecutions the Hebrew Christians were tempted to apostatize from Christianity, and to think there was strength in the arguments used by the persecutors in favor of Judaism. The apostle, therefore, sets himself to guard against both these dangers.

“This appears to me to be the most probable opinion: for, 1. It is the opinion of the ancient Christian writers who received this epistle. It may be taken for granted, that this was the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome, and Euthalius, who supposed this epistle to have been first written in Hebrew, and afterwards translated into Greek. It may be allowed to have been also the opinion of many others who quote this epistle, to have been written to Hebrews, when they say nothing to the contrary. Nor do I recollect any of the ancients, who say it was written to Jews living out of Judea.

“Chrysostom says that the epistle was sent to the believing Jews of Palestine, and supposes that the apostle afterwards made them a visit. Theodoret, in his preface to the epistle, allows it to have been sent to the same Jews; and Theophylact, in his argument of the epistle, expressly says, as Chrysostom, that it was sent to the Jews of Palestine. So that this was the general opinion of the ancients.

“There are in this epistle many things especially suitable to the believers in Judea; which must lead us to think it was written to them. I shall select such passages.

“1. Hebrews 1:2: ‘Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.’

“2. Hebrews 4:2: ‘For unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them.’

“3. Hebrews 2:1-4: ‘Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have Heard: How then shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.’

“Does not this exhortation, and the reason with which it is supported, peculiarly suit the believers of Judea, where Christ himself first taught, and then his disciples after him; confirming their testimony with very numerous and conspicuous miracles?

“4. The people to whom this epistle is sent were well acquainted with our Saviour’s sufferings, as they of Judea must have been. This appears in Hebrews 1:3; 2:9, 18; 5:7, 8; 9:14, 28; 10:11; Hebrews 12:2, 3; 13:12.

“5. Hebrews 5:12: ‘For when ye ought to be teachers of others,’ and what follows, is most properly understood of Christians in Jerusalem and Judea, to whom the Gospel was first preached.

“6. What is said, Hebrews 6:4-6, and Hebrews 10:26, 29, is most probably applicable to apostates in Judea.

“7. Hebrews 10:32-34: ‘But to call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;’ to the end of Hebrews 10:34. This leads us to the Church of Jerusalem, which had suffered much, long before the writing of this epistle, even very soon after they had received the knowledge of the truth. Compare Acts 8:1; 9:1, 2; 11:19, and 1 Thessalonians 2:14. Grotius supposes as much.

“8. Those exhortations, Hebrews 13:13, 14, must have been very suitable to the case of the Jews at Jerusalem, at the supposed time of writing this epistle; a few years before the war in that country broke out.

“9. The regard shown in this epistle to the rulers of the Church or Churches to which it is sent, is very remarkable. They are mentioned twice or thrice, first in Hebrews 13:7: ‘Remember your rulers, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith imitate, considering the end of their conversation.’ These were dead, as Grotius observes. And Theodoret’s note is to this purpose. He intends the saints that were dead-Stephen the proto-martyr, James the brother of John, and James called the Just. And there were many others who were taken off by the Jewish rage. Consider these, says he, and, observing their example, imitate their faith. Then again, at Hebrews 13:17: ‘Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. For they watch for your souls.’ And once more, Hebrews 13:24: ‘Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints.’ Upon which Theodoret says: This way of speaking intimates, that their rulers did not need such instruction; for which reason he did not write to them, but to their disciples. That is a fine observation. And Whitby upon that verse says: Hence it seems evident that this epistle was not sent to the bishops or rulers of the Church, but to the whole Church, or the laity; and it may deserve to be considered whether this repeated notice of the rulers among them does not afford ground to believe that some of the apostles were still in Judea. Whether there be sufficient reason to believe that or not, I think these notices very proper and suitable to the state of the Jewish believers in Judea; for I am persuaded, that not only James, and all the other apostles, had exactly the same doctrine with Paul, but that all the elders likewise, and all the understanding men among the Jewish believers, embraced the same doctrine. They were, as I understand, the multitude only, plhqov, plebs, or the men of lower rank among them, who were attached to the peculiarities of the Mosaic law and the customs of their ancestors. This may be argued from what James and the elders of Jerusalem say to Paul, Acts 21:20-22: ‘Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are that believe; and they are all zealous of the law. What is it, therefore? The multitude must needs come together.’ It is hence evident that the zeal for the law, which prevailed in the minds of many, was not approved by James or the elders. That being the case, these recommendations of a regard for their rulers, whether apostles or elders, were very proper in an epistle sent to the believers in Judea.

“For these reasons, I think that this epistle was sent to the Jewish believers at Jerusalem and in Judea. But there are objections which must be considered.

“Obj. 1. Hebrews 6:10: ‘God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love-in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.’ Upon which Dr. Wall remarks: Here again we are put upon thinking to what Church or what Christians this is said; for as to those of Jerusalem, we read much in Paul’s former letters of their poverty, and of their being ministered to by the Gentile Christians of Galatia, Macedonia, and Corinth; and in the Acts, by the Antiochians; but nowhere of their ministering to other saints. This objection, perhaps, might be strengthened from Hebrews 13:2: ‘Be not forgetful to entertain strangers.’ And from Hebrews 13:16: ‘To do good, and to communicate, forget not.’

“Ans. But the poverty of the Jews in Judea, and the contributions of the Gentile Churches for their relief, are no reasons why such admonitions as these should not be sent to them. They are properly directed to all Christians, that they may be induced to exert themselves to the utmost. The Gentile Churches, among whom St. Paul made collections for the saints in Judea, were not rich. As he says, 1 Corinthians 1:26: ‘For ye know your calling, brethren-not many mighty, not many noble, are called.’ And of the Churches in Macedonia, he says, 2 Corinthians 8:2: ‘How that, in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy, and their deep poverty, had abounded unto the riches of their liberality.’ In like manner, there might be instances of liberality to the distressed among the believers in Judea. There is a very fine example recorded, Acts 9:36, 39; nor was there ever any city or country in the world to whom that exhortation, ‘Be not forgetful to entertain strangers,’ or, Be not unmindful of hospitality, thv filoceniav mh epilanqanesqe, could be more properly given, than Jerusalem and Judea. For the people there must have been much accustomed to it at their festivals, when there was a great resort thither from all countries; and the writer of an epistle to the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea would naturally think of such an admonition; being desirous that they should not fall short of others in that respect. And we may here, not unfitly, recollect the history of St. Paul’s going to Jerusalem; and how he and his fellow travelers were entertained at Caesarea, in the house of Philip the evangelist and at Jerusalem, in the house of Mnason, an old disciple, as related Acts 21:8-16.

“Obj. 2. Upon Hebrews 13:18, 19, the same Dr. Wall says: One would think that Paul should have prayed and purposed to go anywhere rather than to Jerusalem, where he had been so used, and where he fell into that five years’ imprisonment, from which he was but just now delivered.

“Ans. But there is not any improbability that Paul might now desire to see his countrymen in Judea, if he might go thither with safety, as I think he might. Almost three years had now passed since he left Judea; and his trial, or apology, had been over two years; and he was now set at liberty by the emperor himself. No man, not very presumptuous would admit a thought of disturbing him.

“Obj. 3. St. Peter’s epistles were written to the Hebrew Christians, scattered in Asia and Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia. St. Paul must have written an epistle to those Hebrew Christians to whom St. Peter writes his two epistles. For St. Peter, 2 Peter 3:15, cites to them what Paul had written unto them. No epistle of Paul was written to the Hebrews particularly but this; so that these must be the Hebrews of the above named countries. To which I answer: That St. Peter’s epistles were not sent to Jews, but to Gentiles, or to all Christians in general, in the places above mentioned, as will be clearly shown hereafter. When St. Peter says, As Paul has written unto you, he may intend Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, and some other epistles written to Gentiles. If he refers at all to this Epistle to the Hebrews, it is comprehended under that expression, 2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles.

“Obj. 4. This Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been written in Greek. But if it had been sent to the Jewish believers in Judea, it would have been written in Hebrew. To which I answer: That, allowing the epistle to have been written in Greek, it might be sent to the believers in Judea. If St. Paul wrote to the Jewish believers in Palestine he intended the epistle for general use-for all Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile original. Many of the Jews in Judea understood Greek; few of the Jews out of Judea understood Hebrew. The Greek language was almost universal, and therefore generally used. All St Paul’s epistles are in Greek, even that to the Romans. And are not both St. Peter’s epistles in Greek. And St.

John’s, and St. Jude’s? Did not St. James likewise write in Greek, who is supposed to have resided in Jerusalem from the time of our Lord’s ascension to the time of his own death? His epistle is inscribed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. But I presume that they of the twelve tribes who dwelt in Judea are not excluded by him, but intended. Nor could he be unwilling that this epistle should be read and understood by those who were his especial charge. The epistle written by Barnabas, a Levite, or ascribed to him, was written in Greek; not now to mention any other Jewish writers who have used the Greek language.

“II. Thus we are unawares brought to the inquiry, in what language was this epistle written? For there have been doubts about it, among both ancients and moderns. Yet many learned and judicious moderns have been of opinion that Greek, and not Hebrew, was the original language of this epistle; Beausobre, James Capellus, S. Basnage, Mill, in his Prolegomena to the New Testament, and the late Mr. Wetstein, and also Spanheim, in his Dissertation concerning the author of this epistle, which well deserves to be consulted. One argument for this, both of Spanheim and Wetstein, is taken from the Greek paronomasias in the epistle, or the frequent concurrence of Greek words of like sound; which seem to be an argument not easy to be answered.

“Some ancient Christian writers were of opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in the Hebrew language, and translated into Greek by Luke or Clement of Rome. Jerome, in particular, seems to have supposed that this epistle was written in Hebrew; and Origen is also sometimes reckoned among those who were of this opinion. But I think I have shown it to be probable that he thought it was written in Greek. It seems likewise that they must have been of the same opinion who considered the elegance of the Greek language of this epistle as an objection against its having been written by St. Paul; for if the Greek epistle had been supposed to be a translation, the superior elegance of the style of this epistle above that of the other epistles of Paul, could have afforded no objection against his being the author of it. Indeed the ancients, as Beausobre said, formerly had no other reason to believe that St. Paul wrote in Hebrew, but that he wrote to the Hebrews. So, likewise, says Capellus. The title deceived them. And because it was written to Hebrews, they concluded it was written IN Hebrew; for none of the ancients appear to have seen a copy of this epistle in that language.