Q^*ETv£Rfi£^
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

The Christology of the Epistle
to the Hebrews

The
Christology of the Epistle
to the Hebrews
Including Its Relation to the Developing
Christology of the Primitive
Church

By
HARRIS LACHLAN MacNEILL, Ph.D.
Professor of Neiu Testament Language and Literature
Brandon Col/ege, Brandon, Manitoba

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Copyright 1914 By
The University or Chicago

All Rights Reserved

Published March, 1914

Composed and Printed By
The University oi Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introductory  9
I. Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews
II. Introduction to the Epistle
III. General Doctrinal Views and Framework
I. Human Elements in the Christ-Conception of the
Epistle . . .  20
I. The Writer's Knowledge of the Historical Jesus
II. Human Elements in Harmony with This Historical Knowledge
IH. General Statement
II. Transcendent Elements in the Christ-Conception of
Hebrews .  29
I. The Three Periods in Jesus' Career
H. Christ as Superior to the Angels and Moses
III. Christ Superior as High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek
1. Christ the Mediator of a Better Covenant
2. Sinlessness of Jesus
3. Jesus as Author of Eternal Salvation
IV. Christ as Eternal
1. Cosmic Significance of Christ
2. Relation of Christ to Men
3. Relation of Christ to God
V. Various Titles of Christ
1. The Christ (6 xpioros)
2. The Apostle (6 oraroo-ToAos)
3. The Firstborn (6 irpiororoKoi)
4. The Lord (6 Kvpioi)
5. The Son (6 mos)
III. Resume: The Total Christ Personality .... 97
IV. Sources and Relations of the Thought of the Epistle 105
I. Sources and Relations of the General Doctrine
1. Classic Judaism
2. Later Judaism and Primitive Christianity
3. Alexandrianism
4. Oriental Mystery-Religions
5. Probable Original Elements 5

b histobical and linguistic studies PAGE
II. Sources and Relations of the Christological Doctrine, Including
an Outline of New Testament Christology
i. Consideration of Ps. 2:7 as Used in Heb. 1 : 5 and 5:5
2. Jesus' Self-Estimate
3. Primitive Christian Christology
4. The Christology of Paul
5. Divergent Movements after Paul
Concluding Remarks ... 143

332

The author makes glad acknowledgment of indebtedness to all his
instructors in the Department of New Testament Literature and Inter
pretation, but especially to Associate Professor Clyde Weber Votaw,
who not only suggested the subject, but who has followed the work
upon it with helpful suggestion and kindly criticism.

333]

INTRODUCTORY

I. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Introduction  .... i : 1-4
1. God's revelation in the prophets in the past . . 1:1
2. God's revelation in a Son; the Son's work and dignity. 1:2,3
3. Transition to the main theme, viz., the superiority of
Christ and of God's revelation in him  1:4
I. Superiority of the Son to the angels  1 : 5 — 2 : 18
1. Superior in being a Son as shown from Old Testament
quotations  1:5-14
2. Parenetic section. The peril of neglecting this salvation 2 : 1-4
3. Supremacy in the world to come  2:5-18
o) Promised to man not to angels  2 : 5-80
6) Realized in Jesus, the representative, leader, and
brother of men  ... 2 : 86-13
c) who for their salvation is made like men . . . 2:14-18
II. Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua. . 3 : 1 — 4: 13
1. Jesus faithful, as was Moses, over God's house . . . 3:1,2
2. Jesus' glory greater than that of Moses . . j . . . 3:3-6
o) Moses part of the house, Jesus the builder . . 3:3,4
b) Moses a servant, Jesus a Son . . . . . 3:5,6
3. Parenetic section  . 3:7 — 4:13
a) Danger of unbelief and apostasy .... 3 : 7-19
b) Exhortation to enter into God's rest today . . 4:1-13
4. Transition to the presentation of Jesus as High Priest '. 4:14-16
HI. Superiority of Jesus as High Priest  5:1 — 10:18
1. The person and dignity of Jesus as High Priest . 5 : 1 — 7 : 28
a) God-appointed and sympathetic from experience 5:1-10
b) Parenetic digression. A reproof for backwardness
and an exhortation to renewed earnestness based on
the promise and oath of God .... 5:11 — 6:20
c) Melchizedek as type of Jesus  7 : 1-28
1) Melchizedek and Abraham . . . 7 : 1-3
2) Melchizedek superior to Abraham and Levi . . 7:4-10
3) The imperfect Levitical priesthood and law dis
placed by the perfect priesthood of Jestis and the
better hope  7:11-25
4) Jesus as Son a perfect priest appointed forever by
oath of God  7 : 26-28
335] 9

10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
2. The work of Jesus as High Priest  8:1 — 10:18
o) Jesus a minister of the real tabernacle in heaven 8:1,2
6) His offerings and service more excellent, being based
on the better covenant prophesied by Jeremiah . 8:3-13
c) Contrast of tabernacles and covenants .... 9:1-28
1) The earthly tabernacle  9:1-10
2) Christ's service in the heavenly tabernacle . . 9:11-14
3) The better covenant and the better sacrifice . . 9: 15-28
d) Effectiveness and finality , of Christ's sacrifice in
cleansing the conscience and bringing men to God 10:1-18
IV. Exhortation and warning  . . 10:19 — 12:29
1. Exhortation to assurance, steadfastness, and mutual
helpfulness . ... .  10:19-25
2. Wilful sin will bring sorer punishment  10:26-31
3. Reminder of past distress and struggle and exhortation to
patient continuance .... .... 10:32-39
4. Exhortation to faith  . 11:1 — 12:17
a) Historical review of the results of faith ... 11 : 1-40
6) Exhortation to similar faith and patience under the
chastening of God  12:1-13
c) Exhortation to mutual watchfulness and helpfulness 12:14-17
5. Solemn warning based on a final contrast of Old and New 12:18-29
V. Sundry practical exhortations . . ... 13 : 1-19
VI. Benediction . .  13:20, 21
VTI. Conclusion .  13:22-25
II. INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE
The Epistle to the Hebrews, from many points of view, is one of the
most remarkable and virile pieces of writing in the New Testament. From
the literary point of view it stands supreme in the New Testament as
the work of a conscious literary artist. This holds true even if we are
not ready to go as far as von Soden1 in attributing to the writer conscious
and precise conformity to the rhetorical laws of Greek literary construc
tion. In any case it is clear that the writer is perfectly at home in his
use of the Greek language. 1 It is vain to attempt to show that this
epistle is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic. If the author was
himself a Jew, as seems altogether likely, he nevertheless had a thorough
training in the use of Greek, for he has given us the best exhibition of
good Greek in the New Testament.
1 Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament, "Einleitung zu Hebraer," V, S. 10.
336

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 11
The effort to establish the identity of the author is probably a
hopeless one. Fortunately the epistle itself enables us to gain a suffi
ciently clear and full picture of his personality and attitude. The case
is somewhat the same with the readers. A full discussion of questions of
introduction is not required here. It is only necessary to give a general
statement with emphasis upon matters which have a bearing upon
the Christology.
The terminus ad quern of the epistle is fortunately fixed about 95
a.d. by its evident use in Clement Ad Cor. 1, which was written about
96 a.d. Unfortunately the terminus a quo is not so certain, though
according to the view here held there are various converging lines of
evidence which point to 85 to 90 a.d. It must, however, be admitted
that so far as specific statements go, the earlier date 65 to 70 a.d. is not
impossible. The letter itself shows us that the writer and his readers
belong to the second generation of Christians (2:3,4). Their conversion
lies considerably in the past (5:12). They have passed through one
severe persecution, apparently shortly after their conversion (10:32),
and, whether literally interpreted or not, "resisted unto blood" (12:4)
implies that they are in the throes of another persecution in the face of.
which they are not manifesting the enthusiastic, courageous spirit which
they manifested in the former persecution (12:12).
There is too great a tendency, in fixing dates by persecutions, to
consider only the definite and widespread persecutions of the Roman
government, viz., those of Claudius, Nero, Domitian, and Trajan.
There may have been other persecutions, not merely local but compara
tively widespread, in addition to the historical persecutions of the Roman
government known to us. But in the case of the readers of this epistle,
it seems very natural to consider the first persecution mentioned, to be
the one under Nero (64 a.d.). This would fit nicely the date of their
conversion (2:3; 10:32), while the persecution under Domitian (81-96
a.d.) would be the one in which the readers at present find themselves.
Inasmuch as this persecution has not yet reached its height (12:4), one
is inclined to place it in the earlier part of Domitian's reign. It is
impossible to consider the second persecution as that under Trajan
(98-117 a.d.), for that would bring us beyond our terminus ad quern. \
These facts would lead us to place the epistle about 85 a.d., perhaps
rather shortly after that date.
Many still feel it an insuperable objection to any date after 70 a.d.
that the writer should know of the' destruction of Jerusalem with the
cessation of all the sacrificial service of the temple and yet fail to clinch
337

12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
his argument by reference to this great fact. And indeed such a passage
as 8:4, which surely seems to imply that there are still those on earth
who offer gifts according to the law, offers considerable difficulty. We
know that such sacrificial service ceased after 70 a.d. That the old
covenant and its institutions should be spoken of as "nigh unto dis
appearing" (8:13) presents the same difficulty. These and other
similar references lead many to adopt the view that the epistle was
written to warn the readers against lapsing back into Judaism and to
place the epistle before 70 a.d. But the whole difficulty diminishes,
even vanishes, if we remind ourselves repeatedly that the author's whole
thought revolves, not around the temple in. Jerusalem, but around the
\ tabernacle in the wilderness. It may indeed be that the reason for this
was just the fact that the temple service was gone, but it is much more
likely that it was because the author had nothing to do with the temple
at Jerusalem. Philo went to Jerusalem only once, so far as we know.1
It may be that our author never saw the temple. At any rate it is clear
that the picture which fills his mind is not that of the temple but that
of the tabernacle of Old Testament Scripture. Moreover the importance
of the destruction of Jerusalem for the purpose of dating documents of
the period has been exaggerated. It is an event that is not often referred
to in contemporary literature. The Greeks once fined a playwright for
making reference in his play to the destruction of the splendid city of
Miletus 494 B.C. The Jews may have felt a similar reserve in regard to
mentioning the destruction of Jerusalem.
There are, on the other hand, references to Jerusalem which have
more significance if the temple is destroyed (13: 14). The present tenses
which seem to be used of the temple sacrifices must be explained as
historic presents. The verb in 8:136 is a present expressing a general
truth, an inference from what precedes, and is understood by the author
as applying to the Old Covenant when the quotation from Jeremiah was
' originally written. The difficulty of the statement in 8:4 is relieved at
once when we keep to its context and notice that the writer is speaking of
the tabernacle, not of the temple.
As regards the readers and their situation, indications point perhaps
most plausibly, all things considered, to Rome; though the church at
Antioch might well be the recipient of the letter written from Rome or
Italy (13 : 24). Too much, perhaps, has been made of the question as to
whether the readers were Jews or gentiles. That the church or churches
addressed were a unit does not necessarily mean, as Zahn contends, that
2 Philo, De Providentia, II, sec. 107. 338

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13
the membership consisted either of all Jews or all gentiles.1 There was
unity in the Antioch church before the Judaizers came and stirred up
trouble between the Jews and the gentiles. So with the church at Rome
to which Paul wrote. If, as we have suggested, we are to think of the
letter as addressed to a church or churches in Rome we may possibly see
in Hebrews a testimony to the success of Paul's great Epistle to the
Romans. The church was composed of Jews and gentiles, the latter
predominating; and Paul wrote them chiefly with the purpose of fore
stalling some threatened Judaizing influence. His work here as else
where was successful and by the time Hebrews was written, possibly to
the same church, the danger is over, the whole controversy has died
down, and there is again no distinction between Jews and gentiles.
If it be objected that general statements in the letter can refer only
to gentiles (3:12; 5:12; 6:1 ff.; 9:14), it may be replied that the
difficulty is relieved by two considerations, viz., that the majority of
readers were gentiles, and also that it is altogether likely that even the
Jews among them were inclined to fall back into a state of materialistic
and formal irreligion rather than back to their former faith. There
were different types of Jews, especially among those of the Dispersion;
and it is altogether natural that those in this church should fall into
careless discouragement when they found that their new venture into
Christianity was not fulfilling expectations. At any rate it is clear from
the epistle that the author, who is thoroughly aware of their situation,
fears, not the attractive power of any definite form of religion, but
rather the subtle power of unbelief, indifference, and formalism. The
whole weight and wording of his warnings is against a negative rather
than a positive danger, against neglect (2:3), against losing their "bold
ness and boasting" (3:6), against an "evil heart of unbelief" (3:12)
and the "deceitfulness" of sin (3:13), this latter phrase implying that
they might find themselves in the fatal situation without being themselves
aware of it.
Their danger was, in a measure, like that against which the ancient
prophets thundered, the danger of being content to have the form of
godliness without the power thereof. Therefore the exhortation to
hold fast the beginning of their confidence firm unto the end (3:14, 15)
as the essential condition of really being partakers of the Christ. With
this agrees the rebuke of their backward and imperfect state in the
1 Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, II, 349. The discord in the Corinthian
church was not at all racial; and per contra, at the time of the writing of Hebrews
racial differences need not cause discord. 339

14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
digression (5:11 — 6:20). So the exhortation (10: 196:.) is full of
thoughts which are naturally directed against listlessness, indifference,
and neglect. In 10:29 the attitude pictured is one of neglect and
despite of the grace received, and the warning of 10:31 would not be
well directed to faithful observance of legalistic Judaism. It is rather a
judgment on irreligion and godlessness. In fact the exhortations and
warnings of the whole epistle (6:11, 12; 10:35, 3°> 39), while they cer
tainly imply a falling away from Christianity, imply little or nothing as
to any positive form of religion which attracts the readers.
The warning of 13:9 ff . is perhaps an exception to this, in that the
Christian readers seem to be attracted by some form of sacrificial meals
which they think will strengthen their religious life but which the author
feels are worthless for that purpose and have no place in Christianity.
In this passage it is quite unnatural to make the "they" of vs. 10 denote
the same persons as the "we" of the same verse, viz., Christian believers.
The verse must be accepted as indicating some relation, however indirect
("strange," vs. 8), between the meats which are attractive to the
readers and the Jewish customs. Even this would not necessitate the
assumption of Jewish readers, for the propaganda of Hellenistic Judaism
exerted just such a counter-attraction to Christianity over gentiles.
But granted that it requires Jewish readers, this does not interfere with
the thesis above expressed, viz., that the warnings indicate the main
danger of the readers to be listlessness, formalism, lax morality, in fact
a general religious criminal negligence without any special attention being
paid to whether they are Jews or gentiles.
The contrast with Paul's Epistle to the Galatians is marked in that
in the latter the defection is a positive one to a positive form of teaching
clearly revealed in the epistle itself. The cause of the defection in
Hebrews is in the main evidently twofold, viz., persecution both more
intense (12:31!.) and less intense (13:13), and disappointment in the
hopes that they had entertained in embracing Christianity (6:13-20;
10: 25; 10:36; 12 : 1). Trying outward circumstances, combined with the
failure of the lapse of years to bring the good things promised in Christ,
had evidently made them secretly or openly question whether Christianity
really contained that which could adequately reward such sacrifice and
suffering.1 It is to meet this grave tendency to formalism, materialism, irreligion
and atheism that the author writes this epistle. He has been with them
or at least has known their circumstances from the first. For some
1 McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, 1903, p. 469.
340

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 15
reason he is now separated from them. But the need is so urgent and
their situation so grave that, though he expects to return to them soon
in person, he must write this word of exhortation (13:22) to arrest their
threatened defection. And it is here that the christological significance
of the epistle becomes evident. For the author feels that the grave
situation, their threatened defection, is in a large measure due to their
own ignorance of the glory, power, and finality of their Christian pro
fession./ They do not fully comprehend that which they have professed
— its significance, its grandeur, its supremacy, its finality. And the sum-
total of all this supreme significance of their profession is found in Jesus
Christ, the Son of God who is High Priest forever after the order of
Melchizedek. The whole epistle is an exposition of the mediatorial
work of Christ based upon the supreme significance of his person;
It is tempting but futile to continue speculation upon the identity of
the author. Some modern writers think favorably of Barnabas.1 For
Luther's famous suggestion of ApoUos it can at least be said that
ApoUos could very well have written it; there is no evidence whatever
that he actually did write it.2 For the purpose of this study, it is not
necessary to determine the identity of the author.
It is well however to get a clear conception of the writer's training
and attitude of mind, and so to speak, of the general climatic conditions
of thought which could produce such a writing. It is clear that the
author has been under PhUonian influence more than any other New
Testament writer.3 This marks him off with more or less distinctness
from those with whom his teaching has a certain amount of agreement.4
It does not mean that the author must have been an Alexandrian in the
sense of having lived or even having received his training there. But he
was a more or less technical disciple of Philonian views and methods
before his conversion to Christianity. It is to be noted, however, that
Alexandrianism was a part of the general religious mUieu of the time to
a greater degree than has hitherto been recognized.
It is easy to make too much of real or alleged blunders in connection
with his descriptions of Old Testament ritual. But there is, nevertheless,
an element of uncertainty that suggests that the author gained his
knowledge of Judaism by academic study. It was not altogether native
to him. PhUonian views and methods were native to him but his
knowledge of both Judaism and Christianity came by earnest continued
1 Ayles, Goodspeed. 3 Ibid., p. 478-
* McGiffert, op. cit., p. 480, n. 2. * Paul and the primitive church.
341

16 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
study and meditation.1 It will be shown in detaU later that the author
was also influenced, at least indirectly, by elements from the mystery-
religions of his time. If a Jew, as is Ukely, he was a Jew of the Disper
sion, not a Palestinian Jew.
Where, outside of Palestine, could such an author have written such
a writing? Possibly in Alexandria, but more likely in Asia Minor or
Syria where the Christian movement secured such a strong foothold.
The atmosphere here was strongly PhUonian. Rome is the most
plausible destination, but there is nothing incongruous in supposing the
church at Antioch to be the recipient of the letter. Perdelwitz combines
the two.2
To sum up, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written ca. 85 a.d. by
an anonymous writer, probably a Jew of the Dispersion, who, before his
conversion, had had a more or less technical training in Alexandrian
phUosophy and had been a careful student of classic Judaism. He
writes probably to a church or section of a church in Rome, but possibly
to the church at Antioch or to some other church in Syria or Asia Minor.
This church is composed probably of both gentUes and Jews, the former
predominating, but there are no signs of division within the church
itself. They have become disheartened, however, through hopes
deferred and because of renewed persecution, and they are ready to fall
back into empty formalism or into actual repudiation of their Christian
profession. The author writes to call them back to their first faith and
enthusiasm, and as a means to this end he sets forth the supreme great
ness and glory of Christ, the Son of God, and of the salvation which he
has brought to them.
III. GENERAL DOCTRINAL VIEWS AND FRAMEWORK
A brief discussion of the general method and doctrinal content of the
epistle is necessary to an adequate understanding of its Christology.
From the theological no less than from the literary point of view the
Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most thoroughly and consciously
artistic of all the New Testament writings. From the literary point of
view this is made manifest not only by the writer's splendid diction, his
play upon words, and the general rhythmic movement of his language,3
but also by the dignity and even sublimity of his thought. The letter
1 McGiffert, op. cit., p. 481.
2 Das literarische Problem des Hebraerbriefs," Z.f.N.T.W., 1910, S. 59, 105.
3 Von Soden in Handcommentar zum N.T., "Einleitung zu Hebraer," IV.
342

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 17
reveals a carefully constructed plan with skUful transitions and judicious
insinuations of words and anticipations of ideas.
But his general theological attitude is that which is of importance in
this connection. It is to be noted first of all that the letter is not in any
sense an exhaustive theological treatise.; It manifests some traits which
are somewhat puzzling and which incline many to think that it is a
treatise or homUy rather than a letter. But it bears the marks of a
genuine letter to people with whom the writer had been closely associated
and in whom he was personally interested. It is therefore eminently
practical. Certain great doctrinal features stand out clearly in the
epistle, though the letter does not furnish a complete presentation of
Christianity as the writer conceived it. There are many gaps, much
that is assumed, and the doctrinal ideas that are presented are such as
contribute to the intensely practical purpose of the writer.
Though Alexandrian in training, the author has a somewhat elaborate
eschatology that is in general harmony with that of the early Christians. ,
The writer considers himself and his readers to stand at the close of one
of the great periods or "aeons" of the world's history (1:2) and to be -
looking forward to the second great period or "aeon" which is imminent
and which wUl be ushered in at the parousia of Christ (10:25, 37)-
Between these two great periods are what seem to be days of transition, -
the end of the one period and the beginning of the next, days which the/
rabbis called the "days of the Messiah" before the messianic kingdom .
proper. These last days are the period of trial and persecution for the
readers and believers, and the whole purpose of the writer is directed
toward strengthening them for these days until the better days of the
second period shaU have fully set in./
In this second period occurs the judgment of God which looms large
and terrible in the vision of the writer. In one passage the judgment is
put after death (9:27), but not necessarily immediately after death.
The general judgment is evidently put at the inauguration of the second
period immediately after the coming of Christ. The faithful and
obedient pass into fuU salvation, the reaUzation and enjoyment of the
promises; the neglectful and disobedient into destruction (10:39; CI-
2:3; 5:9; 6:9; 11:40). This judgment is final (6:2). It is repeatedly
ascribed to God (10:30, 31; 12:9; 12:23), though the writer's method
of ascribing an act to God (2 : 10) and again to Christ (1 : 10) or to Christ
under God (1:26) does not absolutely forbid the thought of Christ
having charge of judgment under God. Of the intervening state of the
faithful who have died the writer says nothing definitely, though he
343

18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
implies that they are in some sort of close association with God and Jesus
and the angels (12:23). In life, the faithful not only anticipate but in
large measure realize by faith the salvation which comes in its fulness
only after the second coming of Christ.
As the old and the new revelations, though different, are yet one
(1:1, 2), so the old and the new are also one in that the good things
brought by Christ are conceived as another, a new covenant. This new
covenant has come in God's good time according to promise (1:2; 8:8,
13). It is better than the old in every way, its superiority being pictured
under the Platonic-Philonic concept of type and reaUty. The old was
but shadow, the new is substance. The old was type, the new is reaUty.
The old was earthly, the new is heavenly. And this superiority belongs
to the new covenant all through. It had a superior priesthood in Jesus
who was High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. It had a superior
law, written upon the heart. It had a superior sacrifice, even the
; perfect, final, and effective sacrifice of Jesus himself in his voluntary death.
It had the perfect sanctuary, not of this world but in heaven itself in
the very presence of God. It may be, though this is hardly likely, that
the writer considered the old covenant with all its ceremonies and
ordinances as in every particular typical and in everything having its
real fulfilment in Christianity, the new covenant.
While the old covenant, because of its weakness and imperfection,
faUed to accomplish its real purpose — forgiveness of sins and true
fellowship between God and his covenant people — Christianity, the new
covenant mediated by Jesus, secures this very thing, namely, fuU and
final forgiveness, cleansing of the conscience, entrance into the very
presence of God, and finally perfection and participation in God's own
Sabbath rest. This is the "eternal salvation" (5:9) which is due to
Jesus as its cause and is often spoken of as an inheritance, as inheriting
the promises (6:17; 9:15). The chief thought of the epistle, however,
is that of Jesus as eternal High Priest who mediates this covenant and
secures this salvation to those who come to God through him (7:25).
f The writer f aUs to make quite clear the picture he gives of the future age
1 after the parousia of Christ. At times he seems to conceive it locaUy
and materially (2 : 5) as a renovated earth (12:27); again as the kingdom
of abiding spiritual reality (12 : 28), the heavenly Jerusalem (12 : 22). It
is Ukely that the blending of the two ideas did not seem incongruous
to him. The virtues of the Christian life are faith, hope, love, fidelity,
obedience, patience, and hospitality. Most prominent in the writer's
344

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 19
presentation are faith and obedience. These are considered as the
essential conditions, and yet not as the purchase price of salvation.
They are closely related in the writer's thought, in fact, are almost
interchangeable. Faith is the anticipatory realization of the unseen
and invisible which impels to obedience and endurance (n : i).
The universal fatherhood and sovereignty of God are emphasized in
the epistle (12:9). Jesus as Son is heir of all things, but always under
God. He is victor over death and the devil, as the deliverer of his
people (2:15); himself the great shepherd of the sheep raised from the
dead by God (13 : 20). But the chief picture of Jesus' person, character,
and work is presented in the description of him as High Priest of the new
order, a picture drawn on the background of Judaism.
It is thus clear that the comparison with Judaism is fundamental in
the presentation of the writer, not only because he is firmly convinced
that the roots of this new faith are found in Judaism, but also because
for the people among whom he moved and for whom he wrote — whether
Jew or gentile — Judaism was accepted without dispute as supreme in
the realm of reUgion. Only Christianity could be compared to it; but
as the writer compares them it is clear that not only is Christianity, the
new covenant, far better — it is the perfect and final fulfilment of Judaism.
It is the final reUgion of which Judaism was only a shadow or symbol.
And it is here that the pecuUar world-view of the writer comes to his aid.
He is an Alexandrian, steeped in the ideas and phraseology of that school,
probably before his conversion a more or less technical disciple of that
school. With the utmost ease and naturalness he does what every
Christian thinker and preacher does, viz., runs the content of his new
Christian experience into the forms of his own training and thinking.
One of these Alexandrian thought-forms was the contrast of the
"intelUgible" and the "perceptible" world, the world of ideas and the
world of sense, the world of the eternal and permanent, and the world of
the temporal and passing, the world of the unseen perfect realities and
the world of the visible imperfect copies. Using this famUiar Alexandrian
contrast, the writer puts the stamp of perfection and finality upon
Christianity by identifying it with the "intelUgible" world of abiding
ideas and realities. The new religion of Jesus is supreme, perfect, final,
eternal, and that which makes it the final religion is the person (i.e.,
order, rank) and work of Jesus Christ. Though this thought-content is
cast in a phUosophical mold it is clearly the product not of his philosophy,
but of his own Christian experience and that of his fellow-Christians.
345

I. HUMAN ELEMENTS IN THE CHRIST-CONCEPTION OF
THE EPISTLE
I. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS
In considering the christological material proper, the first question
that naturally arises is that which relates to the nature and extent of the
writer's knowledge of the historical Jesus. It is clear that the writer
considers Jesus to be the Messiah and that he holds to the Palestinian
eschatological conception of the division of time into ages or aeons made
by the coming of the Messiah. This would not be conclusively shown
by his frequent use of the phrases "unto the aeon" and "unto the aeons
of aeons" (13 : 21) which might be general expressions meaning "forever."
But that the author did hold to the messianic eschatological division of
time is shown by such expressions as "the coming aeon." It is shown
also by the phrase with which he describes God's message as given in a
Son compared with that given long ago in the prophets, the phrase "at
[the] end of these days." This phrase denotes the period of Jesus' Ufe
and teaching while he was on earth, that which is caUed today the period
of his public ministry. The phrase is a thoroughly Jewish one and
reveals an element in the writer that is distinct from his PhUonian
tendency, for it is decidedly messianic in its tone. It represents the
viewpoint especiaUy of later Judaism, though simUar conceptions are
common in the Septuagint. There is the alatv ouros, "this age," set
sharply over against the aiutv p.c\ka>v, "[the] coming age." The "days
of the Messiah" are evidently conceived as faUing, partly at the
end of "this aeon" and partly at the beginning of the "coming aeon,"
but the appearance of the Messiah is regularly placed at the end of
"this aeon." The phrase ire' icrxdrov rS>v r)p.epS>v, "at [the] last of the
days" (or its equivalent), which in the Old Testament is regularly
used to denote future time, comes to refer generally in late Judaism and
the New Testament to the closing of "this age." The writer, therefore,
makes free to add rovrmv, thus making the reference to this age more
emphatic. The expression, then, denotes the same as irrl o-vvrcXeiif
t<ov altovwv (9:26), found in the Synoptic Gospels. It is also equiva
lent to Kaipos SiopOwo-eois (9:10), "time of reformation." All of
these terms denote the period of Christ's life, ministry, death, and
exaltation. 20 [346

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 21
It may be said here that the writer does not distinguish sharply
between the "last of these days" and the "age to come." But the
distinction is fundamental with him nevertheless. The world to come is
the theme of his epistle (2:5). The old covenant belongs to " this age,"
the new covenant to the "age to come." But the "age to come" is
initiated by the first appearance of Jesus and consummated by his
second appearance (9:286). This consummation at the second appear
ance of Christ is the "day" that is approaching (10:256). This word
"approaching" has, probably, a larger content than temporal, and
indicates the pressure of the powers of the "age to come" into the "last
of these days" (6:5). There are, then, only two clearly defined periods
in the world-view of the writer, " this age " and " the age to come." But
the powers of the "age to come" are in a measure manifested and real
ized in the present. The "last of these days" is at once the close of
"this age" and the beginning of the "age to come." And the "age to
come," when consummated at the second appearing of Christ, is the
inhabited world that is to be (1:6), or the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22).
The phrase "at the end of these days" (1:2), therefore, denotes the
time then present to the writer but as evidently goes back to, and
includes, the period of the ministry and teaching of Jesus. But aU that
the introductory verse tells us is that in these final and momentous days,
as contrasted with the days of old, God spoke a message in a Son, later
in the epistle identified with Jesus (2:9), who as representative man
suffered humiUation in his death and, being made perfect by these suf
ferings, was exalted to his present estate because of them. In these
verses the fact of the death of Jesus and the sufferings in connection
therewith are doubtless in the writer's mind but are not in any way
historically described. The death of Jesus, however, is the supreme
act, as we learn not only from this passage but from many other passages
in the epistle.
Of more weight for this section is the view of the writer as to what
was necessary that this supreme act of sacrifice in death might be effected
and thus death and its master, the devU, be subdued and the children
of God delivered. This was, that Jesus himself should share in flesh
and blood as did the chUdren whom he would deUver. For it is the
conception of the writer that the deliverer must be altogether like those
whom he would save. Strictly speaking, however, these are not refer
ences to the historical Jesus but rather an exposition of how the writer
conceived and explained to himself and his readers the genuine humanity
of Jesus. We have here indeed the conception of the writer that Jesus
347

22 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
was a being who did thus condescend to participate in flesh and blood,
i.e., in genuine human nature.
The writer in no way attempts to explain how this participation in
full human nature came to be. But this should not lead us to discount
or doubt what he here plainly means to state, viz., that this Jesus was
not a ghost or angel, for it was not with ghosts or angels that he had to
do but with men who should become his followers (2:16). He therefore
also shared in, took part in, this genuine human nature with all that it
essentially involved of suffering and temptation in order that he might
be qualified to deliver men. The author has the conception of a being,
in part at least, developing under the strain of hard experience. The
result of this experience was a genuine sympathy with men in their
weaknesses, and an abUity to minister seasonable help to those in distress.
But a more decided reference to the events of the Ufe of Jesus is
found in 5:7-10, "who in the days of his flesh," etc. This is a distinct
reference to the historical life of Jesus, specificaUy to his experience in
the Garden of Gethsemane. The phrase, "with strong crying and
tears," whUe not at all out of harmony with the account of Mark and
Matthew, throws much more emphasis upon a natural human weakness
on the part of Jesus. This additional emphasis may possibly be due to
the author himself, but much more likely it is a variant from oral tra
dition which seems to ring true to the actual behavior of Jesus in
Gethsemane. In either case it is a touch which puts striking emphasis
upon the author's view of the genuine humanity vf Jesus. The rest of
the description likewise puts emphasis upon the truly human and
submissive aspect of Jesus' attitude in this crisis, in order to emphasize
the point of the preceding verses, viz., that Jesus did not take this office
of High Priest to himself but was caUed to it by God. The attitude of
the devout, God-fearing man is ascribed to him in the phrase "having
been heard for his godly fear." This seems to be the best and most
natural meaning to give to this phrase and it need not caU for anything
more by way of an answer to his prayer than is impUed in the Matthew
and Markan accounts where Jesus is finally strengthened to say " Thy
will be done."
The whole picture of this section is so characteristically that of a
devout, God-fearing man in the midst of suffering and trial, that the
writer feels constrained to add that "although he was a Son" he thus
suffered and learned obedience by what he suffered. The writer was
quite conscious of the hiatus between this picture of a devout, praying,
tempted, God-fearing man and the conception of a Son to whom one
348

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 23
would expect obedience to be natural, and not require such arduous
discipline and suffering for its development. This phrase, "even
though being a Son," in this particular context shows plainly that the
author applies the word Son to Jesus as he would not and does not
apply it to men in general or to any other created beings. Suffering is
the common lot of men. It is the means of learning obedience for all
Christians (12:41!.), but the strange thing is that it is also fitting and
necessary even for Jesus, a Son. It is just this submission and victory
in and through this experience of suffering that makes him efficient in his
work as Savior and High Priest and causes God to address him as such.
As to the manner in which the Son partook of flesh and blood, the
writer has nothing specific to say. His statement that it is evident our
Lord sprang out of Judah (7 : 14) may only echo the common tradition
of the church independently of the question as to whether this descent
is traced through Joseph or Mary. It can hardly be used as evidence
that Mary was of David's line, nor can it be used to prove that the
author held the doctrine of the miraculous conception. The author
refers to Jesus' coming into the world (10:5) by quotation of Ps. 40:6-8,
" Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare
for me." The writer is here following the Septuagint, as he regularly
does. This gives him an entirely different thought from that of the
original Hebrew, "mine ears hast thou pierced"; but this need cause no
difficulty as it is the ^riter's own thought that is being considered. The
words evidently denote for him the incarnation of Jesus. It might be con
sidered that this phrase favored the miraculous conception, but it would
surely be pressing the words too far to say that they demand this view.
In fact the words might be used of anyone by one who holds the doctrine
of pre-existence, as the speaker in Wisdom of Solomon says (8:19, 20):
"Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled," although he
had just said (7:2): "And in the womb of my mother was I moulded
into flesh in the time of ten months, being conipacted in blood of the
seed of man," etc. It cannot be said, therefore, that the writer of
Hebrews anywhere reveals how he conceived the incarnation to have
taken place. This may be considered as an argument so far forth that
he thought of it as perfectly normal. In any case it is this body which
has been prepared for him by God which makes possible his offering and
sacrifice (10:10), which in turn leads to sanctification. It is this body
that is the veil, and the offering of it in death is the removal of the veil
which opens the new and living way into the true holy place (10: 20).
It seems evident that although the writer is not concerned with the
349

24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
earthly Ufe and ministry and teaching of Jesus, he is nevertheless reliably
informed about it (2:3) and sets a high value upon it. He speaks of the
great salvation spoken first by the Lord himself. With him, as with
Paul, it is not a question of ignorance but rather of emphasis and of the
particular purpose in view. Where the events of Jesus' life specially
Ulustrate his purpose and his thought he shows his knowledge of them
(5:7). It is true of course that this knowledge is not first-hand (2:3),
but full weight should be given to the author's statement that he pos
sessed good second-hand testimony. This passage however does not
necessarUy or even probably mean that the author was a personal
companion of the apostles. The writer's description of the course of
events in the primitive church during the Apostolic age is an accurate
one (2:4) judging it by other accounts. On the whole it would seem
that the author has a fuller knowledge of the historic Jesus than he has
occasion to manifest or use. His work is rather interpretative and
theological. His interest centers about the sacrificial death and High-
Priestly work of Jesus.
II. HUMAN ELEMENTS IN HARMONY WITH HIS HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE
In advancing beyond actual events to consider what appear to be
genuinely human elements ascribed to the character of Jesus by the
writer, there is found an emphasis quite beyond that of Paul in the same
sphere-. Indeed, it may be said that in appreciation of human character
and its development in the midst of work and suffering the writer of
Hebrews is far in advance of other New Testament writers with the
possible exception of the synoptists.
There are some passages in the epistle which, whUe evidently based
on some knowledge of the historical Jesus, at the same time exhibit a
development toward the speculative or theological, yet without going
beyond human characteristics. Such, for instance, is the caU to consider
the patient endurance which Jesus manifested in the face of the senseless
and inconsistent opposition at the hands of his opponents, caUed sinners
(12:3). The writer evidently has in mind more particularly the actions
of the rulers, the people, and probably the Roman soldiers in connection
with Jesus' trial and crucifixion. The word "such" of vs. 3 points back
naturaUy to "endured the cross, despising the shame" of vs. 2. But
the point to be noted is that the human attribute of patient endurance
in the face of exasperating opposition against righteousness is here
emphasized. It is a characteristic of Jesus' attitude under persecution
which is held up as an example to the readers.
350

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 25
The thoughts in 12 : 2 are simUar. There are a number of difficulties
in this verse which touch vital points. The chief cause of difference of
opinion is as to whether these statements apply to Jesus in his earthly
life or to the Son in his pre-existent state. One is tempted with the
older interpreters (and indeed some of the latest; cf. von Soden, Good-
speed) to take this passage as a paraUel in substance and color to Paul's
famous statement in PhU. 2:6 and perhaps the original and natural
meaning of avri, -viz., "instead of," would seem to favor this view.
But it is against this view that no such thought is found elsewhere in the
epistle, and its occurrence here, whUe not inconsistent with the author's
view of Jesus, seems strange and the interpretation which finds it here
is very likely the result of the widespread influence of the Pauline passage
and possibly of the view of Pauline authorship. This is the more likely
in that, whUe the context in the PhUippian passage leaves no doubt as
to the reference being to the pre-existent Christ, the context in the
Hebrews passage is decidedly against such a reference In both passages
Jesus (PhU. 2:6, "Christ," "Christ Jesus") is presented as an example
— in the PhUippian passage as an example of splendid self-denial and
sacrifice, in the Hebrews passage as an example of patient endurance iii
the face of persecuting opposition and ridicule. But it is just this
difference that turns the scale in favor of reference to the earthly Ufe of
Jesus in the Hebrews passage. The whole exhortation is to patient ¦
endurance as exempUfied in the attitude of Jesus in the midst of his
trying earthly experiences (cf . vs. 3 which is closely connected with the
previous verse by "for"). It may be answered that this might stUl be
true with the view which refers the "joy" to the preincarnate life of
Jesus. But such reference to a "joy" of the preincarnate life would at
least be a disconcerting thought detracting from the real point of the
exhortation. It is therefore more natural to translate "because of the
joy that was set before him" and interpret the "joy" to be that of the
"crowning with glory and honor" with the sons whom he leads to glory
with him. This view is favored^ too, by the fact that whUe there are
no paraUels to the former view in the epistle, there are parallels to the
latter, viz., 1 : 9 and 2 : 9. This, then, means that, in the view of the
writer, the anticipated feeling of joy, the courage that endured the cross,
the patience that bore contradiction, ridicule, and shame were aU of
them genuine human characteristics of the earthly Jesus which con
stituted him, quite above the heroes of faith enumerated in chap, n,
the supreme example to the sorely tempted readers of the epistle.
But the secret of this much-needed endurance is faith and this again
351

26 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
is a true human quality characteristic of the earthly Jesus, and is
expressed in this verse by "author and perfecter of faith" and emphasized
repeatedly by the writer throughout the epistle. It was by no divine
magic, no mere "breath, turn of eye, wave of hand," that he "joined
issue with death," but by the power of that genuinely human faith
which had inspired others in the past, faith in the characteristic sense of
the writer (11:1) which is convinced of things unseen and gives sub
stance to things hoped for. This is another reason for translating the
phrase "because of the joy that was set before him," since, so translated,
it presents a splendid example of a high human faith in the writer's
characteristic sense which is entirely fitting in this context but which
would be quite lost by the other translation. Faith is simply unwavering
confidence in the hopes and promises that relate to the future. This it
is that begets endurance in the hard lot of the present, and it was just
this confidence in the joy that lay before him that enabled Jesus to bear
the cross. This same faith is evident in the passage already considered
(5 : 7-10), although faith is not there named.
The writer, therefore, places Jesus in the same class in regard to
faith as that in which all believers in God are placed (11:6; cf. 2:13).
But the phrase of 12:2, "author and perfecter of faith," puts Jesus, in
another sense, in a class by himself as supreme exponent and example of
this faith. The word translated "author" denotes primarily "chief.
leader" or "captain," a use common in the Septuagint. But the word
also shades readily into the idea of "author" or "cause." In 2: 10 the
context almost requires "captain" or "leader," but not, perhaps, to the
exclusion of "author" or "cause," which latter would at any rate express
an idea clearly held by the writer (5:9). In this passage (12 : 2), again,
the context favors taking apxrjyck as "captain" or "leader," i.e., in
the sense of supreme example or exponent of faith as an active principle
in human Ufe. Since the idea of faith is so emphatic and characteristic
in this writer, there is no adequate reason for giving the word faith in
this passage any meaning (as, e.g., the Christian system) different from
that in the rest of the epistle. It denotes here also that attitude of
thought and Ufe which confidently anticipates the future and realizes
and acts in view of, the unseen. Of all the heroes of faith Jesus, though
not the first in time, is the first in rank, the great exemplar, the supreme
exponent of this attitude of faith.
Closely related to this truly human characteristic of faith in Jesus is
that of faithfulness or fidelity. To Moses and Jesus aUke (3:2) this
quality is assigned; but to Moses as servant (3:5), to Jesus as Son (3:6).
352

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 27
This quality of faithfulness is also assigned to Jesus as High Priest (2 : 17),
and with it is combined the quality of mercy (2 : 17), which the context
shows is also attributed to him as a human acquirement, gained by his
human experience. And on this last quaUty of mercy in its various
shades the author lays great emphasis, in what appear at first sight to be
two different ways but which really blend into one. Jesus is subject to
suffering and temptation exactly (rraparrXricriois, 2:14) as other men.
This is described as having two objects in view, first, thatJie might become
a merciful and faithful High Priest (2 : 17), the adjectives here used per
haps corresponding respectively to the verbs in another passage
(crwrraOrja-ai, 4:15), "to Sympathize," and foeTpicmaOeiv, 5:2), "to deal
moderately or fairly"; secondly, that the captain of salvation might
himseU be perfected (2 : 10).
It is probable, however, that these two apparently divergent results
reaUy blend, in that the perfecting of Jesus consists in the fact that
through suffering and temptation he becomes a merciful and faithful
High Priest and leader. But the notion of TcXaWts involves more
than this. In 2:10 the context indicates that it denotes that condition
which leads, dominates, and commands effectuaUy. According to the
psalm quoted, the dominion was promised to man. But man has not
proved worthy of it, with the exception of Jesus who, though humbled
for a season, through the very sufferings of his humUiation, has gained
that perfection which secures or wiU secure to him this universal domin
ion. As an accompaniment or result of this high condition of perfection
he is crowned with glory and honor. In 5:9 these two shades of the
notion of perfection, viz., abiUty to save and inner worth or character,
are more closely joined. It is held by many that teXciWis denotes
in this epistle only official perfection, i.e., abUity to save men through
sympathy.1 But to speak of Jesus as learning obedience from that
which he suffered shows the conception of the development of a devout
character of personal worth in relation to God. The passage 7:28
further shows that this perfection denotes a condition of character which
has become superior to and therefore now free from the weakness of the
flesh that continuaUy attends other men, even priests. This weakness,
indeed, Jesus has shared in the days of his flesh (5:2, 7); and memory
of experiences in it stiU abides with him (2 : 18) to give him sympathy
and fairness (5:2; 4:15). But the state of perfection free from this
weakness is ascribed to him, and he is therefore described in the terms of
7:26 as "holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners and made
1 So A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, pp. 207 f.; cf. Perdelwitz, op. cit., S. 105 f.
353

28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
higher than the heavens," being perfected forevermore. This last
passage indicates that, as will be shown later, there are elements from
the mystery-religions, in the writer's conception of perfection.
III. GENERAL STATEMENT
The above goes to support the statement that, with the possible
exception of the synoptists, there is no other writing in the New Testa
ment which throws into such bold relief the human elements in the
personality of Jesus. And it is a question whether the synoptists should
be excepted. For they set out with the purpose of giving an account
of the Ufe and teaching of Jesus whUe on earth. It is therefore only
natural that they should have a larger amount of the human element.
The peculiar characteristic of the writer to the Hebrews is that he
views character developmentally and appUes this developmental view
to the character of Jesus. The fact that the language of 5:14 refers
rather to the discernment of true and false teaching does not alter the
fact that the language and thought is Stoic and was generaUy used to
refer to conduct and to the development of character. And the fact
that the writer uses this language implies that he would hold the same
view of development in character. The language is probably mediated
to the writer through later Stoicism and through PhUo.1 At any rate
this developmental view is the one that the writer presents of Jesus with
an emphasis and an insight that is unusual in the New Testament.
1 The language of 5 : 14 reminds one of the Stoic Wise Man; cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg.,
Ill, 64, p. 94 E; 83, p. 104 D; cf. Sanday, Christologies, Ancient and Modern, p. 180.

354

II. TRANSCENDENT ELEMENTS IN THE CHRIST-
CONCEPTION OF HEBREWS
I. THE THREE PERIODS IN JESUS' CAREER
Preparatory to a consideration of the transcendent elements in the
Christ-conception of the writer of Hebrews, it may be weU to present a
survey of the writer's conception of the total career of Jesus Christ.
The author considers that there were two pivotal points in the total
career of this person for whom his most common appellation is Jesus.
The first of these is described as "sharing in flesh and blood" (an aorist
tense), because his brethren whom he would save from the fear of death
partook of these. It was, therefore, necessary that he be made like his
brethren in aU things (2:14, 17). Again this is referred to (10:50) as
coming " into the world," and in the same verse it is described from the
divine point of view in the words of Ps. 40:6 ff. which are interpreted
messianicaUy and therefore put in the mouth of Jesus as he is conceived
to address God saying, " a body didst thou prepare for me." The author
gives no hint as to how he conceived this incarnation to have taken
place. It is simply stated as a pivotal point, a coming into the world,
which doubtless means an entrance into this human life of men upon
earth, the period spoken of as " the days of his flesh" (5:7).
The second pivotal point in the career of this Jesus is one that cannot
be so clearly denned, but which may best be stated as his entrance upon
his exalted state, which is described as taking his seat at the right hand
of God (1:13) by the command of God himself. This event in the
career of Jesus is frequently mentioned in the epistle (10:12; 10:13;
10:37; 12:2). It is referred to as an entrance into the heavenly world
(6:20), the real sanctuary (9:24), heaven itself, as the first is referred to
as an entrance into this world, this earthly life (10:5a). Closely associ
ated with this event, though not identical in point of time, are the death
(10:12a), resurrection (13:20a), ascension (4:14a), and anointing of
Jesus (1:96).
In addition to these two pivotal points, there are other events in the
career of Jesus less definitely indicated. How, for instance, did the
writer conceive Jesus to have been or to have become the Son of God ?
In 1 : 5 and 5 : 5 the author seems to consider the person Jesus to have
been at a certain fixed time constituted and haUed Son by God. Not to
355] 29

30 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
any of his feUows, the angels (1:96), did God ever address such words;
but to this person called Jesus he said, "Thou art my Son, I today have
begotten thee, and again, I wUl be to him a Father and he shall be to me
a Son." But the author does not enable us to discern clearly when that
time was. It must be inferred from 5 : 8 that Jesus was considered Son
during his earthly period and therefore the reference can hardly be to
¦J his resurrection (as in Rom. 1:4) or to his exaltation. There is no evi
dence to show that these words contain a specific reference either to the
eternal generation or to the incarnation. If they are not to be taken as
denoting a fixed point at which Jesus was constituted and hailed Son by
adoption it must simply be considered a highly figurative, rhetorical way
of recognizing in time the Sonship of Jesus which the writer considers
continual and timeless. This view might be taken without going so far as
to say with von Soden that " today " in the writer's mind actuaUy denoted
the timeless eternity of God. The writer's eschatological division of time
forbids giving this meaning to the word, especially in the discussion of the
"rest of God" in the third and fourth chapters (cf. 3: 13; 4:7)-
Another special point in the career of Jesus would seem to be indicated
in 5 : 5 where it is said that the Christ did not glorify himself to become
High Priest but rather that the honor of appointment came from God
who had said to him, "Thou art my Son. . I today have begotten thee";
and who also said "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Mel
chizedek." But here again it does not seem that the writer concerns
himself with being precise in regard to a time when Christ thus became
High Priest. It must be recognized that the whole framework of Old
Testament ritual, though viewed and set forth by the writer as proof of
what he presents, is in reality only a fitting but imperfect and incom
plete iUustration or analogy of what Jesus was and did. In other words,
what is true of New Testament writers in general is especiaUy true of the
writer of Hebrews — they see Jesus in the Old Testament only ex post
facto. There is something startling in the analogies, or at least in the
impression made by their sum-total, and one may not lightly say that
the author's elaborate system of analogies between the old and the new
covenants is only an ingenious patchwork. It is the same God who
spake to the fathers in the prophets and who speaks at last in a Son
(1:2). There is a genuine unity. But the point is, that what is primary
with this writer, as with all the New Testament writers, is the impression
of Jesus himself. The Old Testament is seen from the standpoint of
the impression of Jesus; it is not Jesus that is seen from the standpoint
of the Old Testament. 356

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 31
For this reason it is plain that, to say nothing of the analogies not
being proofs, many of them are imperfect and even misleading analogies.
There need be nothing surprising in this. The surprise rather is that the
author finds so much that contributes splendidly to the exposition of the
new in the ritual of the old. But it would surely be unwise of us today
to try to press the analogies farther than the author himself has pushed
them. This many are inclined to do (e.g., Bruce) when they try to
state a definite time at which Jesus became High Priest. The author
perhaps has in mind that, as entrance into the Holiest was the great act
of the Aaronic high priest, so Jesus when he passed through the heavens
(4:14) and became manifested on men's behalf in the very presence of
God (9:24) entered upon his Priesthood. And most of what is said on
this point in the epistle attributes his High-Priestly work to this stage
(cf . 7 : 24 ; 8:3; 9 : 14) . But the writer also considers him priest outside
of this sphere (7:27; 9:14; 10:10), especially in offering himself once
for aU in death. It would seem therefore that it is forcing the author
into too precise a consideration of time to compel him to say just when
Jesus became High Priest. This and many other difficulties in inter
preting the Priesthood and High Priesthood of Jesus arise from forcing
the typology of the epistle, from forgetting that in reality the typology
is an Ulustration ex post facto and not a proof. In the view of the writer
Jesus' High-Priestly acts constitute him High Priest rather than any
inauguration to his office at a specific time.
StUl one other point appears of signal importance in the career of
Jesus, viz., that at which all his enemies are to be made the footstool of
his feet. This is no doubt identical with the time of his second appear
ance in the world of men (1:6), which is also to be the point of time
when the full salvation is brought in (9:28), when the full sabbatismos
or rest of God is realized (4:9), when all the faithful of the old and the
new covenants shall together realize the fulfilment of God's promise of
fuU perfection, delayed so long for the sake of those of the latter days
(11:39, 4°)- The writer sees this day approaching (10:256) and there
fore urges greater earnestness, dUigence, and endurance; for in the words
of Habakkuk the coming one will come quickly (10:37). Associated with
the events of this time is the idea of the new heavens and the new earth
so far as it is held by this author (12 : 26, 27), and the complete establish
ment of the kingdom of God, perfect and unchangeable (1 2 : 28, 29) . This
subordinate point of time, therefore, is one which the author presents with
much more singleness and definiteness than either that of the acquire
ment of the Sonship or that of the acquirement of the Priesthood.
357

32 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
By the two pivotal points already indicated which we may call the
incarnation and the exaltation, the career of Jesus as presented by the
writer is divided into three definite states or stages which may be termed
the period of pre-existence, the earthly period of the days of his flesh,
and the period of exaltation. They might be termed technically, pre
incarnate, incarnate, and postincarnate. These are sharply defined
but it is clear that the epistle considers them as different stages in the
career of one and the same person. The most common name which the
writer uses is the simple historical name Jesus, whUe the most exalted
name is Son or Son of God, though these latter are titles rather than
names. One would almost expect him to confine the use of the name
Jesus to the period of the days of his flesh, but he does not do so.
As to the preincarnate period it is stated of this person Jesus that he
made the worlds ("aeons," 1:2; 1 : 10 ff.), that he was the effulgence of
God's glory and the express image of his substance, that he sustained the
universe by the word of his (God's) power (1:3). That he was in the
beginning is implied (1 : 10), and that the heavens and earth are transitory
while he is unchanging and eternal is stated in 1: n, 12. In 2:11 it is
implied that even in this preincarnate state he bore some special relation
to men which ("for which reason," 2:11) constituted them, or at least
led him to call them, brethren. And just because these brethren had
their lot in flesh and blood he, too, partook of the same. But the reason
for this was that it was necessary in order to do for them that which he
wanted to do or felt obliged to do just because, in his preincarnate state,
there already existed a bond between them, since both sanctifier and
sanctified were all of one (2 : 11) (as we might say, "aU of a piece"). It
is hardly satisfactory to the context and the general thought of the
writer to take this, as most interpreters do, to denote that they have a
common origin in God; for God, in the thought of the writer, is the
common origin of all things (2 : 10) — angels, demons, men, and worlds.
It is more likely that the phrase means "of a piece," for this harmonizes
better both with the preceding and the following verses. The sanctifier
and sanctified are all "of a piece," i.e., both the captain of salvation and
the "sons" belong to the same company: they form a unit. The
captain is not a foreign ruler imposed upon the company, but is one with
them. And the three citations which foUow (vs. n) emphasize this
same thought, viz., the community and identity of the captain with his
company. If it be said that this community or identity is presented
rather as holding good in the preincarnate state, even before being
realized in the earthly period, it is perhaps best explained as being
358

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 33
carried back in thought from the earthly period and applied to the pre
incarnate period though it does not strictly belong there. This is not
an unusual thing in our writer. If it is still felt that this is not enough
to account for the ascription of relationship in the preincarnate state,
that relationship should be found in something more special than simply
a common, otherwise undefined, origin from God. It might consist of
the special relationship of "sons" (2:10), which is such as to exclude
having anything to do with angels or other beings. It might hint at
the common pre-existence of all souls.
It is unnecessary to present again the material which is found in the
writer concerning Jesus during the earthly period spoken of as "the days
of his flesh." This has already been fully presented under the headings
of the writer's knowledge of the historical Jesus and human elements
in harmony with this knowledge.
It remains to present the material coming under the third, the
heavenly or exalted, state of Jesus. There is considerable vagueness
with regard to the initial stages of this postincarnate period. The line
between the postincarnate period and the earthly period is not clearly
marked, there being a number of events that belong to both. There is,
so to speak, a vestibule or entrance to the postincarnate period proper.
To this vestibule belongs the great sacrificial act — the voluntary death
(7:27); also the resurrection (13:20) and the ascension of Jesus (4:14),
though the writer does not give a detailed description of them. Of the
ascension, it is not certain that the author had such a conception as that
which the writer of Acts gives, though the phrase "passed through the
heavens" might naturally correspond (cf. 4:14; 9:24). Following this
is the exaltation, which ushers in the postincarnate period. It is spoken
of as an anointing (1:9), as being crowned with glory and honor (2:9),
as sitting down at the right hand of God (1 : 13; 10: 12).
This is a solemn inauguration into the state which the writer con
siders supreme in Jesus' career, the state of exaltation. It is the period
in which Jesus exercises his real and efficient ministry. It is the impor
tant period for which the preceding period was but preparation. Positive
activities are assigned to Jesus in the preincarnate period, viz., the
creation of the world and the sustaining of it. And in the incarnate
period he is spoken of as being the first to proclaim the salvation (2:3).
But the emphasis on his activity in these periods is exceedingly slight.
His real activity is in the postincarnate period. In this period he
receives his inheritance (1:2). It is difficult to say whether the words
"the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance" apply
359

34 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
only to the preincarnate and postincarnate periods or cover his whole
career. It is in this period of exaltation that his death is efficacious in
delivering his followers from the fear of death (2:14, 15) and in their
sanctification (10:10, 14). Though the author is indefinite as to the
time of Jesus' becoming High Priest, it is in this period, clearly, that he
considers him as fuUy exercising his High-Priestly office (6:20; 7:28;
8:1-3; 10:21) on behalf of men before God (9:24), in securing the
forgiveness of sins committed under the old covenant (9:15), the cleans
ing of the conscience from dead works (9: 14), and full and free access to
God (4:16; 10:19). It is through his High-Priestly activity in this
period that he brings to bear those qualities and capacities gained in the
experiences of the earthly life by delivering from temptation (2:18),
laying hold of men to help them (2 : 16), making propitiation for the sins
of the people (2:17), and in being merciful and faithful (2:17; 3:1).
In short, he is now the cause of eternal salvation to those who obey him
(5 : 9) and is so continuaUy and completely because he is now exercising
as High Priest the power of an endless Ufe (7:16, 24). To this period
pre-eminently applies the statement that he, Jesus Christ, is the same
yesterday, today, and forever (13:8). He is the mediator and sponsor
of a better covenant (7:22; 12 : 24), the Apostle and High Priest of our
confession (3:1), to whom believers must look as the supreme example
and the author and perfecter of faith (12:2).
It is during this period that Jesus waits (10: 13) until his enemies be
made the footstool of his feet (1 : 13). Just what is implied in this the
writer does not say. But he evidently holds to a division of this period
of exaltation by a definite time at which Jesus shaU come again (9:28).
At this time all enemies shall have been subjected to him. With this
time shall come the judgment, though this judgment is ascribed to God
— not to Jesus (4:136; 6:7,8; 10:30; 12:23,25,26,29; 13:4). With
it shall come what in our writer corresponds to the new heavens and the
new earth of Paul, the shaking of the things that are superficial and
transitory and the bringing in of the kingdom that cannot be shaken,
the kingdom of abiding realities which belongs to believers (12:27).
This is the ushering in of the full fruition of faith (n = 39), the realization
of the full salvation (9:28), the perfect rest of God long deferred (4:9).
Though Uttle is said as to Jesus' position in this new world of perfect and
abiding reality, it would appear that the best interpretation of 2 : 5 would
make it subject to Jesus as heir of aU things under God (1:2). This
second part of the postincarnate period is conceived of as the final and
eternal realization of the good things brought through Jesus (9:11; 10:1)
360

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE . HEBREWS 35
of the completed house of God over which Jesus presides (3:6). It is
the better thing of n 139, viz., the united realization, on the part of all
believers past and present, of the promise of God, not granted to the
heroes of the old covenant in spite of their faithfulness, that all might
enjoy it together.
These three periods, preincarnate, incarnate, and postincarnate,
constitute the career of Jesus, the latter period being divided by the
second coming to inaugurate the kingdom which cannot be shaken.
These are not progressive stages, though they are clearly stages in the
career of one and the same person. It is remarkable how little is said
that applies to the preincarnate stage. Yet what little is said is of such
a high tenor that it forbids the conception that in his real character and !
nature this person experienced a continuous development from lower to
higher or from imperfect to perfect. The writer, indeed, dwells much
on the "perfecting" of Jesus through sufferings but this does not involve'
continuous progression through three periods. One who was the Son of
God, through whom he made the worlds and probably the supporter of
those worlds, the effulgence of God's glory and impress of his substance
in the preincarnate state, could not be conceived of as progressing through
these three stages. Moreover, the earthly career of Jesus would render
impossible such a conception. Such an exalted preincarnate condition,
even though comparatively little is said about it, would compel the author
to present the earthly period as one of humUiation.
But the case is quite different when considered from the point of
view of Jesus' office and work, the preparation for it and the glory
attending it. Here it would seem that the author wishes to give us the
picture of progression. The earthly stage of his career is a humUiation
to be sure, a diminishing in dignity as compared with the angels (2:9),
but it is only for a short time and for a glorious purpose, viz., the bringing
of many sons into glory. For this reason he too shared in flesh and
blood as the rest of these sons. For this reason also it was eminently
fitting that God should perfect him through suffering, that is, perfect
him for the fulfilment of this high and glorious task. And it is the
accompUshment of this high task in its full perfection that is the joy set
before him (12:2), the gladness that he enjoys beyond his fellows (1:9).
This is the kingdom which he inherits (1 : 2) as the permanent repre
sentative of God, for the author of Hebrews has no statement of
Jesus' giving up the kingdom to God such as characterizes Paul's view.
There is, therefore, a progress through these three stages, but it is
in the career of Jesus rather than in his character and person. It is
361

36 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
true, however, that the experiences necessary to the fulfilment of his
vocation reacted upon his character, calling forth and developing such
genuinely human qualities as faith, fidelity, compassion, fair dealing
(5:2), reverence (5:7), obedience (5:8), patient endurance (12:3), all of
which, though viewed by the writer as qualities essential to the successful
carrying out of his vocation, must at the same time have been viewed by
him as noble human qualities as well.
n. CHRIST AS SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS AND MOSES
In seeking to show the transcendent elements which enter into the
character and nature of this person it wUl be well to begin with his
superiority to the angels. This the writer emphasizes strongly and with
considerable detaU. The suddenness with which the writer descends
from the beautiful and exalted language and thought of the first three
verses of the first chapter, which form an imposing vestibule to a noble
edifice, to the apparently insipid statement of vs. 4, "having become by
so much better than the angels as he has inherited a more exceUent
name than they," is at first disappointing; but such a feeling and atti
tude is modern, betraying a faUure to enter into the thought, view, and
situation of the writer. It is not even necessary to say with Bruce that
the writer here, in true apologetic fashion, is accommodating himself to
the peculiar views of the readers who made much of angels and con
sidered Jesus an angel. There is no evidence from the epistle that the
writer considered his readers to hold heretical views or even exaggerated
views concerning the angels. He depreciates the dignity and work of
the angels only in contrast with the superior dignity and work of Christ.
This is perfectly natural and reasonable when we consider what a
prominent part angels played in the ancient reUgious economy. It is
evident that in various ways the author himself shared these views
concerning the high office of angels. He speaks of entertaining strangers
as possibly entertaining angels unawares (13 : 1 2) ; he speaks of "myriads "
of angels, even a festal assembly and convocation of firstborn who are
enrolled in heaven.1 Of itself this reveals a high conception of angels
on the part of the writer. He speaks of the specific and ordinary function
of angels as being that of ministering spirits sent forth to minister on
behalf of those who shall be heirs of salvation (1 : 14). But it is not of
angels that Jesus lays hold to help (2 = 15), nor is the world to come, the
future kingdom of abiding reality, to be subjected to angels (2:5). The
reason for his making this latter statement is, doubtless, the idea con-
1 Cf. Peake, Hebrews, ad. loc., p. 233. 362

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 37
tained in the phrase "the word spoken through the angels proved
steadfast" (2:2). The writer evidently has the conception, more clearly
expressed by Paul and common to the primitive Christians, that the old
covenant, with its law and promises and warnings, was mediated through
angels. This, then, is the conception that causes and justifies the extended
contrast between Christ and the angels which is put prominently first in
the epistle (1:5-14). If the word of the old covenant spoken through
angels was steadfast and every transgression and disobedience received
a just recompense, they surely cannot expect to escape who neglect a
word that is spoken through the Lord who is so superior in dignity and
person to the angels. The degree of this superiority is expressed in 1:4,
"having become by so much better than the angels as he has inherited
a more exceUent name than they." The word translated "better" is
indefinite; it means "superior" without denoting in what the superiority
consists. There is no reference in the word to moral worth or character.
Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 1 : 36) was probably unconsciously influenced
by the true shade of meaning here when, in quoting this passage, he
substituted the word v-^mv for KpeCrrmv, i.e., "greater," "superior"
in point of dignity and rank, since he is seated on the right hand of the
majesty on high.
But the reason for this high place in dignity and rank above the
angels is, that he has inherited a more excellent name than they. EarUer
interpreters took this word "name" in the general sense so frequent in
Scripture, as denoting "dignity," "glory," "fame" (cf. PhU. 2:9).
Modern interpreters, however, largely agree in understanding the author
to have in mind the specific name "Son." This seems at first natural,
as the next two verses contain the name "Son" and are closely connected
with the preceding by the word "for": "For to what one of the angels
did he ever say, Thou art my Son, I today have begotten thee ? And
again, I wUl be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son." But vs. 6
continues the thought of the high dignity of Christ without any reference
to the specific name "Son." Moreover, the rest of the quotations in
this chapter have no reference to the specific name "Son." It seems
better therefore to hold to the older interpretation. The word "name"!
denotes the higher dignity, rank, worth, and fame of Christ. This is I
shown from Old Testament Scripture in vss. 5 and 6 by the fact that the
intimate relation denoted by the word "son" exists between him and
God, a term which Scripture has never used of any one of the angels;
also by the fact that when Christ comes a second time into the world
363

38 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
all the angels of God are to worship him. Vss. 7-12 show the superiority
of Christ over the angels in that while they are changeable forms of
being that pass into the forces of Nature at the wUl of God, Christ is
not like the angels, subject to such change into the elements, for under
God (1:2), he himself made the world, the heavens, and the forces of
Nature; and thus, though they change, he changes not but abides the
/same eternally. Moreover, God never called any angel to share with
/ him his throne (1:13) and with it universal dominion. Thus Christ
is superior to the angels in that he enjoys the intimate relationship of
Son to God, eternal dignity and worth which are superior to world-
changes, and finally, royal rank in sharing with God his throne and
promised universal dominion.
More obvious to us is the effort of the author to show the superiority
of Christ over Moses. Even today we appreciate the exalted part which
Moses played in connection with the establishment of the old covenant,
though we scarcely accord him the great glory with which not only the
Jews, but also the devout gentiles of antiquity, encircled his name.
His name was prominent among the Jews. And the author of Hebrews
does not by any means intend to depreciate his glory. He considers
him the great apostle — perhaps also priest — of the old covenant, the
mediator between God and his people. In 11:23 ff. he describes him
among the other heroes of faith with exceptionaUy vivid' touches; he
speaks of him as choosing the reproach of the Christ, by which phrase
he designates the sufferings both of the Old Testament and the New
Testament people of God (n : 26). Moses is the great example of faith
under the old covenant as Jesus himself is under the new (12 : 2). The
commands of the old covenant he calls the "law of Moses" (10:28), a
law that was strictly and terribly enforced. Moses was the great leader
of the people from Egypt (4: 16) and the one who was directed by God
and intrusted with the task of making the tabernacle according to the
pattern revealed to him in the Mount (8:5).
The writer, therefore, holds the high opinion of the place of Moses
peculiar to his people. He is careful not to offend his readers in his
discussion of the superiority of Jesus. For in 3 : 1-6 he begins by placing
them on a par in the quality of faithfulness which both Moses and Jesus
manifested in their respective missions. This was a quaUty displayed
in the fulfilment of their official tasks. But in the nature and glory of
his person and position Jesus is far superior to Moses. He is as superior
in glory as the builder of a house is superior in glory to the house itseU.
The word "house" is not used here only in the limited sense of a
364

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 39
"buUding" but in the fuller sense of the "household." In fact it is used
in a stiU larger sense as denoting that over which anyone has control or
jurisdiction, as a king's people or kingdom was spoken of as his "house."
The three meanings of "buUding," "household," and "people" or
"kingdom" are here involved.1
The most natural and consistent interpretation of this seems to be
that Moses, great though he was, was himself only a part of God's house,
a servant jn the house, one of the people, whUe Jesus is the one who
established this "Souse and is over it. A house must be built or estab-
Ushed by someone: it does not grow of itself. And the one who
established God's house was Jesus. He is therein far superior to Moses
who was himself only a member of the household. The thought here
seems to be somewhat different from that in 2:11 where Christ is closely
associated as one with those who are sanctified. But the two thoughts
whUe contrasted are not contradictory. In 3 : 3 the thought is, perhaps,
hardly to be pressed so far as to imply that Christ is conceived by the
writer as the actual author of the dispensation of the old covenant,
though this would not be out of accord with the writer's general point
of view which considers Christ as the representative of God in all things.
The thought that God is back of all that Christ does would then be
emphasized and guarded by 3:46 which is careful to make God the
ultimate source of all things (cf. Ps. 127:1a). It is, however, unlikely
that the author is here thinking of the preincarnate Christ as the builder
of the Old Testament portion of the house; rather, he is thinking of
God's house as one and Christ its buUder without distinguishing sharply
between old and new. Again, Jesus is superior in position and person
in relation to this house, for while Moses was but a servant, Jesus was
Son over God's house. This unique relation denoted by Son must be
left for further consideration.
The author considers Jesus, by virtue of his dignity as Son, superior
to all the prophets of the Old Testament dispensation. This superiority
is set forth concisely and yet decisively in the first two verses of the
epistle. In aU these comparisons it has been noted that Christ is superior
because of his superior dignity and position and this superior dignity and
position is expressed though not defined in the word Son.
It may not be amiss to call attention to the fact here that, though no
comparison is openly expressed, a comparison is implied between Christ
on the one hand and Moses and Joshua on the other, in that while they
both faUed to lead the people of the old covenant into the promised rest
1 Cf. Philo, De plantat. Noe, sec. 16, p. 2244.
365

40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
of God (3:16; 4:8), Christ is the one who succeeds in doing so. The
comparison, however, is not so decisive, since the emphasis is rather
upon the faUure through the disobedience and unbelief of the people
themselves than upon the failure or success of their leaders.
III. CHRIST SUPERIOR AS HIGH PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF
MELCHIZEDEK
We reach the heart of the epistle when we come to consider the main
thesis of the writer, that Jesus is superior to the priests and more espe
cially to the High Priest of the old covenant. This is the main con
structive portion of the epistle (4: 14 — 10: 18). It shows the superiority
of Christ as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and wUl naturally
include consideration of him as Mediator of a new covenant, as sinless,
and as Author of eternal salvation.
I. CHRIST THE MEDIATOR OF A BETTER COVENANT
That Jesus as High Priest of the new covenant is superior to Aaron
and the Levitical priests of the old is the great thesis of the epistle. That
Jesus is presented as High Priest is almost a unique thesis in the New
Testament. Paul hints at the thought when he says that Christ
Jesus makes intercession at the right hand of God for us (Rom. 8:346),
but he does not develop the idea. The Book of Revelation has the
thought of believers as being priests unto God, but not of Christ as Priest
or High Priest. In Hebrews the thesis is worked out with a fulness of
detail and richness of moral and spiritual truth that is remarkable. It
is altogether probable that the emphasis and detail are due to the
influence either of Alexandrianism or of the mystery-religions or of both.
It seems clear from the epistle itself (4:14) that the general thesis
formed part of the contents of what was regarded as a regular confession
which Christian converts made and which the readers, under the stress
of opposition and persecution, were in danger of breaking.
The writer, however, has seized upon this thesis of Jesus as High
Priest of a new covenant and has constructed his whole theology and
Christian teaching about it. ' He has attempted to express the whole
significance of Jesus through it. v In the Old Testament, he thinks chiefly
of the ministry of the High Priest on the great Day of Atonement. That
whole system, he says, God-given though it was, was only typical. Its
priesthood, its ministry, and its law were imperfect/ They failed to
clear the consciences of men from the sense and burden of sins. ' From
the Old Testament story of Genesis, helped by touches from PhUo of
Alexandria, he sets forth the superiority of Jesus as High Priest under
366

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 41
the strange, weird figure of Melchizedek. Melchizedek is king of
righteousness and king of peace: so is Jesus. He is superior to the
patriarch Abraham and therefore also to the sons of Levi in that he, the
greater, gave to Abraham his priestly blessing. Abraham, on the other
hand, gave to Melchizedek a tenth of the spoUs he had taken from the
kings. The Levites were mortal men but, arguing like Philo from the
silence of Scripture, Melchizedek's priesthood had no beginning and no
end; so too with Christ. On account of the fact that he abides forever
Christ has an unchangeable priesthood, a priesthood that does not pass
from him to another. They were appointed priests according to the law
of a carnal commandment, i.e., according to a law of physical descent
which could only be a temporary arrangement: Jesus was appointed
priest according to the power of an indissoluble life, i.e., a life of such
high moral and spiritual quality that it cannot be broken by death and
therefore insures a permanent priesthood. And it is this that sums up
his superiority as High Priest of the new covenant. To be sure, he is
superior in other respects. ' He is appointed by oath of God; he presents
a better offering, himself; he ministers in the true tabernacle, in heaven
itself, in the very presence of God (8 : 2) whither he has entered, having
passed through the intermediate heavens (4:14), as forerunner (4:16:
6:20). But the reiterated expression that reveals his superiority over the
Levitical high priests is that he is called by God (5 : 5) High Priest accord
ing to the order or rank of Melchizedek, who was himself superior to the
Levitical priests in that being without father, without mother, without
genealogy as priest, he is made like the Son of God and abideth a priest
forever. It is the person of Jesus as Son of God and the fact that being
such he abides a priest forever that constitutes his superiority over the
Levitical priests. There is probably no thought of distinction in the
writer's mind between Christ as Priest and as High Priest. It is prob
ably not necessary here to go farther into the perplexities of chap. 7 which
deals with Melchizedek as a type of Christ. There is in it a strongly
PhUonian coloring. The gist of it for our purpose is plain, viz., to show
how great this strange figure of Melchizedek was as it darted across the
pathway of Old Testament history, suddenly rising and as suddenly
disappearing. It had the halo of eternity about it and shadowed forth
a new and better priesthood. The statement of Scripture (Ps. 110:4)
that the Messiah was called by God High Priest after the order of
Melchizedek gives the proof-text he wishes and furnishes the writer
solid ground for transferring this superiority of Melchizedek to Jesus.
367

42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
It is especially plain in this case that whUe appearing to work from Mel
chizedek as type toward Christ, the author is really working from Jesus
back to Melchizedek and seeing in Melchizedek largely what he needs
to see in order to express his confidence in the supremacy of Jesus. It
is a typical piece of Alexandrian exegesis.
While this figure of Melchizedek suggests the main points in which
the superiority of Jesus consists, viz., his Sonship to God and his per
manency as priest, there are other points of superiority to the Levitical
priests which it does not touch. Jesus is superior to the Levitical priests
/ in that he is also the mediator (8:6; 9:15) and sponsor (7:22), or surety
by his death (9:15), for a better covenant estabUshed upon better
promises and having a more excellent ministry.' The reason given in
this passage (7 : 20 ff .) for the superiority of the covenant is the fact that
this new covenant is mediated and guaranteed by a priest who was
appointed by oath of God.' But the new covenant or law is superior in
itself also because under it the end of religion, viz., the fuU forgiveness of
sins, is finally and forever secured (10: 16-18). ' The new law is better
also because it is inward and personal. ' With keen insight he seizes upon
the passage in Jer. 31:31 ff. that speaks of a new dispensation in which
religion shall be inward and personal, whereby he finds in the Old
Testament itself, as he did in the case of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4),
support for his thesis that there is to be a new and better covenant
written not on tables of stone but on fleshly tables of the heart and
mind. But it is interesting to note how carefully the writer subordinates
the covenant or law to the priesthood. With him it is axiomatic that a
change of priesthood automaticaUy necessitates a change of law. This
appears in 7: n-19. He has already shown that according to Scripture
(Ps. 110:4) Melchizedek prefigures a new and different priesthood.
That means a new law (vs. 12), because Jesus, being of the tribe of
Judah, is, like Melchizedek, of a different order. That the old law
should be a failure (vss. 11, 18), that Melchizedek should picture a differ
ent and higher priesthood, that Jesus should actuaUy come from the
tribe of Judah — all these harmonize with and confirm one another and
unite in making clearer (vs. 15) the main point of the whole section, viz.,
that the Levitical priesthood and the old law have both faUed in accom
plishing the essential and ultimate end of reUgion and therefore have given
place to a new priesthood and a new law. " This new and better covenant
he identifies with the full and final word of revelation given by God in
his Son (1:2) and spoken first by the Lord himself (2:3). But the
efficient virtue of this new law or covenant rests ultimately upon the
368 ,

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 43
personnel of the priesthood, that is, upon the personal worth and char
acter of Jesus who is at once mediator, surety, and priest of this new and
better covenant. As Moses and the angels were mediators of the old,
so Jesus is mediator of the new, and is as far superior to them as the new
is superior to the old. It may be that here again the author implicitly
considers Moses priest as well as prophet, thus making the parallel with
Jesus as High Priest more complete.
2. SINLESSNESS OF JESUS
Another part of Jesus' superiority as High Priest is indicated in the
characterization "holy, guUeless, undefiled, separated from sinners'
and made higher than the heavens" (7:26). The latter phrase denotes
his superior glory as having entered into the true tabernacle, the inner
most heaven which is the abode of the full presence of God. But in the
rest of the terms applied to Jesus as High Priest in this passage/we have
a statement of his perfect purity and sinlessness. Closely connected
with this is the statement of 7:28 that the law appointeth men high
priests who have weakness, whUe the word of the oath of God appoints
a Son perfected forevermore, i.e., without weakness. It is not contra
dictory to this that the writer in another place (5 : 1-3), while giving the
necessary qualities of every high priest, says that he is girt (or encom
passed) with weakness. This must not be pressed so as to apply to
Jesus as High Priest in his exalted state. In this same passage the
author also says that the High Priest must make offering not for the
, people only but also for himself. This certainly the author does not
mean to apply to Jesus as High Priest, for he distinctly says that he
had no need to make offering for himself./' It is probable that during
the earthly existence he considers Christ as encompassed with weakness,
whUe in his exaltation, where he is considered as pre-eminently High
Priest, he is perfected and therefore completely free from weakness. ] Of
the rest of the terms of 7:26 "holy" is used of relationship to God,
"guUeless" of the personal character, and/ "undefiled" of freedom from
ceremonial contamination from the outside. The phrase "separated
from sinners" lies midway between the preceding and following phrases.
It suggests, on the one hand, the seven-days' separation of the high-
priest before the great Day of Atonement in order to avoid ceremonial
contamination and, on the other, it finds its complement in the phrase
"made higher than the heavens," which denotes the place of supreme
honor and dignity in the ineffable presence of God. The whole passage
carries the atmosphere of the mystery-religions and emphasizes the
369

44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
perfect ceremonial and personal purity of the High Priest Jesus in his
official capacity both before God and before men. The most striking
passage on this topic, however, refers to the period of preparation for
his High-Priestly office, the earthly period of temptation. In 4:15 it
is said of him that he was "tempted in all things in like manner [with
us] without sin." Here the sinlessness of Jesus is more specificaUy
stated but it is spoken of as an achievement, a concrete thing rather than
an abstract, absolute thing, a positive thing rather than a negative
thing. For the meaning of the author here evidently is, that Christ
has the quality of sympathy because he has actually been tempted
in all things (i.e., exactly in the same way) as we are tempted. But he
was victorious in all his temptations and therefore sinless. This sinless
ness was an acquirement rather than an endowment.
3. JESUS AS AUTHOR OF ETERNAL SALVATION
There is still another phase of his High-Priestly work which, in the
presentation of the writer, sets forth the exalted superiority of Jesus. It
may be summed up in the characteristic phrase of the writer that Jesus
is the cause or author of eternal salvation (5:9). This salvation is
conceived by the author as primarUy future (9:28). The whole epistle
is written upon the view that the realization of their hopes Ues in the
future, in that time when Christ shall come again and usher in that rest
of God which God has been waiting to share with his people since the
finishing of creation (4 : 8 ff .) . Then all enemies shaU have been subdued
beneath his feet and for his followers anticipation shaU have passed into
realization. Meanwhile they must hope, believe, endure, struggle, and
hold fast their confession, since he is faithful that promised (6:12;
6:132.; 10:23), and their time for waiting is not long (10:37) — the
ancient heroes have had to wait much longer (n =40). But this feature
of the author's presentation may easily be overemphasized at the expense
of the elements of salvation that are realized during the earthly career of
the believer. It is an error easy to make if one holds the author of
Hebrews strictly to his somewhat fantastic intellectual scheme of things.
But one must recognize that such a writer breaks through his own frame
work. The old bottles will not hold the new wine. There are many
clear indications that while the picture the writer presents is that of
persons waiting sick at heart for the fulfilment of a promise that seems
to fail them, like watchmen in the night waiting for the day that never
seems to dawn, as a matter of fact the blessings of that day of reaUzation
are continually breaking in upon the darkness of their faith. Realization
370

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 45
is not wholly in the future. This will appear more fully after presenting
the writer's conception of eternal salvation.
As already noted, the writer says that Jesus himself began the procla
mation of this great salvation (2:3). The word of this higher revelation
was a word of salvation in contrast with the word of the old dispensation.
The mediators of the old were Moses and the angels, but the mediator
of the new was a Son, Jesus. Therefore is this salvation so great as to
be final and authoritative. The writer does not here reveal precisely in
what he considered this salvation first proclaimed by the Lord to consist.
The words of 2:4 exhibit the condition of the early Christian church
with considerable verisimilitude when compared with the introductory
chapters of Acts. It is likely that the writer considered himself to be
in essential harmony with the primitive church in his conception of this
salvation. ^ It consisted of the proclamation that Jesus of Nazareth was
the Messiah, that his death, resurrection, and exaltation at God's right
hand brought the boon of the forgiveness of sins through him./ The
promise of his return to inaugurate the kingdom of God and restore all
things was added. The author was probably not conscious to himself
of having advanced upon this primitive message or of having altered it
in any way. He cast the common message into his own peculiar intel
lectual mold for the purpose of interpretation, exhortation, and enforce
ment. But to be more certain of his conception it is necessary to go to
his own full and characteristic elucidation of this eternal salvation.
To begin with, the great lines on which he constructs his framework,
viz., covenant, priesthood, sacrifice, etc., demand and secure a unique
and supreme emphasis upon the death of Jesus. The purpose of his
humiliation in comparison with the angels, and of his sharing in flesh
and blood like his brethren, was just that he might undergo the experi
ence of death on their behalf (2:14, possibly 2:9), thus delivering them
from the fear of death. How Jesus' death could accompUsh this the
writer shows more clearly in 10: 5 ff., where he states that Jesus' death is
a sacrifice cheerfully undertaken by him in accordance with the will of
God because of the evident ineffectiveness of the sacrifices under the old
covenant (10:1-4). "Ineffectiveness" is perhaps too mUd a word to
use, as the author seems to mingle with his statements here a slight
touch of quiet scorn. But the death of Jesus is by no means ineffective.
It is the one final sacrifice of the superior new covenant, whUe those of
the old covenant were many and continually repeated. It is emphasized
in various solemn and emphatic words (9: 26; 10: 12). It is the sacrifice
of himself, a strikingly new thing (9:14), an offering that is faultless
371

46 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
(9:14). Since his death is sacrificial, it secures the forgiveness of sins
fully and finally— at least to those who add on their part all dUigence
(10: 18). How precisely it does this or could do this the writer does not
attempt to say simply because neither he nor his readers had any thought
of going behind the cardinal conception of their day, viz., that without
shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (9:22). This death of
Jesus in its relation to sins is probably conceived as timeless. At least
it is retroactive in its efficacy, opening up the promised eternal inheritance
by the removing of the sins committed under the old covenant (9:15).
It is probable also that the writer conceives the virtue of this sacrificial
death of Jesus to extend to sins of the future as of the past, though he
says nothing definitely about it. ' It is true that he has a strange reserva
tion in regard to wilful sins, but it is hardly fair to his presentation to
maintain as some have done that it has no provision for any sins com
mitted after enlightenment or conversion, and that from this arises his
stern and somber view of God as the consuming fire and terrible judge.
Without minimizing the latter fact, it is however more likely that he
conceived the sacrificial death of Jesus as timeless in its efficacy availing
for sins past, present, and future. And it must further be said that the
writer does not conceive of this purification of sins made by the sacrificial
death of Jesus (1 : 3) as an external, mechanical, forensic thing. /It does
not in the least degree release the believer from the intense exercise of all
the virtues of the Christian life. It is not a mere ceremonial thing Uke
the old sacrifices (9:13), but reaches to the inmost being, cleansing the
conscience from dead works to serve a living God (9:14). It purifies
and sanctifies (9:23; 10:2; 10:10; 13:12). Doubtless these words
originally and generally in Scripture, and in this epistle, have a static,
aoristic sense; but historic development, the general atmosphere of the
epistle, and in particular such a passage as 12:10, indicate that in
addition they possess in Hebrews a strong ethical and spiritual coloring.
Entrance by faith into the true holy place of God's real presence is gained
through this sacrificial death of Jesus (10:19, 2°)- We must not mini
mize the moral and spiritual strength of this thought simply because God
is conceived as inhabiting a local dwelling-place, if to the sacrificial
death of Jesus we add its sequel, the resurrection and exaltation, we shall
arrive at the full import of the phrase "eternal salvation" as the end of
the High-Priesthood of Jesus./ The word "eternal," as used in this
epistle, is qualitative as well as temporal in its content. It impUes a
bringing into full covenant relation with God so that there shall be
harmony and free, glad intercourse, that the people shall be God's
372

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 47 /
people and God shall be their God (8:10). And though the idea of a
covenant people is always prominent with this writer he, of course,
thinks also of the individual and his relation to God. Jesus as exalted
High Priest is able to save completely, that is, not only eternally but
perfectly, those who come unto God through him (7:25). And this
complete salvation finds its perfection in that full realization of the
covenant relation which is described as the eternal inheritance (9:15),
the sabbatismos of the people of God. This, however, is to be realized
only at the second coming of Christ when a new order shall prevail and
the world of eternal and spiritual realities shall be fully revealed.
/ In the view of the epistle, then, the whole of this imposing structure
rests upon the one central essential point of Jesus' sacrificial death as the
necessary death of the testator of the new covenant (9:16). The
writer was not at aU concerned to question the logical or theological
necessity of this death, nor to wonder how such virtue could reasonably
and consistently be attached to it. That is a modern question. With
the writer the necessity was wholly religious and practical; in this, as in
many other features of the epistle, we have evidence that not philosophy
or theory but experience is fundamental. If, however, the author were
asked the question he/ Would reply, as indeed he actually does declare in
the epistle, that the reason Jesus' death does have such large results
religiously and ethically is that it is the death of one who is appointed
of God to be High Priest after the order of Melchizedek — that is, one
whose personal inner nature, worth, and position as Son of God were such
that his death could have these results (5:5, 6). He was the spotless
High Priest (9:14) who needed not to make any offering for himself
but offered himself through eternal spirit to God (9:14). This latter
probably means that whUe the sacrifices of the old covenant were only ,
fleshly or physical (9:13), performed by a priest appointed by physical^
descent (7:16), Jesus' sacrifice moved in the realm of the spiritual, was
voluntary, perfect, and therefore eternal (7 : 16), and spiritual in its effects.
In a word, the significance of Jesus' death in the thought of the writer
depends directly upon the nature and worth of his person. By his
entrance into the heavenly and true holy place and his unchangeable
priesthood (7:24), upon the basis of his sacrificial death, he has secured
the forgiveness of sins, the continued sanctification and ultimate per
fection of his people. It is true, of course, that what really fills the
writer's vision and constitutes the sum of his thought is the continued
activity of Jesus as exalted High Priest. The actual death is but one
event, yet it is original and fundamental. 373

48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Although the author uses the framework of the old covenant as the
vehicle of his thought, he clearly has no superficial, merely ceremonial
conception of sin and salvation. He has the original ceremonial meaning
of the terms "holiness," "sanctification," "purification," and "perfec
tion," yet it is evident from the general tone of the writing that these
words carry a weight which their original meanings will not bear. In a
large degree reUgion has become ethical, so that there is a deeply moral
and religious meaning in these terms and in the whole content of the
salvation provided by the new covenant. This is expressed in the
writer's scheme by saying that the old covenant is merely type while
the new is the reality, the old is shadow whUe the new is sub
stance. But the writer in many other ways reveals the strongly
ethical tone of his system. He insists continually, sternly, almost
monotonously upon the absolute necessity of perseverance and
obedience. With him unbelief is equivalent to disobedience (cf. 3:12
with 4:6). Even Jesus himself learned obedience through that which
he suffered (5:8). The perfect among believers are those, who, by reason
of use or habit, have their senses trained to distinguish between good
and bad (5: 14). The thought as well as the words here reveal a strain
of the Stoic philosopher with his emphasis on morals. This obedience,
indeed, is to a new law (7:12; 8 : 6) — a law that is inward, personal, and
universal (8: 10 ff.). And the high character of this obedience is shown
very clearly in the Doxology (13:20). It is pursuing of the good in
accordance with the will of God as Jesus himself did (10: 5). It is not a
merely human and natural pursuit but is aided by the inspiration of the
leadership and example of Jesus (12 : 2), by the impartation of the Holy
Spirit (6:4), and by the whole High-Priestly activity and sympathy of
Jesus (2:18; 5:9). This obedience avoids the legalism of Pharisaic
Judaism on the one hand and the mystical element of Paulinism on the
other. It is more lofty than the one and more humble than the other.
It is held by many1 that the eternal salvation thus gained is an
entirely future thing. This again, is putting a greater burden on the
writer's philosophical world-view than it should be expected to bear.
Even if it be true (which can hardly be granted) that the word "salva
tion" whenever used always refers to the perfected believer in the future
perfect state, the consummated rest of God, it would stUl not necessarily
follow that nothing of what we today call salvation was realized by the
believers of the epistle during their earthly life. It depends on how much
we include in the writer's term "salvation." We may, if we wish, force
1 Scott, Apologetic of the New Testament, p. 202; McGiSert, Apostolic Age, p. 473.
374

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 49
the word into the narrow limits of the perfected final state. But there
stiU remains much in the epistle which Jesus does for believers during
their earthly life. It is unnatural to interpret otherwise such passages
as 2:10; 2:14-18; 4:16; 7:25; 12:28, and especially 13: 20, 21. The
context and the present tenses used, demand a reference to present
benefits. Whether these benefits are included by the writer in his word
"salvation" or not is, in any case, largely a matter of words not of
reaUty. The benefits are clearly such as are necessary to the realization
of the covenant relation, viz., the relation of harmony and communion
with God. It is much more natural, therefore, to say that by the term
"salvation," the writer denotes all the benefits received under the inspira
tion or by the help of Jesus, which benefits are necessary to the realization
of the new covenant relation, viz., entrance into and full enjoyment
of the presence of God. This is partially realized before, and fully
reaUzed only after, the parousia of Christ (9:28). Delitzsch's words
on 7 : 25 are pertinent here:
This aU-embracing salvation is vouchsafed to those who through him
approach to God, that is, those who in faith make use of the way of access
which he has opened, and which remains open to him; nay more, this very
access to free and joyous communion with God, made by the removal of
the barrier of sin, is in itself the all-including commencement of that perfect
"salvation." Thus the author of the Hebrews emphasizes the future and passes
lightly over the present, while we emphasize the present and pass lightly
over the future. The important thing to notice here is that this salvation
whether in its partial realization in the present or in its completed
realization in the future is mediated through Jesus and is what it is
because of what he is and does. He is the cause of this eternal salvation,
being himself eternal. IV. CHRIST AS ETERNAL
I. COSMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF CHRIST
It will be well to consider first the writer's conception of the cosmic
significance of Christ. It is through him that God has made the ages,
that is, the world (1:2). This great thought, distinct though it is, is
neither emphasized nor amplified in the epistle. Elsewhere the writer
attributes the work of creation directly to God as both the final and
efficient cause (2:10). In another passage this work is attributed to
the word of God (11:3). This contrast is not to be interpreted as a
contradiction within the thought of the writer. It is rather to be
considered as another of many indications in the epistle (cf . 3 : 46) that
375

50 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
God is supreme in the writer's thought. This thought of Christ as
agent of creation under God is more emphatic in the Fourth Gospel
(1:2, 3) and in Colossians (1:16) than in Hebrews. It is pre-Gnostic
and with the author of Hebrews probably PhUonian in origin. Its
importance here is that it expresses the author's belief in the pre
incarnate activity of Christ.
But not only did God make the world through Christ; he also made
him heir of all things (1:2). The same thought is to be inferred from
2:8, 9 and from 1:13. But whUe these passages indicate something
received as an inheritance, something occurring progressively in time,
the middle portion of 1 : 3 indicates an activity at least coextensive with
the universe itself, since the Son bears all things by the word of God's
power. Here again the clearness with which this cosmic activity of
the Son is subordinated to that of God is noteworthy as compared with
a closely parallel passage in Colossians (1:176).
But it is in contrast with this cosmic activity of the Son that his
eternal significance is first manifested clearly (1:10-12). This is done,
indeed, by use of a quotation from Ps. 102 which the author appUes
directly and confidently to Jesus as Messiah. That the original referred
to God himself is of no significance here since the object is the thought
of the writer on the topic considered. The earth and the heavens, it is
true, are the work of the Christ as Son and Messiah. But they are
temporary and fleeting. Like garments they shaU become old and
threadbare and so shall be changed for new ones (1 : 11, 12). They shall
perish, but the Son abides the same with no aging with the lapse of
years (vs. 126). The angels pass at the wiU of God into winds or flames
(1:7), but the Son's throne is forever (1:8). Thus over against the
universe which the author, with the common thought of his time, con
ceives to be fleeting and changeable, the eternity of the Son is set forth.
The eternity of Christ is also emphasized in connection with the
eternal salvation which he provides. He is the Son perfected forever
(7 : 28). He is able to save completely since he lives forever (7 : 25), and
thus in contrast with the priests of the old dispensation has a priesthood
that does not pass to another (7:24). By his offering through eternal
spirit (9:14), he has obtained eternal redemption (9:126), has secured
to believers the promise of an eternal inheritance (9: 156).
2. RELATION OF CHRIST TO MEN
Of Christ's relation to men in general this epistle has little to say.
directly, but there are some significant hints. The author thinks of
376

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 51
what we call conversion as occurring at a definite time and speaks of it, as
do the mystery-religions, as an enlightenment (6:4) and as becoming
partners with Christ (3:14). Although in both of the above passages
the danger and possibility of falling away is strongly emphasized, stUl
conversion, in the view of the writer, divides men into two distinct
classes. Naturally what the writer has to say regarding Christ's relation
to men concerns his relation to believers chiefly. Yet he says that he
tasted death for everyone (2:9), that he lays hold not of angels but of
the seed of Abraham (2:16). In this latter passage the context shows
that the seed of Abraham denotes human nature as such in contrast with
the spirit nature of angels. The author does not say seed of Adam, as
we might expect, because along with his idea of human nature as such
he has strongly in mind here, as everywhere, the thought of salvation,
and the inheritors of this salvation are not human beings as such but
just the seed of Abraham in the figurative or spiritual sense of the term,
the true Israel. The point that is pertinent here, however, is that this
language concerning Christ's relation to men implies pre-existence as
did also the author's language regarding Christ's relation to the world,
his cosmic significance. This thought of pre-existence in relation to men
stands out stiU more clearly in the author's statement as to Christ's
relation to Melchizedek (7:3), viz., that Melchizedek was made like to
the Son of God in being without father, without mother, without
genealogy, without beginning of days, and without end of life. This
statement is the more striking as it reverses the thought of the context
in which Melchizedek is presented as the type of Christ. Pre-existence
is not a necessary inference from this phrase, but it is the natural one
in the light of the epistle as a whole. The same thought of pre-existence
is clearer in the passage 2 : 11-14; also more fully in 10: 5-10.
In the consideration of Christ as eternal, thus far, it has become plain
that the writer holds clearly and emphaticaUy to what might be called
the future eternity of Christ. There has been considerable evidence also
pointing to his pre-existence. But the writer has not been so clear and
emphatic on what may be called the past eternity of Christ. Evidence
for the writer's view on this point will faU more naturally under the
relation of Christ to God. 3. RELATION OF CHRIST TO GOD
a) Conception of God. — The conception of God found in the Epistle
to the Hebrews is a lofty one. There is a somber element in the character
of God in Hebrews that does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament
377

52 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
writings. There is but one God. The God of the Old Testament is the
God of the New (i : i). There is thus unity in the universe and unity in
revelation. But the God of the old dispensation revealed himself in
ways more terrible than those of the new (12:18-24). Yet ultimately
he is the same terrible God whose gracious (2:9) and persistent (1:1)
efforts to reach and save men can be neglected only with terrible peril
(12:25-29). Neglect of his supreme revelation in Jesus, his Son, can
only bring the greater condemnation (2:3). - This thought, to be sure, is
one common to New Testament writers, but it is emphasized in Hebrews
in a way that is repellent to modern views (6:4-8). It springs from the
author's whole conception of life as well as from his conception of God.
His view of life as a whole is somber and stern. This element in the
writer's conception of God and life many commentators have tried to
minimize by forced interpretations of such passages as 6:4-8. But we
need to recognize this stern and somber element and accept it as inhering
in the writer's view of God and Ufe. It may, indeed, be said that this
stern and somber element does not belong to the writer's conception
positively but only negatively. It is called forth only by man's care
lessness and wicked rejection of light and truth.
This conception is fundamentally the Hebrew conception, touched
however with the Greek (Platonic and PhUonian) idea of the remoteness
of God. God is difficult of access for men and yet access to God is the
true ideal, the very thing that in the writer's view constitutes salvation.
God spake to the fathers of old in the prophets, but now in a Son, who
is become the sole and sufficient mediator and means of true access to
God. God is frequently spoken of as the living God (3:12; 9:14;
10:31; 12:22). This expression denotes God as ever Uving and there
fore watchful against wickedness and powerful to punish. • It is a terrible
thing to fall into his hands. God is judge and vengeance and punish
ment belong to him (4:12; 10:30). He is a consuming fire (12:29).
He is the invisible one whom faith must realize (11:6; 11:27).
But God as judge, avenger, and consuming fire is terrible only to the
unrighteous. He is holy, and without holiness no man shall see the
Lord (12 : 14). But he is also the God of his covenant people (9 : 20) and
is not ashamed to be called their God, having prepared for them a city
(11:166). He received Abel's gifts, translated Enoch, richly rewarded
faithfulness and righteousness in the past, and has provided stUl better
things for his people of the present than for those of the past (11 =40).
His very chastening is out of love and with the purpose of imparting
holiness (12:10). The readers' ministrations to the saints are reckoned
378

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 53
as done to himself and will not be forgotten (6: 10). Their services and
sacrifices are well-pleasing to him (13:16). In the general sense God
is father of all spirits (12:9) but he is specially gracious to his covenant
people. In relation to the universe God is its creator. This primary postulate
is given to us by faith (11:3). The meaning of this verse is much-
disputed, but the natural interpretation is gained by falling back upon the
PhUonian views of the writer. The reference then, in u.i) «k <fuuvou,evu>v,
is not to primitive chaotic matter, the v\rj of Plato and the Greek
phUosophers in general, but to the archetypal ideas which in creation
are embodied in visible form. That this is not doing violence to the
writer can be seen from a comparison with 8:5. Creation is the divine
act analogous to the task assigned to Moses in the making of the taber
nacle. Creation is directly attributed to God in another phrase which is
frequent in Plato and Philo; God is the final and efficient cause of all
things (2:10). In a miniature parable (6:7, 8) God is represented as
blessing or rejecting the earth according as it is either fertile or barren
for men. Indeed, God is over all and back of all and in all. The works of
power in the Apostolic age were according to his will (2:4). He it is
who is bringing many sons to glory (2 : 10). He is the God of peace who
raised the Lord Jesus from the dead (13:20). The movements of Nature
are the expression of his will. His voice shook the earth at Sinai and his
voice shall shake both earth and heaven at the great metathesis when
the kingdom of God shall be fully and finally established (12:26-29).
God is the ultimate and efficient mover of all things (3:46).
6) God's attitude to Jesus. — It is evident even from a cursory reading
of the epistle that whUe God is supreme, Jesus stands in a unique relation
to him. God's attitude to Jesus is expressed in a number of statements.
In the comparison with the angels God is represented as saying that all
the angels must worship Jesus when God again brings him into the
inhabited earth (1:6). In 1 :8a either God is said to be the throne of
Jesus, the Son, or the Son is himself addressed as God. In 1 : 13 God
bids Jesus to sit at his right hand till he puts the enemies of
Jesus beneath his feet. In 10:13 Jesus is represented as taking this
exalted position and waiting tiU the promised subjection of his enemies
should be fulfilled to him by God. Von Soden is right in reminding us
that we have here only quotations which have been warped from their
original meaning by rabbinical exegesis, but he is mistaken in thinking
that for that reason they are of no service in determining the Christology
379

54 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
of the author himself. The fact that the author uses such quotations
is of significance, though they are not to be interpreted as if they were
his own writing. In 1:96 God is spoken of as anointing Jesus above
his fellows, the angels, and he is there spoken of as the God of Jesus
("God, thy God"). As God exalted Jesus above the angels, so he
humbled him for a time beneath the angels (2:9), and this is the act. of
God who is the prime mover in the matter of the salvation of men (2 : 10).
It is God who perfects Jesus through suffering (2:10), as he perfects
through chastening and suffering all the sons whom he receives (12 : 6 ff.).
It is God who glorifies Christ by making him High Priest after the order
of Melchizedek. Christ did not take this honor to himself (5:5-10).
It is God who raised Jesus from the dead (13:20). God prepared a
body for Jesus (10:5).
c) Jesus' attitude to God. — The converse of this is Jesus' attitude or
relation to God. As already shown, he is represented in the attitude
of a devout and humble man praying to God with strong crying and
tears and as being heard because of his piety (5:75.). His sacrifice
is voluntary: he offered himself to God blameless (9:14). Perceiving
the fruitlessness of sacrifices, offerings, and holocausts in reference to
sin, which are offered according to the law, perceiving also that they are
neither desired by God nor acceptable to him, he, that is, Jesus Christ
said, " Behold I am come, in the roll of the book it is written of me, to do
Thy wiU O God" (10 : 7) . The writer then repeats the quotation, separat
ing the two parts in order to emphasize the close logical relation between
them. To the first part of the quotation he adds the expression, "such
as are offered according to the law," to indicate that it is not against
sacrifices as such that he speaks but against the formal and ineffective
sacrifices enjoined by the law. So too the wiU of God here spoken of is
not the wiU of God ethically conceived, relating to life and conduct only
and requiring no sacrifice of any kind. There was probably more of this
latter thought in the Old Testament passages themselves than in the
quotations as the author of Hebrews understood and used them. At any
rate it is clear, both from the immediate context and from the general
view of the writer as seen in the rest of the book, that what is here meant
is not the will of God conceived in somewhat modern fashion as the
ethical standard of life and conduct, but the wiU of God in relation to a
concrete situation, viz., the forgiveness of sin and the sanctification and
perfecting of men. For this purpose the sacrifices which were according
to the law were of no avaU — could be of no avail. For the blood of
beasts could never take away sin. But it was far different with the
380

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 55
sacrifice of such a one as Jesus Christ who offered himself blameless to
God (9:14). Such a sacrifice could purge away sin (1:3), cleanse the
conscience (9: 146), and sanctify finally (10: 10). The writer represents
the preincarnate Christ as realizing this and accepting the challenge
which the possibUity offered. Christ disregards and sets aside the sacri
fices according to the law that he may establish the will of God; 10: 10
shows that this wiU of God means the sanctification of men by the offer
ing of the body of Jesus Christ, that body which God had prepared for him
(10:5). This passage, then, is an approach in thought to the famous
passage of Paul in Philippians (2 : 6-9) . In the author's view it is decisive
for the pre-existence of Christ. It expresses also Christ's voluntary
obedience to God, not however, in general, but as directed along the
single line of securing the salvation of men by the sacrifice of himself.
Christ's attitude to God is, further, one of faith like that of his
brethren (2:13; 11:6). Christ is mediator between God and men, the
mediator of the new covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). He is appointed on
behalf of men in things pertaining to God (5:1).
The consideration of God, and Jesus' relation to God, thus far
carried out has yielded material on Jesus' official relation to God rather
than on his essential relation to God. The writer fully reveals both
expressly and incidentally, that God is supreme, while Christ, superior
though he is to angels, prophets, and priests, is distinctly subordinate to
God. This supremacy of God and subordination of Christ is more
distinct and continuous in Hebrews than in any other writing of the
New Testament. At the same time this subordination is not in any
degree pictured as one derogatory to Christ. In his human relation to
God as man, in his official relations as agent of creation, as captain of
salvation, as mediator of the new covenant and High Priest, in all these
Christ is subordinate to God. So too in the future age of perfect reaUza
tion. The angels are to worship Christ, but it is God that bids them
do so (1:6). Christ's pre-existence has been re-emphasized, but no
further evidence is offered on the past eternity of Christ.
d) Interpretation of the introduction, Heb. 1:1-4. — ^ *s m place to
consider here the introduction of the epistle which consists of the first
four verses — or more strictly speaking of the first three verses, for the
fourth verse is transitional to the next section. These introductory
verses are to be considered, however, in their specific bearing on the
relation of Jesus to God.
Again postponing consideration of the phrase "in a Son" (1:2) till
the whole question of Sonship is taken up, the fact is here to be noted
381

56 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
that owing to the position given it, the phrase, ov ZOrjKtv KXrjpov6p,ov
tt6.vtiov, is to be taken in close association with the immediately pre
ceding phrase "in a Son." His heirship depends upon, or at least is the
natural result of, his sonship and still more because he is the firstborn
son rrpwroTOKos (1:3). As Riehm says,1 his heirship denotes the
genuineness of his Sonship as well as the permanence of his Lordship.
This appointment as heir of all things is natural and right not only
because he is Son but also because it was through him that God made
the worlds.
In endeavoring to settle the question as to whether this appointment
to heirship is conceived by the writer to be quasi-timeless or as referring
to the preincarnate Christ or as referring to the exalted Christ one is
inclined, as in several other places in this epistle, to thrust aside the
arguments for the various views and re-read the passage with intent to
take the natural and evident meaning. In that case two things stand
out clear. First, the position of the word *al indicates that the making
of the worlds took place before the appointment to heirship, for other
wise the Kai would have been placed first in its clause. Secondly, the
verb 101/kev, since it is not definitely modified here, refers to a definite
time at which Christ was "placed" heir of all things. The fact that this
heirship is repeatedly referred to as not complete or not yet fully realized
(1:6; 1:13; 9:28; 10:13), but as requiring time for its completion, is
also in favor of considering the appointment as occurring in time. If
this is so, then the most natural time for the appointment to heirship is
the time of the exaltation of Christ, when, according to the bidding of
God (1 : 13), he sat down at the right hand of God in the heavens (8:1).
This, however, is not to be so understood as to minimize the preincarnate
activity of the Son which has been already spoken of. Rather, the
heirship is to be considered as an additional gift to Christ, a fitting
reward for one who had endured the cross, despising the shame, and so
had taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God (12:2). On
account of Christ's relation to God as Son and on account of his relation
to the world as the agent of its creation, his appointment to the heirship
of all things is not surprising, but rather the natural and eminently
fitting thing.
Thus far the external or official relation of Christ to God has been
considered. There is only one passage in the epistle (1:3) which sets
forth the internal or essential relation of Christ to God, and this verse
appears in the introduction.
1 Lehrbegrifdes Hebrtierbriefs, p. 297, note, quoting Chrysostom.
382

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 57
The meaning of this passage has been much discussed, with com
paratively little agreement as to result. The chief difference of opinion
concerns the word arravyacriMx. There are three possibilities as to the
meaning. The word comes from the verb arravydfa, "to shine forth."
The three possible meanings therefore are: (i) "a shining or flashing
forth," referring to the process or action; (2) "that which is flashed
forth," viz., "beam," "ray," "brightness," "emanation," referring to
the result; (3) a second or further result, viz., "reflected radiance,"
"reflection." For the noun form drravyacru,a only the last two are
likely meanings, since the word by its formation should denote result.
The proper word for the first meaning, "shining forth," is &rravyacrp.6i.
This word is found in Plutarch.1 Cremer is surely wrong in making this
word denote here the final result of the action, viz., "reflection," though
it may possibly denote the intermediate result, viz., "brightness,"
"splendor." The difference of opinion, then, is as to which of the last two meanings
the word arravyacru.a bears in this passage. Does it mean "effulgence,"
"emanation," German Ausglanz, or "reflection," German Abglanz?
Modern opinion is almost equally divided, a slight majority, perhaps,
being in favor of the former meaning, viz., "effulgence," "radiance,"
Ausglanz. The means of decision between the two meanings must be
an impartial study of the passages in which the word occurs. That
practicaUy all the Greek fathers take the word here in the former mean
ing, viz., "effulgence," Ausglanz, is not without weight since it must be
admitted that they knew Greek. But it is clear that, for an impartial
consideration of the meaning of the word, earlier and contemporaneous
usage must be considered rather than subsequent usage. The word
however is a rare one, and in earUer usage is found only in the Wisdom
of Solomon and in PhUo. This is of itself significant, however, since on
numerous grounds the Epistle to the Hebrews is known to be intimately
related to these two works.
A careful consideration of the four passages in PhUo and Wisdom of
Solomon in which this word occurs is not absolutely decisive in result.
In PhUo, De plantatione Noe, sec. 12, there is every probability that the
word means "reflection," Abglanz. In Philo, De concupisc, sec. 11, on
the other hand there is every probabUity that the word means "efful
gence," "emanation," as the writer is there speaking of the irvevu,a as
breathed into man by God., In PhUo, De mund. op., sec. 51, Cremer says
that there is a clear case of the word meaning "effulgence," whUe
1 M or . 934Z). 383

58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Westcott says that the more appropriate meaning of the word in this
passage is "reflection." It is impossible to decide firmly and clearly as
to which meaning is required in this passage. The balance of probabiUty
however lies in favor of the meaning "emanation," Ausglanz.
The passage in Wisd. 7 : 26 is a famous one. There can be no doubt
that the writer of Hebrews was acquainted with it and was influenced by
it whether consciously or unconsciously. The writer is speaking of
Wisdom as the glorious attribute and attendant of God, and enumerating
its qualities. Cremer says the associations and synonyms require the
meaning "effulgence" and von Soden1 agrees with him. Grimm, on the
other hand2 argues very cogently for the meaning "reflection." Again,
however, the balance of probabUity decides for the meaning "effulgence."
Of the four passages only one requires the meaning "reflection." So far
as previous usage requires, therefore, the balance of probabUity Ues
in favor of the meaning "effulgence," Ausglanz.
With this information the passage in Hebrews must itself be con
sidered. This involves a consideration of the other words and thoughts
of 1:3 to see whether, of the two meanings, the context decisively
supports either one or the other.
The word xaPaKTVP, which originally denotes an instrument to stamp
with, such as a seal, comes to mean either the stamp (or figure)
on the seal or the impression which such a stamp would make. With
this word, too, then there is the possibUity of a double meaning. Von
Soden seems to want to combine these two meanings in the passage, as
also the two meanings of airavyacruxi., but his way of working it out is
rather ingenious than convincing. Either meaning of the word, not both,
may be taken here, provided it be remembered that only the relation of
the Son to God is here spoken of, not the relation of the Son to the world
or to men. Von Soden is no doubt right in comparing the use here with
the use in the passage of PhUo where the divine Logos is spoken of
as the xaPaKTVP "5s crcppayT&os Beov.3 But he is wrong in carrying
over into the Hebrews passage the idea of instrument which is in the
PhUo passage. The PhUo phrase means "the impress or engraving
which is on the seal of God," and the context shows that this engraving
is used to make an impression on man and the world. But this latter
idea is not at all found in the Hebrews phrase or its context, and is
wrongly transferred to it from the Philo passage by von Soden. But the
1 Handcommentar zum N.T., "Der Hebraerbrief," S. 19.
* Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. T., Buch der Weisheit, VII, 26.
3 De plant. Noe, sec. 5; cf. Philo, Quod det. pot. insid., sec. 23.
384

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 59
first meaning is no doubt the right meaning to assign to the word in
Hebrews, namely, "the impress [or stamp or engraving] which is upon
the vTroo-Tao-is of God," not the "impression which the vrroerracrii of
God makes." The word in this sense is most closely allied to its fre
quent use to denote the mark or stamp upon coin which, as Westcott
says1 "determines," or, as he might better say, "expresses" "the nature
and value" of that coin.2 He says rightly that the word "express," if
the English had such a noun, would better denote the idea of the word
than "impress." It is that which reveals in characteristic outUne the
nature of that with which it is connected. It is thus closely related to
cixcov. The word viroorao-is denotes "that which stands under," specifi
caUy, that which underlies phenomena or appearance, namely reality.
The word then means the "underlying reality," the "essence," as the
Germans would say das Wesen. Its use for personaUty or person is a
later development that does not belong here.
As the seal and the stamp are closely related, so closely is the Son
related to God and related in such a way that he, the Son, is both the ;
likeness and revelation of the underlying essence or nature of God.
It was hoped that within this verse (i : 3) itself something would be
found which would decide clearly between the two meanings of the word
arravyacrpa. This has not turned out to be the case. But the fact
that the word xaPaKTVP is so closely related to d*<bv in meaning and
that this meaning is almost identical with the second meaning of
arravyaerpM., viz., "reflection," makes it altogether probable that the
writer would make use of the meaning of arravyacrpa which is further
removed from that of a«w. In brief, arravyacrpa meaning "reflection"
and xaPaKTVP meaning "likeness" are too slightly differentiated to give
sufficient point to the writer's use of xaPaKTVP as an additional alter
native to drravyacrpja. It may be added that as "likeness" goes suit
ably with vrrocrracni, so "effulgence" rather than "reflection" goes suitably
with 8o|a.
This gives increased probability to the evidence for the meaning
"effulgence," gathered from earUer usage in PhUo and Wisdom of
Solomon. The fact that the Greek fathers uniformly take the word
arravyao-pM. as meaning "effulgence" adds stUl further to the probabUity.
This part of vs. 3 may then be translated, "who being the radiance
of his glory and the express image of his essence."
'Epistle to the Hebrews, ad loc.
"Eurip. El. S59 f-; Arist. Pol. 1:9. 385

60 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
These phrases have been considered with the purpose of eliciting the
information they give or imply as to the relation of the Son to God.
There can be no doubt that as PhUo and Wisdom of Solomon apply these
and simUar terms to the Logos and Wisdom, so the writer of Hebrews
appUes them to the Son as preincarnate, with whom (as wiU be seen later)
he has identified the Logos. If this identification of the historical
Jesus with the Logos (or, as it might better be expressed, the substitution
of the idea of the preincarnate Son for the Logos idea of PhUo) be
accepted, then there can be no reasonable doubt that these phrases
introduced by the participle &v, as well as the one introduced by the
participle <p£p<ov, refer to this preincarnate Son, for they were certainly
used of the Logos by Philo.
In the same way it follows that the relation of the Logos to God
denoted by these words in PhUo forms the model or type, so to speak,
which the author has in mind as he uses the phrases of the pre-existent
Son. This is not to be pressed so far as to mean that the author is a
mere slavish imitator of PhUo in his views and method of presentation.
But it does mean that in his effort to set forth the significance and
supremacy of the historical Jesus he has gone beyond the limits of
history, has passed beyond the Jewish identification of Jesus with
the Messiah, and has entered the field of Greek thought and phi
losophy. He has identified Jesus with the Greek Logos, and, having
so identified him, he assigns to him as the preincarnate Son some
at least of the attributes and relations of the Logos, specificaUy his
relations to God as expressed in the phrases of vs. 3 which we have been
considering. This identification having been made by the author of
Hebrews, it is necessary to interpret expressions which are used of the
Logos as referring not to the historical Jesus only, nor even to the exalted
Christ only, but to this personality viewed as continuous, that is to
say, though expressed less accurately, to the preincarnate Son. These
phrases of vs. 3 are, then, to be interpreted as denoting the inner or
essential relation of the preincarnate Son to God.
The last phrase of vs. 3 introduced by <f>4pa>v refers to the pre-
existent Son. The natural reading of the verse would make the airov
after 8w«/i£«is have the same reference as the airov after woordo-cos,
viz., to God. WhUe, therefore, this phrase denotes primarUy a rela
tion of the Son to the world, it also denotes a relation to God.
The thought is much the same as that of Col. 1:17, but is expressed
in a more external way and emphasizes the subordinate relation of
the Son to God. The particle re, which is "adjunctive," not
386

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 61
"conjunctive,"1 implies that the close relation to God indicated in the
immediately preceding phrases is the inner ground of the relation of the
Son to the world of time and space. It may be noticed in passing that
this phrase is a close parallel, both in thought and in word, to several
passages of Philo in regard to the Logos.2
But the inner and essential relation of the pre-existent Son to God
must be inferred primarily from the first two phrases of the verse. The
phrase "radiance of his glory," interpreted by following the simUar
description of the Logos and Wisdom given in the passage quoted from
PhUo and the Wisdom of Solomon, indicates that the Son is a revelation
of the glory of God but in such a way that the Son himself has a glory
which is simUar to, indeed the same as, that of God but which is derived
from God. Whether the author of Hebrews thought any more definitely
of the person of the preincarnate Son than PhUo thought of the person
of the Logos or than the writer of Wisdom of Solomon thought of the
person of Wisdom it may be very difficult to say. The very fact that he
identifies the historical Jesus with the Logos would probably cause him
to think of the preincarnate Son as a definite person (cf. 10: 5 ff.). But
it must be remembered that the phrase "effulgence of his glory" is at
bottom a metaphor. Without doubt there is a deep reality underlying
the expression of the writer, but that reality is described in a figure, the
figure of radiating light. That he conceived the nature of the preincar
nate Son to be like to and derived from that of God is clear. But his
thought was not directed toward unfolding the implications which later
theologians saw latent in the phrase, such as that of the eternal genera
tion, <pG>s tK <£<dtos, as that watchword was later used in the church.
Delitzsch3 says that the proper consequences to be drawn from this
phrase are: (1) that the Son must be substantial with the Father,
inasmuch as what emanates from light must itself have the nature of
Ught, and (2) that the divine generation of the Son must be at once a
free and a necessary process within the Godhead, inasmuch as 1} aiyr)
ov Kara rrpoaipteriv tou <£a>Tos exAa/Mrei, Kara 8e ti Trjs overtax o-v/i^e/Sj/kos
axiapto-rov. With Lunemann* he might have added the notion of
independent existence and the notion of resemblance. And it must
be true that some such notions of the Logos and his' nature underlay
1 Cf . Thayer under re.
1 Cf. Quis rer. div. haer., sec. 7; de somn., 1, 41; de mut. nom., sec. 44.
s Epistle to the Hebrews, I, 49.
* Meyer Commentary on the N.T., "Hebrews,'' p. 79.
387

62 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
this phrase. But the mistake of these commentators consists in usmg
what is only an analogy, a metaphor, as if it were a syUogism and in
making inferences from it toward which the mind of the writer when
he wrote the phrase was not directed. If the writer had been a
modern logician, or even one of the early Greek physical phUoso-
phers, such procedure might be permissible. As it is, the most
we should say is that, expressed by a metaphor, the Logos originaUy,
and hence the Son, as an independent or semi-independent being
(expressed by the passive form drravyacrpa) shares in and expresses the
glory that belongs primarUy to the being of God.
The second phrase, "express image of his essence," goes a step
farther, saying that the Logos originally — and hence the Son — is a
picture or revelation to the world of the true being or nature of God the
one who is in himself invisible (11:27). The first phrase spoke only of
the "glory" of God, this phrase speaks of the "essence," the true being
of which that glory was but the expression. The phrase is not to be
understood as saying that the Logos, and hence the Son, is that true being
or essence, or even that he partakes of that essence. This is rather said
by the former phrase. The second phrase says rather that the Logos,
and hence the Son, is the exact (though not necessarUy "detaUed") and
trustworthy expression of the underlying reality or essence which gives
rise to all the divine glory. The word "essence" is not to be limited to
metaphysical substance but is to be considered as denoting the whole
reality, whatever it may be, which underlies and produces the aesthetic,
the mental, the moral, and the spiritual, which are assigned to the divine
and are concentrated in the Son.
Combining the two phrases, it is evident that they set forth an
essential relation of a unique being to God. As has been shown, this
being is supreme over angels, over Moses and Joshua, over priests and
prophets. Such is he in himself and such is his relation to God and men
that no man, angel, or spirit could do the work that he has done in
sacrifice and redemption or be assigned to the place of honor to which
he is assigned at the right hand of the majesty on high. And yet,
though sharing in and expressing the glory of God and picturing in him
self at once metaphysically, mentally, morally, and spirituaUy the very
nature and being of God, he is continuously dependent on God, alike in
his historical manifestation as Jesus and in his pre-existent life as Son.
As yet it must be admitted that the evidence for the past eternity
of this unique being, the Son, is not clear. Even the phrases of vs. 3
are not strong enough, not definite enough, too metaphorical, to permit
388

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 63
the view that the doctrine of eternal generation was in the mind of the
writer. His thought is not directed backward but forward, not to the
past eternity or origin of the Son, but to his practical religious and
saving work in the world of men. How the Son could be the radiance of
God's glory and the express image of his essence was no more an object
of thought for the writer than how the shedding of blood could secure
the remission of sins. The one was an assumption from his Alexandrian
training, the other from his Jewish training.1 The striking thoughts of
this verse are not again referred to even when the writer touches upon
the same general topic (cf. 11:3).
e) Interpretation of Heb. 13:8. — The passage in 13:8, "Jesus Christ
yesterday and today the same, and forever," must be interpreted in its
context. It is connected in thought both with what precedes and with
what foUows. The first leaders of the church to which the epistle is
addressed had died, probably as martyrs to their faith. The readers
were in imminent danger of forgetting their high example. They
themselves were evidently in danger of thinking their faith not worth
the payment of such a price. And this was because they were tempted
to think that Jesus Christ was now no longer so real and powerful as in
those early days of their first enthusiasm. He had failed to fulfil many
of their expectations and so could no longer be counted on to make
such costly sacrifice worth while. As an answer to their faithless fore
bodings the writer assures them that what Jesus Christ was in that earlier
time "yesterday" that he is also in the present time "today." The
change is in themselves, not in him. The writer is contrasting the two
periods arifl saying that Christ is the same in both. But after he has
said this, his thought extends and he adds what he had not at first
expected to say, viz., that Jesus Christ is the same "forever." So
interpreted, this verse has nothing to say with regard to the past eternity
of Christ, but does assert very distinctly his future eternity.
V. VARIOUS TITLES OF CHRIST
I. THE CHRIST (o XPia"r^)
The title 6 XP"TT°^ with the article occurs in the epistle six times,
viz., 3:14; 5:5; 6:1; 9:14; 9:28; 11:26; without the article three
times, viz., 3:6; .9:11; 9:24. The use of the title signifies that the
historical person whom the writer nine times calls Jesus has been identi
fied with the Jewish Messiah. But it is evident too that by this time
the idea has become a common one, for in the three passages mentioned
1 Cf. von Soden, Handcommentar zumN.T., Ill, "Der Brief an dieHebraer," S. 19.
389

64 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
above the title is used without the article simply as a proper name, with
no particular descriptive force. At the same time there is an atmosphere
about the name "Christ" that is different from that about the name
"Jesus." The latter denotes the human and the historical; the former
approaches somewhat to the official and eternal.
From a study of the six passages in which the phrase "the Christ"
occurs it is plain that the writer uses the word of the preincarnate person
who is caUed the Christ. This appears from the passage in 5:5, where
it is said that the Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest.
Rather it was God who glorified him thus when he said, "Thou art a
priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." It is true that the writer
does not expressly indicate the time at which Christ entered on his office
of priest or became priest. But he seems to speak at least of his appoint
ment to the office as occurring in the preincarnate period. It is closely
associated with God's address to him in 5 : 5 as Son: "Thou art my Son,
this day have I begotten thee." This would seem to show that the
writer uses the title "the Christ" of the preincarnate person. This
seems the more likely as the writer immediately after speaks of this
person whom he has just before called "the Christ" as offering prayers
and learning obedience "in the days of his flesh."
The difficult phrase in 11:26, "esteeming the reproach of the Christ
greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt," is also most naturaUy
interpreted by taking the Christ to denote the preincarnate person, the
Logos. The phrase must be taken as an exact paraUel of the thought
in 13:13. The latter verse in its context can only mean that that
reproach (strictly speaking only a similar reproach) which the Christ
bore in being ignominiously thrust out of the city and crucified, they too
must bear as partners with him who is the ever-living one. Transferring
this interpretation to the phrase "the reproach of the Christ" in 11:26,
it means that in suffering with the people of God Moses was bearing such
reproach as the Christ bore in his life and death on earth. But how
could the writer of Hebrews say this truly of Moses ? The most natural
explanation seems to be that here too the writer uses the title "the
Christ" of the preincarnate one, the Logos. This view is strengthened
by the fact that Philo too conceives the Logos to be active in the Old
Testament history of Israel.
There are several who insist strongly on the full mystical significance
of these passages (11:26; 13:13), notably Delitzsch.1 The thought is
simUar indeed to that of Paul, especiaUy as expressed in I Cor. 10:4;
1 Epistle lo the Hebrews, II, transl. 390

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 65
II Cor. 1:5; Col. 1 : 24. But the Pauline mysticism is not found in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and one must guard against attributing it to the
writer here. It is true that these two passages (11 : 26; 13 : 13) indicate
a participation in the sufferings and reproach of Christ, but they do not
carry the deep mysticism of Paul. They do not justify speaking of
Moses and the New Testament Christians as suffering as members of
Christ. This Bleek does when he says that the reproach is that " welche
er [Christus] in seinen GUedern zu erdulden hat."1 Bleek's view of the
passage is essentiaUy right, but he is unduly influenced by the dominant
PauUne view when he speaks of believers as suffering as members of the
body of Christ. That is a PauUne and also a Johannine figure, but a
conception which does not belong to the writer of Hebrews. This is one
of the numerous instances in which the thoughts of the writer of Hebrews
approach very closely to the thoughts of Paul, yet are to be carefully
differentiated in form, content, and point of view.
In the two passages just considered, as also in the four remaining
passages (3:14; 6:1; 9:14; 9:28), the title "the Christ" denotes the
Messiah in his official function. In 3: 14, "For we are become partners
of the Christ," etc., the title is used of the official position of Jesus as
captain of salvation, the bearer of the blessings of salvation in which
beUevers share with him. It is the same thought as in 11 : 26 and 13 : 13
except that there believers were partners with the Christ in reproach
and sufferings, here they share in the blessings of salvation which he
brings as Messiah. In 6 : 1 the title is used of the Messiah in his earthly
manifestation. It is not, however, the political and economic Messiah
of the primitive Christian conception. The doctrine of the Messiah is
twofold, elemental and advanced. But even the elemental doctrine, the
"doctrine of the beginning of the Christ" (cf. 5:12), consists of the
catechetical doctrines of the developed church, doctrines connected with
the salvation which he brought who was the anointed of God (cf. 2:3).
In the remaining two passages the messianic reference, though present,
is not so distinctive (9: 14, 28).
The title 6 x/jio-tos denotes the Messiah, not as the Jews con
ceived him in the earlier Christian period, political and economic and
saving, but as saving only. He is the fulfiller of Old Testament prophe
cies and promises (9:28). He is the official one from God who established
the new covenant and mediated through his sacrifice and High-Priesthood
(9: 14 ff.) the blessings of salvation and of the future messianic age. As
such he is also pre-existent, active in Old Testament history and in the
1 Bleek, Commentar ilber den Hebraer-Brief, II, S. 803.
391

66 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
creation of the world. This conception, however, is rather that of the
Logos than that of the pre-existent Messiah of late Judaism. In
Hebrews the title has largely lost its original import and has become a
conventional term or a mere name.
2. THE APOSTLE (6 diriflToAol)
The word a7rooTo\os in the double title applied to Jesus (Heb. 3:1)
is, as Bleek says,1 "ganz eigenthiimlich." But perhaps not so altogether
pecuUar as it has seemed to Bleek and to many early interpreters on
account of the fact that there has been a persistent but entirely mistaken
tendency to associate the term with the twelve apostles, including Paul.
This application of the term to the twelve persons who had seen the
Lord and who could do characteristic apostolic deeds2 is apparently
an altogether special and almost technical use of the word. This use
may have developed in a measure owing to the insistence of Paul that he
too belonged to this select apostolic circle because he had seen the Lord.3
At any rate it is clear that this technical use of the word had been over
emphasized to the exclusion of the general force of the word which held
good both before and after this technical use.4
This undue emphasis on the technical use has led some to try to
relate the force of the word in Heb. 3 : 1 to the twelve apostles.5 It has
led others to resort to the rabbinic-talmudic use of !t!3T0 as the dele
gate, deputy, or representative of the Sanhedrin or community on the
Day of Atonement.6
The word djrooroAos here (Heb. 3:1) has no special reference to
the twelve apostles and probably no relation with the talmudic usage.
The perplexity? vanishes when it is recognized that though the technical
use of the word avoo-ToXos overshadowed the regular use, it did not
1 Bleek, Commentar iiber den Hebraer-Brief, I, S. 379.
' Real-Encykl. f. protest. Theologie u. Kirclle, I, art. "Apostel."
'Gebhardt u. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchrist.
Literatur, II, i-ii, S. 116 fin*
4 Schmidt unduly emphasizes the technical use when he limits the term to the
twelve: Real-Encykl. f. protest. Theologie u. Kirche, I, S. 701.
s Bleek, Commentar iiber den HebrSer-Brief, I, S. 380.
« Tholuck, Hebrews, I-II, p. 190; cf. Berach., Joma., I, 5 der Mischna; also Wolf ,
Wetstein, Stuart.
' Cf. Tholuck, op. cit., I-II, p. 18 f.: "This passage contains the only example of
the predicate & dTrioroXos applied to Jesus and has given rise to the puzzling question,
'In what passage of the New Testament is Jesus numbered among the Apostles?'
These reasons oblige us to look around for some other explanation."
392

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 67
destroy it. The Didache shows plainly that the apostles were profes
sional itinerant missionary preachers and teachers of the gospel1 who
were expected to observe carefully the rules laid down by the Lord in
Matt. 10 : 5 ff. Lucian* tells us of Peregrinus, one of these professional,
wandering missionary apostles,3 who fleeced the flock. Harnack scys
that the whole story of Peregrinus is a splendid Ulustration of chap, n
of the Didache.4
This helps to remove the difficulty which Tholuck felt so keenly and
which hindered him from giving to the word here (3:1) the meaning
which he felt was fitting, namely, that Jesus is the "immediate d7roo-To\os
tov 0eov." This is the thought brought out strongly in Justin Martyr.5
It is true indeed that this is apparently the only place where the noun
dirooroAos is used of Jesus, and this is striking and perhaps suggestive,
as Bruce says,6 of the fresh creative genius of the writer and of the
unconventional nature of his style. But the thought of this particular
relation to God is common enough and the corresponding verb (dirooreAAu)
is frequently found.7
In this passage (3:1) the writer is evidently thinking of the contrast
he is about to make between Moses and Jesus. It is better therefore
to consider that he applies both titles "apostle" and "high priest" to
Moses rather than the latter to Aaron as Keil thinks.8 This is supported
by the fact that PhUo speaks of Moses as fiacriXe.vs re Kal vop.o9err)<s
Kal apx'V"15 Kdl rrpo^rjTrp.9 The word "confession," rarely used in
the New Testament,10 wavers here as Delitzsch says between the
subjective" and objective,12 being specifically neither the one nor the
other but inclusive of both. It denotes not an objective statement or
creed13 but rather the public attitude or avowal of aUegiance to Chris
tianity taken upon themselves by all Christians. It is objective, not in
the sense of denoting any definite statement or creed, but as denoting a
9
1 Didache n : 3 ff. 4 Texte und Untersuchungen, II, i-ii S. 38.
2 125-200 a.d. sDial. 75.
s Lucian, Peregr. Prot., 11. 6 Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 131.
'Luke 4:43; 9:48; 10:16; Acts 3:20-26; Gal. 4:4; John 17:3-18, et passim.
8 Keil, Commentar iiber den Hebraer-Brief, S. 87.
%De vita Mosis, II, (Cohn ed., III).
"Only in II Cor. 9:13; I Tim. 6:12, 13, outside of Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23.
11 See Thayer, AM1. Lexicon, s.v.
a Preuschen, HandwSrterbuch zum N.T., says active and passive.
*» Georg Hollmann, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 2. Aufl. II, S. 456.
393

68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
great new system in which Jesus is God's delegate and representative in
contrast with the old in which Moses was God's delegate and representa
tive. The significance of the word "apostle" (3:1) is therefore an
expression of the thought of AaXeTv, as used in 1:1, 2 of the Son as a
revealer of God superior to the prophets, and in 2:2 f., as a revealer of
God superior to the angels. The phrase AaXowTts rbv Xoyov rov 6eov
is the phrase regularly used of the professional itinerant apostles,
both in Hebrews (cf. 13:7, 17, 24) and in the church generally. Com
pared with these apostles Jesus is the apostle of the confession who
really brings salvation. He is God's commissioned delegate and rep
resentative both to declare and to consummate the salvation which is
the heart of the new confession (5: 10) .*
3. THE FIRSTBORN (i TpoirdrOKOS)
The title 6 irpioroTOKos used of Christ only in i : 6 is rather difficult
of explanation. It is a word that is exceedingly common in its literal
meaning in the Septuagint and comparatively common there in its
figurative uses. It is found four times in the Apostolic Fathers — twice
in its literal use, twice in its figurative use. The word 6 rrpon-oyovos,
which is identical in meaning, is used frequently by PhUo of the Logos.
This form is found also in one passage in the Septuagint (Sir. 36:17),
though even here one manuscript has the other form. It is an evidence
of the dominating power of the strictly Palestinian literature and thought
that the form n-pwroVoKos is the only one found in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and indeed in the New Testament.
Outside of Hebrews this word "firstborn" occurs five times in the
New Testament, viz., Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5,
and in each case it Is modified in some definite way. In Hebrews it is
found in three passages, viz., 1:6; 11:28; 12:23. In its literal meaning
of "firstborn" it needs no explanation. In its figurative use it has two
meanings. First, it denotes, not physical origin, but a relationship of
likeness or simUarity of character, such as generally springs from physical
origin. This use of the word is not found in the New Testament, but
the thought is found in Jesus' words to the Jews accusing them that they
were of their father the devU (John 8:44). Two cases of this use of the
word are found in the Apostolic Fathers. In the Martyrdom of Poly
carp, Epilogue 2, as given in the Moscow MS, Polycarp says to the
heretic Marcion, "I recognize, I recognize the firstborn of Satan."
1 Cf. on this whole subject Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 92 ff., and especially
Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, II, i-ii, S. 93 ff., specificaUy S. no, n. 23.1.
394

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 69
The same phrase recurs in Polycarp's Epistle to the PhUippians 7:1.
The word in this use denotes the highest possible degree of likeness and
similarity of character.
In the second figurative use of the word the two ideas of relationship
and likeness prominent in the first use become more or less latent, and '
the two ideas of priority and superiority or pre-eminence are strongly
emphasized. These two ideas are also abstracted very easily and
naturally from the literal meaning "firstborn." Priority in time is
especially emphasized in Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5, and Heb. 12:23, though
the ideas of relationship and superiority are not altogether lacking, as
the context in each case plainly shows. In Col. 1:15 and Rom. 8:29,
on the other hand, the emphasis is on rank. It denotes the superiority,
supremacy, pre-eminence such as belongs only to a firstborn son. In
these two passages also, as the context shows, the idea of relationship
(not physical, of course, but possibly metaphysical) is comparatively
strong. Of the three passages in Hebrews containing the word, that in n : 28
is literal and simple. In 1 2 : 23 the use of the word, and the whole passage
in which it occurs, cause considerable difficulty. That interpretation is
most natural which makes the word "firstborn" refer not to men (men
are referred to later under the category of "just men made perfect"),
but to the angels, who are firstborn in the sense of having been created
before men.
There are, thus, three prominent ideas in the figurative use of
7rpa>TOTOKos: (1) priority in time; (2) relationship of some sort not
physical, issuing in ethical likeness, simUarity of character; (3) superi
ority, supremacy, pre-eminence such as the firstborn son enjoys; but
that in which precisely this pre-eminence consists must be gathered from
the general context.
It is a plausible suggestion that the word "firstborn" here denotes a
relation of Christ primarily to the world. There is something in the im
mediate context to support this. And there is a very interesting parallel ;
to the middle phrase of 1 : 2 in the Septuagint, Ps. 88 (89) : 25-28, where !
God is spoken of as exalting his chosen and anointed servant David ove'r 1
the sea and the rivers and the earth and the kings of the earth. The/
psalm was interpreted messianically and has many striking paraUels to'
Hebrews. In vs. 27, "I also will make him my firstborn the highest of
the kings of the earth," the same word is used as in Heb. 1 : 2, "whom He
made heir of all things." The psalm must have been famUiar to the
writer of Hebrews and probably this passage was in his mind. One
395

70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
might then assume that in the thought of the writer rrparroroKos was
synonymous with KXrjpovopov rrdvriov of 1:2, and that therefore the
word denotes here primarily a relation of Christ to the world as the
sum-total of things. But the context does not sufficiently support this
exceedingly plausible interpretation of the word. The word translated
"world" in this verse does not denote the world as the sum-total of
things, but rather the world as the dwelling-place of human beings, the
inhabited earth. Thus there is no ground in the context for identifying
the firstborn in 1:6 with the heir of all things in 1:2. Moreover, the
relation of 1 : 2 with Ps. 88 (89) : 28, whUe probable enough, would not
justify the extreme inference of identifying "firstborn" of 1:6 with
"heir of all things" of 1:2.
That the word "firstborn" of 1:6 should be used so absolutely and
without any qualifications suggests rather that its significance must be
taken from the immediate context. If so, it must be taken as practicaUy
equal to 6 uids, and denotes therefore primarily a relation to God, a
relation which is not further defined, a relation such as angels do not
enjoy, viz., the relation of honor, responsibility, love, and devotion to
God which can most fittingly be described as the relation of a firstborn
son to a father.
It is difficult to state more definitely the author's idea of this relation
ship of Christ to God. Its uniqueness is emphasized by contrast with
the world of angels, men, and things. As in the ancient world the
relationship of the firstborn son to the father was superior to that of the
other sons and daughters, so the relation of Christ to God was superior to
that of the angels. The word in itself need not imply pre-existence and
essential relationship to God (cf. Exod. 4:22; Jer. (31:9), but in our
writer's thought it probably implies both.
4. THE LORD (6 Kiptos)
For the interpretation of this title it wUl be well, first, to present
an outline of the development of the meaning of Kvpios in the New
Testament writings, showing that the word in its meaning is Hebraic
and Aramaic, not Greek in origin, and that the meaning of the word was
greatly influenced by associations with the Jewish messianic concept
and later by associations with the actual Greek word Kvpios as it was
used in the Graeco-Roman world, so that it came to have a greatly
heightened significance, a significance never indeed equal to 0eds yet
closely approaching it. In the second place, we must investigate the use
of the title Kvpio; in Hebrews, and its place in the general development.
396

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 71
There were three Hebrew words which in the Septuagint were trans
lated by kjJ/jios, niJT, DTlb», and *TM. Of these three, the first,
iTjtT : is the peculiar name of the God of the Israelites, which came
later to be reckoned as too sacred for pronunciation. Hence the
word ""SIS was pronounced in its place. The second word, dTtbS,
was occasionally translated by xvpios in the Septuagint, but more
frequently by 0eds, which is its regular equivalent in the New Testament.
Two words, bit , and the possibly later flibijt , which are singular forms
and which seem to be related to d^lTJ'btf *, are also translated by Kvpim,
but they occur rarely. The third word, "TllS, "mv Lord," does not
often occur in reference to God but is translated by Kvpios. Kvpios
thus does triple work in the Septuagint as a designation for God, and
this in addition to its being used to translate some of these words when
they do not denote God, especially ITO, since all except FlitT and
'Wibx have other uses in addition to denoting God.
Thus the word ku/oios was exceedingly well known to the New
Testament writers from Old Testament usage. For this reason it would
come readUy to the mind of New Testament writers as a title of Christ
when they spoke of him or wrote of him in Greek. This would be
especially true after Christ's resurrection and exaltation,3 because of
numerous Old Testament quotations in which Kvpios is applied to Christ
as Messiah even where in the original the application was clearly to God
(cf . Heb. i : 10). Wernle holds that Paul substituted Kvpim for Xpurrfo
as being more suggestive and meaningful to Greeks;3 and Deissmann
emphasizes strongly the fact that Paul's usage of the term as well as the
New Testament usage in general arises as at the same time a parallel to,
and a contrast with, oriental usage of the word in designation of princes
and kings. This oriental usage conquered the western world, being
appUed to the Roman emperors, probably to Nero first.4 But this is
putting a greater weight on Greek influence than the facts warrant. No
doubt Graeco-Roman usage influenced Christian usage, but as Case5
show's, there is some evidence and much probability that an equivalent
1 Many scholars hold that bs , the plural of which would be DT3S , is not related
to DTl'bS ; cf. Brown, Briggs, and Driver, and Buhl's Gesenius.
3 Cf . Paul, Phil. 2 : 9 ff., which implies that the confession is a result of the
exaltation. 3 Die Anfdnge unserer Religion, 2. Aufl., S. 176.
4 Licht vom Osten, S. 257.
5 "Kipios as a title for Christ," Journal of Biblical Literature, XXVI, 1907.
397

72 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
of the Greek title Kvptos was applied to Jesus during his life. In the
first place, this would be entirely natural to Semitic usage. Oriental
usage in general, both in the present day and as far back as early
Egyptian times, uses a title like kv/mos1 only for persons recognized as
superiors in education, station in life, etc. In the second place, more
definite justification for carrying this title back to the Aramaic-speaking
Jews of Christ's own lifetime is found in the preservation of the watch
word papavaBa, "Our Lord cometh," or "Come, O Lord!" (cf. I Cor.
16:22) by Paul. Here "HD is the Aramaic for "Our Lord,"2 and must
be a stray bit of primitive tradition fortunately preserved for us by
Paul.3 This introduces the intermediate element of Aramaic usage, for it is
agreed that the originals of Jesus' teachings were given in Aramaic. It
is agreed too that the first disciples of Jesus spoke of him as "Lord," and
so must have used some form of 1J3 ,4 to say nothing of 1"1 .
Thus three distinct factors contributed to the significance of the title
Kvpioi in the New Testament field. First, there was the Old Testament
usage, especially of "OIK as it is met by and passes into the Aramaic
usage of "133 , which is no doubt, as Case shows, the origin of the appUca-
tion of the title "Lord" to Christ.5 Concomitant with this there was
the influence of the Septuagint in its oft repeated Kvpios for tTlTT) , "THS ,
and occasionally for DTlbiji (bit and W'bit). There is, thirdly, the
somewhat later influence of Graeco-Roman usage which Wernle and
Deissmann (also in less degree Dalman) emphasize as being speciaUy
manifest in New Testament writings. There is need of more detaUed
1 Arabic chawaga or efendi= our "Mister"; Aramaic ^HIO or "13'1.
* Cf. Johannes Weiss, Christus, Die Anfange des Dogmas, S. 24.
3 It may be added that in spite of John's interpretation Siddo-iedXe, the Aramaic
title Rabbi, Rabboni would also find natural equivalent in Greek in mipie, an equiva
lent apparently more fitting in some places than the technical term SiS&<rica\e which
John and Matthew use; cf. Mark 10: 51; John 20: 16. There is nothing intrinsically
in 2T to make it specifically applicable to teachers. The Greek Siddo-KaXos in the
Graeco-Roman world was not a solemnly respectful word, such as the Aramaic IT .
Ktipios on the other hand would carry with it the high tone of respect and reverence
which the oriental meant to convey when he addressed his teacher as "Rabbi."
Moreover the word 3"1 is often translated by icAptos, e.g., X5"1.)} l"1 = /cii/>M>s toS o-t/ootou
= <rrparriy6s. "S'l'a.theLord; "HM , my Lord; fya , our Lord.
s Cf. also J. Weiss, Christus, "Es ist aber nicht zu bezweifeln, dass schon in der
judenchristlichen Urgemeinde der Erhbhte 'Herr,' 'unser Herr', genannt worden
ist" (S. 24). 398

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 73
and thorough study into the interworking of these three influences in
their contribution to the meaning of Kvptoi. Case's presentation is of
great service but seems to leave the three elements too much detached.
The application to Jesus of the title "lord" (133) by his Aramaic-speaking
followers would begin with his disciples and would be almost equal to
the title SiSdo-KaAos, the Aramaic word being used frequently (as also
"dl, rabbi) as a title of respect. This would extend as the circle
of Christ's followers extended and as their respect and reverence for
him increased. When they recognized in him their Messiah, and
especially after his resurrection and exaltation, the title would begin to
carry an enlarged content. At this stage the influence of the Septuagint
use of Kvpios would become exerted strongly from passages in the Old
Testament which were plainly messianic. This would be the period of
extension beyond the Palestinian Aramaic usage into the larger extra-
Palestinian Greek usage. But it is unlikely that the transition would
be from the Aramaic 133 to Kvptos as it was used in the extra-Palestinian
Graeco-Roman world with which Paul was f amUiar. Rather it is probable
that this transition was mediated by the thought of the Aramaic
X133 or 1133 passing into that of Kvpios as it was used in the Septuagint
for hD"Jit . The two were closely allied, though of course Kvpios as used
in the Septuagint covered a larger field. Then, as Case says,1 owing to
their enlarged conception of Christ's exaltation and mission they would
apply to Christ passages of the Septuagint where Kvpios was used of
God2 without however intending to identify Christ with Jehovah in
significance and glory.
They were conscious of the difference between God and Christ, so
that they increasingly reserved the word 0e6<s for God but increasingly
applied the word Kvpioi to Christ, since the latter was a broader term
and though also applicable to God was not so lofty and distinctive as
®eds. That all the evangelists should change the Hebrew and Sep
tuagint "paths of our God" of Mark 1:3 and parallels to "his paths"
is a striking instance in support of this.3
A little later than this influence of the Septuagint, but largely parallel
with it, would come the influence of the non-biblical Greek usage of
Kupios. This non-biblical usage, though it cannot be thought of as
originating and contributing the word as a title of Jesus, must have had
considerable influence in altering and enlarging the content of the title
1 Case, op. cit., p.. 157.
= For fllrT; or ClrfbS . 3 Case, op. cit., p. 138.
399

74 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
as applied to Christ. Deissmann especially exhibits the use of kvpios
in the Graeco-Roman world.1 Its highest content in Graeco-Roman
usage is found in its application to the Roman emperor as master of the
world. It is expressive of an increasingly high regard and homage,
though not of the veneration expressed by 0eds which is indicative
in the Graeco-Roman world of deification. The word Kvpios is used
of Nero in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus containing a letter of the Egyptian
Harmiusis to the official Papiskos dated July 24, 66 a.d.2 An Egyptian
document of 54 a.d. applies the title to Claudius.3
It is evident, then, that this was a common title of the Roman
emperors in the time of Paul, and Paul perhaps had this title of the
emperors in mind when in I Cor. 8:5, 6 he says that though there are
many "lords," yet for Christians there is but one "Lord," Jesus Christ.
This may be the beginning of the influence upon the word by Graeco-
Roman usage which, when developed, issues in the attitude of Polycarp
(155 a.d.), who, when the Roman officials, Herod and Nicetes, urge him
to recant by saying, "What wrong can there be in saying 'Caesar [is]
Lord'?" refuses and prefers death.4 Case holds that it was from no
reluctance to grant the title Kvpios to Caesar that Polycarp refused to
say "Caesar [is] Lord," but because he "refused to recognize the
supremacy of Caesar as compared with the loyalty due to Christ."3
But this is not a natural interpretation in view of the fact that in another
place Polycarp says, "We have been taught to pay respect in every way
that is fitting — when such respect is not hurtful to ourselves — to powers
and authorities appointed by God."6 Case is tempted to minimize the
significance which the title Kvpios as used of emperors and of Christ
had acquired by this time. It is true that its significance is not equal
to that of 0e6s, but its frequent association with Oeos in emperor-
worship had given it a somewhat higher connotation which carried with
it some of the atmosphere of 0eds. Had the Christian conscience of the
time of Polycarp been able to distinguish between Kvpios used of the
moral and spiritual lordship of Christ and Kvpios used of the temporal
lordship of Caesar, Polycarp might have called Caesar "Lord." There
was no inherent reason why the "supremacy of Caesar" and the "loyalty
due to Christ" should clash except just this, that the word Kupios as used
1 Lichl vom Osten, S. 253 ff .
" Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, II, No. 246; also Licht vom Osten,
S. 111. »
3 Licht vom Osten, S. 256, and Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 37.
4 Martyrium Polycarpi, 8:2. s Ibid., p. 161. « Martyr. Polcarp. 10:2.
400 '

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 75
alike of Caesar and of Christ had acquired a sort of divine connotation,
probably from its associations with Ow. So the Christian conscience,
as in the case of Polycarp, could not ascribe the title xupios to Caesar.
From the beginnings of the work of Paul to the martyrdom of
Polycarp is a period of a hundred years. During this period the word
Kvpios graduaUy developed a significance approaching that of 0eds,
a significance which tended to supersede its original meaning and
precluded its being applied by the Christian conscience to anyone but
Christ. It is not necessarUy contradictory to this view that during the
same period the "simpler form Kvpios became the current expression,"1
and that its "use as a mere name tended to supplant its distinctively
title import." However, by Polycarp's time its use as a mere name had
not actuaUy supplanted its title import. Polycarp did not die for a mere
name. That the " term in Greek usage early became little more than a
mere proper name .... employed in referring to him [Christ] in his
earthly career with no more heightened sense than was attached to the
name Jesus" is quite probable, but the "heightened sense" lay latent in
the term as a title and could arise at any moment of necessity with
marvelous dynamic force, as in the case of Polycarp.
Case well says that "if any special significance associates with the
word when applied to Jesus it is his person rather than the word itself
in which the special meaning inheres." From the Aramaic beginnings
when the word 133 is used of Jesus by his foUowers as a title of respect,
due to his influence and authority as a teacher, to its highest significance
as a title which cannot be given to any other than Christ, the word
Kvpios expands in content so as to contain and express what Jesus as
Messiah and exalted Savior became in the consciousness and experience
of his foUowers, viz., a unique authority in the realm of the moral and
spiritual, the realm of the conscience and the soul.2
Further, it is necessary to investigate the use of Kvpios in Hebrews
and to attempt to fit it into its place in the general development.
The instances of the use of Kvpios in Hebrews are in all sixteen, twelve
being instances where the title clearly refers to God;3 four being
1 Case, op. cit., p. 161.
2 Cf . the brief but interesting statement of Johannes Weiss in Christus on this
title "Der Herr," S. 24-29.
3 Ten in quotations, 7:2i=Ps. 110:4; 8:8=Jer. 31:31; 8:9 = Jer. 31:32; 8:10=
Jer. 31:33; 8:ii=Jij;. 31:34; io:i6 = 8:io=Jer. 31:33; io:3o=Ps. 135:14; 12:5 =
Prov. 3:11; i2:6 = Prov. 3:12; i3:6=Ps. 118:6; two in the author's own usage, 8:2;
12:14. In all the former, the word corresponding to laipiot in the original Hebrew
is mh\ . 401

76 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
instances where the title as clearly refers to Jesus (i:io = Ps. 102:26;'
2:3;7:i4; 13:20). The title, therefore, occurs quite rarely in Hebrews as
compared With its occurrences in Paul's writings.
The only quotation in Hebrews in which the word is used of Christ,
though the original clearly referred to God, is i:io = Ps. 102:26. Here
it seems that the title Kvpie misled the Septuagint reader and also the
writer of Hebrews into the view that the psalm was messianic.2 This
transference may have been made easier by the fact that some parts of
the psalm (cf. vss. 21, 22, 28) have a touch of the typical messianic
outlook.3 Kuenen is hardly right when he says Kvpie "has been adopted
from the Greek version and does not occur in the original." As has been
said before, it may well be considered a translation of "'bit in the second
verse before (LXX, vs. 24; Heb. vs. 25) which is not translated in the
corresponding Septuagint verse. Such an addition would not be
impossible, but it is not necessary to assume it in this passage.
In any case Kuenen seems to be substantially right in saying that
such an example as this shows, as numerous other examples in the New
Testament show, that by this time the Christians had come to look upon
Kvpio; as a title of the Messiah. When they had taken this step it was
an easy and slight advance to refer many passages to Jesus as Messiah
where Kvpios denotes not the Messiah but Jehovah himself and where,
as here, the passages have little if any messianic import. This passage,
therefore, would show that Hebrews was written when it was quite
common to attribute Kvpios as a title of the Messiah to Jesus and under
this title to apply passages to Jesus which, before the increasing domina
tion of Jesus' character and person, had been understood only of God.
Heb. 2 : 3 contains the first case of the application of the title xvpios
to Jesus in the writer's own words, "How shall we escape if we neglect
so great salvation which, having at the first been spoken by the Lord,
was confirmed unto us by those who heard ?" This is one of the com
paratively few but significant passages (cf. Heb. 5:7) which put the
writer en rapport with the primitive Christian tradition. Its whole
atmosphere is quite distinct from that which characterizes the writer's
conception of salvation as presented by him in the rest of the epistle.4
1 Heb. 1 : 10 is a quotation in which xipte seems at first sight to be added, but
where more probably it is a translation of ^bt? , occurring in vs. 24 of the Hebrew,
but not translated in the corresponding verse of the Septuagint.
2 Cf . Kuenen, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, p. 468.
3 Johnson, The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old, pp. 270 ff.
4 Cf. his peculiar conception of the rest of God, the nature of faith, the High-
Priesthood of Jesus. 402

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 77
And yet the writer himself seems not to be conscious of the fact that this
salvation which he represents as being first spoken by Jesus must have
been something widely different from, not to say at variance with,
the salvation which the writer sets forth by his peculiar Alexandrian
exegetical methods. One might be inclined to consider this phrase as
an interpolation; yet there is no ground whatever for rejecting the
phrase except this contrast between the salvation which Jesus actuaUy
preached and the salvation which the writer sets forth in his epistle.
The writers of the New Testament were not conscious of the sharp
contrast which the modern man sets up between the Jesus of history and
the Christ of faith and experience. To the writer of Hebrews they
were, if not identical, at least vitally and essentially related as this
passage shows.
The fact is that in this passage (2:3, 4) there is a genuine historical -
reminiscence with all the atmosphere of that earUer period preceding
and immediately succeeding the death and resurrection of Jesus — the
atmosphere of the early Christian community. The title tov Kvpiov
as weU as the word erwrrjpla retain here a primitive color and content
cognate to that period. The title tov Kvpiov has here a meaning largely
divested of Septuagint and Graeco-Roman influence. It carries with it
a high reUgious sense and denotes the Christ as the recognized leader,
teacher and spiritual guide and Savior of the primitive community of
Christians. It is possibly an example of a use of the title to denote
Jesus in his earthly career which Case refers to as quite common.1 The
author, of course, takes it in its higher significance.
A somewhat similar connotation inheres in the title as it is used in
7 : 14 and 13 : 20, the only other two passages of the author's own words
in which the title is used of Jesus. In 7 : 14 the title is used in the strong
spiritual sense of religious teacher and leader, devotion to whom gives
a consciousness of unity (r)jul>v) to Christians. The connotation of
Messiahship is assumed and carried with it, though the idea as such is
not expressed by it. So in 13 : 20, where the associations reveal the high
significance which the title has for the writer and his readers. Their
Lord is mediator of the new covenant, the great shepherd of the sheep,
the one whom God raised from the dead. But the title itself denotes
unique religious control and supremacy of the highest type. The
addition of the name "Jesus" gives here (13:20) again the atmosphere
of the earthly life.
The writer also uses Kvpios of God, but only twice in his own words,
1 Op. cit., p. 260. 403

78 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
viz., 8:2, where he speaks of God as having established the true taber
nacle, and 12 : 14 where he says that without holiness no one shall see the
Lord. In both cases the title has the article as when used of Jesus.
The writer's regular designation of God is ®eds, and it is perhaps
somewhat indicative of the connotation of kv/mos that in 8:2, where
®tds would afford the natural contrast to avOpumoi, o Kvpios should be
used in preference. Biesenthal1 finds in it a hint that Hebrews was
written originally in Hebrew, as otherwise the writer would certainly
have used <5 ©eds, which is the proper contrast to avOpmrros. This, of
course, is untenable; but this particular occurrence may fairly be taken
as indicative of how even at this time the title Kvptns carried the
©eds atmosphere with it (cf. 13:3).
To sum up with reference to <cvpios. It arose in Aramaic (133)
as the title regularly applied to honored and influential persons and
specifically to Jesus as religious teacher. When the gospel came to be
expressed in Greek, especiaUy when it moved out into the Graeco-
Roman world, the title Kvpios was used, probably at first suggested by
and under the influence of the Septuagint usage, where the title was used
of the Messiah as well as of Jehovah. Under influence of the Septuagint
usage and somewhat later under the influence of the contrast with
Graeco-Roman usage, especially in emperor-worship, the content of the
title Kvpios as applied to Christ was extended and heightened. Though
one might naturally expect to find it, there is no evidence in Hebrews of
the latter influence. The word has on the one hand the connotation of
the earthly Jesus as supreme religious teacher and Savior, leader and
guide in the realm of spirit (7 : 14; 13 : 20). On the other hand it mani
fests the heightening of Septuagint influence in 1:10 which originally
referred to God (Jehovah) and was not distinctly messianic. It is not.
permissible, however, to infer from this passage that the writer of
Hebrews meant to place Jesus on an equality with God. The growing
content and heightened force of the word Kvpios sprang originaUy from
the increasing impression Jesus made upon his followers in their faith
and experience of him, especially after his death and resurrection. It is
hardly proper to infer anything more from <cvpios as it is used in this
epistle than the supreme significance of Jesus in the realm of religion
and the spirit. 5. the son (i vtts)
The phrase Son of Man occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews but once
(2:6) in a quotation from Ps. 8:5. It does not refer to Jesus (except
1 Der Apostel Paulas an die Hebriter, S. 210.
404

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 79
indirectly), being used both in the original and in the quotation as a
variant for "man," with possibly a slight increase of emphasis on the
weakness of human nature. The title " Son," on the other hand, occurs
eleven times with reference to Jesus (1:2, 5, 8; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5,8; 6:6;
7:3,28; 10:29).
Of the remaining eleven occurrences of the word "son" in the epistle,
two (11:21 and 12:76) are used of direct physical descent, one (11:24)
of sonship by adoption in the human sphere, two (7:5; 1 1 : 2 2) of indirect
physical descent; five other occurrences' exhibit the writer's figurative
religious use of the word as denoting the ethical relation of filial obedience .
and divine love as between faithful Christians and God. These last five '(
passages indicate in all probabUity the meaning of the word in 2:10 '
where the followers of Christ are called "sons." The word is not
supernatural or metaphysical in its content, but denotes the same
ethico-religious relation to God.
a) Development of the conception of sonship. — In the development of
the meaning of the title "Son," three main phases are readily discerned:
(1) the literal-physical, (2) the figurative-ethical, and (3) the divine-
metaphysical. The first may be passed over. In the second phase the
writers of the Old Testament use the word "Son" figuratively to denote
a special relation of dignity and favor based upon a sympathetic likeness
of character whether good or bad. As applied to a relation to God the
whole people of Israel felt themselves to be the favored nation in especial
relation to God as " Son" (Exod. 4:22, 23X2 The king as representative
of the whole nation was called Son of God.3 So all the theocratic kings
came to be called Sons of God in this special sense, until finally the title is
applied to the ideal King of the future, the Messiah, at least in passages
which were interpreted messianically (Ps. 89:27, 28; cf. also IV Ezra
7:28; 13:2s).4 This is the Semitic idea which never fuUy passes into the
metaphysical, though in later Judaism there is an advance in this direc
tion.5 The Semitic idea "Son of God" is figurative, ethical, religious.
It is clear that the divine-metaphysical meaning of the phrase
"Son of God" is found within the New Testament, though there is
much dispute and uncertainty as to specific instances. The divine-
'Heb. 12:5 (twice), 6, 7a, 8.
3 Cf. Holtzmahn, Neutestamentliche Theologie, I, S. 265 f.
s II Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 82:6; 89:27,28.
4 Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Heft VI, S. 219. Gunkel in Kautzsch,
Apocryphen u. Pseudepigraphen, II, S. 344; Volz, Jiidische Eschatologie, S. 213.
s Volz, op. cit., sec. 35, 10, S. 213. 405

80 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
metaphysical meaning, however, is clear in such passages as Luke
1:32-35, as also in Matthew. How much earlier than Luke and
Matthew the metaphysical use is to be seen is a question beset with
many difficulties. But it is plain that somewhere between the historical
theocratic use of the Old Testament and the divine-metaphysical use of
some parts of the New Testament this radical change in the meaning of
the phrase "Son of God" as applied in the New Testament to Jesus was
brought about.
Wernle attributes the origin of this metaphysical use to Paul.' He
says that the phrase had been used by the earliest community, but "in
a very harmless sense," denoting Jesus as "the favorite of God, his
confidant, knowing his ways better than anyone else." But it may be
seriously questioned whether Wernle is not here as in other places over
estimating the influence of Paul as against the primitive Christian com
munity. This view apparently forces Wernle into holding that the
reason set forth by the Gospels for the condemnation of Jesus is unhis-
torical. Wernle says that the accusation of blasphemy was the result
of the charge of orthodox Jews against Christians that they were marring
monotheism by making a second God out of Jesus.2 It is hard to beUeve
that this is merely a reflection of the debates between Christians and
Jews in the postresurrection period. If the accusation of blasphemy
is not historical, no formal ground of condemnation has been handed
down to us. Assuming it to be historical3 it would follow that the Jewish
leaders and rulers at least felt that there was such a content in the
phrase " Son of God, "4 that for such a one as Jesus to claim to be such was
supreme blasphemy.
But does this of necessity imply the dogmatic metaphysical meaning
of the phrase in the thought of the rulers of the Jews ? Holtzmann takes
the view that it does not,5 holding that the charge of blasphemy is fully
accounted for by the fact that such a poor and powerless peasant of
Galilee should lay claim to such a high official position. Dalman seems
to waver between two positions. He maintains6 that "the assertion of
messianic rank could not, indeed, in itself have led straightway to a
death sentence," holding that a test of his claim according to b. Sah.
93 b. would in that case have been the necessary step before sentence of
death. This is not allowing sufficiently for the pressing circumstances,
1 Beginnings of Christianity, I, p. 250. 2 Ibid., II, p. 47.
3 Cf. Brandt, Evangelische Geschichte, S. 81 f.
4 Matt. 26:63; Luke 22:70; Mark 14:61, "Son of the Blessed."
5 Neutest. Theologie, I, S. 265 f. 6 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 313.
406

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 81
and moreover no test was needed: the thing was plain enough. He
holds that the blasphemy consisted in the words he added about the Son
of Man,1 which constituted a claim to share in God's majesty. Wrede's
position2 is by all means the more natural interpretation, viz., that there
must have been something in the content of "the Christ the Son of the
Blessed" (Mark 14:61) which allied it distinctly with God and thus
constituted it blasphemy. Holtzmann's emphasis on the insignificance
and lowliness of Jesus is stUl necessary to understand properly how a
conviction of blasphemy could be attained and is well brought out in
the text by the emphatic erv (Mark 14:61). But it is not of itself
sufficient. The Christ, the Son of the Blessed, must in the thought of
the rulers have been ranked with God in some unique sense.
On the other hand, as Holtzmann's view does not go far enough to
explain satisfactorily such blasphemy, so Wrede perhaps goes too far in
making such a wide separation between the thought of the writer Mark
and the thought of the high priest and Sanhedrim3 To maintain that
Mark here considers the title "Son of God" as "supernatural and
metaphysical" is to say what is altogether probable. But to say that
he reads the meaning back ex post facto into the mouth of the high
priest is to destroy the historicity of the narrative, and to leave us no
assigned reason for the sentence of death upon Jesus. The point is that
if blasphemy in some form is the historical reason for the death of Jesus
then between the Jewish rulers' conception of the title "the Christ, the
Son of God" and Mark's conception of the same there cannot possibly
be such a wide divergence that to the latter it was blasphemy but to the
former not. This does not necessarily mean that the rulers also had
Mark's conception of a "supernatural and metaphysical" Messiah in
the modern sense, but it does mean that they ranked the Messiah with
God rather more than with men.
This is supported by the view that in all probability most of the Jews
at the time of Jesus conceived the Messiah as supernatural or as supers
human. This was especially true in apocalyptic circles, but it is a ques
tion of debate as to how widespread these apocalyptic views were.4
Volz well notes the varied elements entering into the view of the Messiah
1 Dalman, Christianity and Judaism, p. 63.
3 Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, S. 74 f.
3 Ibid., S. 75-
4 Volz says (Jiidische Eschatologie, S. 212), "In apokalyptischen Zirkeln dagegen
wird das eschatologische drama auf einer erhohten Buhne vorgefuhrt und in ihrem
iiberirdischen Schauspiel ist auch der Messias eine transcendente Gestalt."
407

82 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
at this time, but repeatedly emphasizes the fact that the Messiah,
both as Son of Man, and, though rarely and late, as Son of God, had
at the time of Jesus come to be viewed as a supernatural, transcendent
figure.' This view certainly makes an understanding of the charge of
blasphemy easier and fits with the facts. It does not necessarily show
just what conception Jesus had of himself. His hesitation and different
viewpoint may be expressed in <ru arras of Matt. 26:64,2 which was
probably his real answer rather than the «y«> dpi of Mark 14:62.
But it indicates that even in the time of Jesus a view of the Messiah
prevaUed which made it blasphemy for anyone to claim to be such who
did not do the marvelous divine works of wonder which the Messiah as
Son of God was expected to do. This distinct advance upon the theo
cratic idea of the Messiah may be called the supernatural or superhuman
idea as over against the metaphysical, which may have been introduced
in one form by Paul, in another by Matthew and Luke, and in stiU
another by the author of the Fourth Gospel.
, Jesus' own thought as to the meaning of Sonship which he applied to
i himself is a problem beset with many difficulties. He is not represented
j as using the full phrase "Son of God" as a title for himself, though he
frequently puts himself in the relation expressed by it — most notably in
Matt. 11:27. It is impossible here to go into the debate upon this
striking passage.3 It seems clear that the accepted reading of Matt.
11:27 is not the original reading, and equaUy clear that what seems to
be the original reading4 gives a meaning more cognate with the immediate
context, less Johannine, less theological and mystical, and more in line
with the general synoptic teaching. E. F. Scott5 sums up the reliable
results perhaps with too severe a brevity. The passage remains a
1 Jiidische Eschatologie (passim), especially S. 211 f.; also sec. 21; sec. 35, "Es
ist ein weiter Weg von dem nationalen menschlichen Davidssohn zu dem ewigen Hinr
melsmenschen und wir konnen nicht annehmen, dass der Uebergang sich in der Form
eines allmahlichen innerlichen Fortschreitens vollzogen hatte; vielmehr setzt mit der
Vorstellung vom transcendentem Himmelsmenschen etwas Neues ein."
2 Jour. Bib. Lit., XIII, 45.
3 See Schmiedel, " Die Johannische Stelle in Matthaus und Lucas und das Messias-
bewusstsein Jesu," Protestantische Monatshefte, 1900, S. 1; Johannes Weiss, Die
Schriften des N. Testaments, I, S. 321; Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 272-310,
where he gives a full list of references to discussions.
4 Harnack,' Sayings of Jesus, p. 295 : vdvra p.01 wapeS6$ri iwb tov irarp6t, leal
oittU iyvu rbv rearipa [vel. rlt t<rriv 6 warrip] el p.1) 6 vl6s ko.1 $ &v 6 vl&s airoKaktyy.
s "An Exegetical Study of Matt, n : 25-30," Biblical World, March, 1910.
408

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 83
strong and beautiful expression of Jesus' consciousness1 of an altogether
unique relation to God which is not exhausted by being described as
intellectual only,2 but grips the deeper reaches of personality involving
the religious and moral.3 Beyond all reasonable doubt it was through
this unique consciousness of Sonship, to which the high priest and the
Sanhedrin were blind, that Jesus came to accept the title of Messiah
which in its official theocratic content with the addition of the super
natural was in a sense understood by the rulers.4
These two aspects of the meaning of the phrase "Son of God," viz.,
the religio-moral use of Jesus and the theocratic semi-supernatural use
of the Jews blend and, under the influence of Greek thought and philoso
phy, form the later divine-metaphysical idea of Sonship, which is found
in its initial stages in Paul and more fully developed in Matthew and
Luke and in the Fourth Gospel. There seems to be considerable proba
bility for Sanday's view5 (in opposition to Schmidt's6) that this turn
toward the metaphysical interpretation under the influence of Greek;
thought goes back at least to Paul and possibly to the first Jerusalem :
community. But it may have taken considerable time for the clear-cut
Greek metaphysical view to crystallize. Its stages may be seen in the
comparatively simple Christology of the speeches in the first chapters of
Acts where Jesus is frequently spoken of as not only Christ and Lord,
but "servant" (Greek rrats), which to Greeks meant "child," "son."
This was further defined by Paul in reference to the resurrection by
1 Cf. N. Schmidt, art. "Son of God," Enc. Bib., sec. 12; Pfleiderer, Urch., I, S.
44S f.; Brandt, Evangelische Geschichte, p. 561. Probably Johannes Weiss does not
mean to say that the emended form of the saying cannot go back to Jesus: " Aber so
wie uns dieser (in der 2. Strophe Matt. 11:27) uberiiefert ist bietet er uns schwerlich
ein Wort Jesu, sondern eher ein Stuck Gemeindetheologie."
2 Harnack, What Is Christianity? p. 128: "Rightly understood the name of Son
means nothing but the knowledge of God." This is either true or not true accord
ing as the wide or narrow meaning is given to the word "knowledge."
3 Holtzmann, Neutest. Theologie, I, S. 267: "die ungehemmte Lebensgemeinschaft
mit Gott, die unverkummerte Bertihrung mit dem Gottlichen  Was aber
wir auf dem langen Wege der Reflexion nachzubilden versuchen, das taucht fiir den
religiosen Genius als unvermittelte und ungebrochene Offenbarung aus den Tiefen,
seines Gemuthslebens auf. Und zwar Letzteres so, dass das Sohnesbewusstsein sich
entsprechend der sittlichen Ausfiillung der Gottesidee, die in dem Vaternamen liegt,
auch durchaus sittlich bestimmt und bedingt f and. Der religiose Genius war zugleich
ein sittlicher Genius."
4 Holtzmann, Neutest. Theologie, I, S. 271; Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, p. 301.
s The Life of Christ in Recent Research, pp. 130 f.
6 Art. "Son of God," Enc. Bib., sec. 22.
409

84 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
which Jesus was determined the Son of God with power (Rom. 1:4).
Later the thought was carried back to the transfiguration or to the
baptism (Mark 9:7 and parallels; Mark 1:11 and parallels), and still
later to the birth in the infancy-stories of Matthew and Luke. The
Fourth Gospel carried it back still farther and gave the impetus to the
fuller metaphysical interpretation of the creeds.
From this passage in Mark 14:62 it is clear that for the author at
least the three titles, Son of God, Son of Man, and Messiah become practi
cally synonymous. It would be going too far to say that the two titles
"Son of God" and "Son of Man" were merely synonyms for "Messiah";
this would be to disregard the various shades of meaning which developed
in the historical use of the terms. In their origin and original content at
least they were quite distinct, but at the time of Mark's writing they
had converged and almost focused in one common meaning.
b) Use of the title "Son" in Hebrews. — It has been seen above that
the writer of Hebrews has the distinctly religious Semitic use of the word
"son" (12:8), as applied to Christians. He has also the thought of
God as father of all spirit beings, men included (12:9). He does not,
however, use the term "son" or "sons" of man or men in general.
As applied to Jesus there are in all eleven passages where the title "Son"
. or "Son of God" occurs; these must receive careful attention.
Passing over for the present the first case of the use of vlck as
applied to Christ (1:2), the next case is found in the familiar quotation
of Ps. 2:7 in 1:5, "Thou art my Son; today have I begotten thee,"
immediately followed by the quotation from II Sam. 7:14, "I shaU be
to him a father and he shall be to me a Son." It is not necessary here
to decide whether the king whose installation was celebrated in the
original psalm was David or Solomon or some other.' Nor is it necessary
to show in what sense or in what way the psalm was referred to the
, ideal future King, the Messiah.2 It is enough to realize that the passage
| originally had a definite reference to a historic king of Israel who, accord-
I ing to the famUiar Semitic idea (Jer. 2:27), was recognized, declared,
\ and adopted as God's Son when he was installed as king over God's
I people; that later it became by common consent referred to the Messiah,3
-*J and in this way the writer of the Hebrews uses it of Jesus.
But this throws the difficulty into the question as to how the writer
1 Cf. Bleek, Commentar iiber den Hebraer-Brief, I, no f ; Bathgen, DiePsalmen, S.
3; Briggs, Psalms, I, p. 12.
2 Bleek, op. cit., p. in f.
j Acts 4:25, 26; 13:33; Rev. 2:27; 12:5; Heb. 5:5.
410

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 85
conceives this appeUation, which originally was referred to a definite point
of time, to be applied to Christ whom he clearly considers to be pre-
existent. Has the reference to a specific point of time which is so
explicitly brought out by errjpepov quite faded from his thought so that he
means errjpcpov to denote eternity ? Such a meaning, though strange to
the original (Ps. 2:7), is not strange to Alexandrian usage, and this may
be another point of contact between the author and Philo.' An interest
ing and suggestive use of the word is found in the Epistle to Diognetus
which seems to mark an advance in effort at precision of thought, or
perhaps rather an effort to explain that which in Hebrews was left
unexplained and puzzling.2 This quotation would seem to be a distinct
reference to the passage so frequently upon the lips of primitive Chris
tians with regard to Jesus as Messiah (Ps. 2:7). It is further an express
statement of what lies latent in the thought of the writer to the Hebrews.
For him too Christ was 6 d« [&v], but it would seem that in some way
he conceived of him as at some time constituted or declared "Son."
For crijpApov in Diognetus cannot mean "today" of the time at which
the author is writing. Nor can it be quite equal to ad, from which it is
so clearly distinguished by a contrast. The word stands between these
two meanings and denotes a specific point of time at which he who was
forever, became "Son."
This, with less distinctness, is the conception of the writer to the
Hebrews, rather than the Philo usage of the word denoting "eternity."
For in his use of the quotation he shows that in his conception God
might possibly have so addressed one of the angels who with Christ were
pre-existent and coexistent spirit beings.3 Thus addressing the pre-
existent Christ, the writer seems from one point of view to abandon
the natural and necessary meaning of the, words, especially of errjpepov
yeyevvryca, so as either to imply that the word crrjpepov is equivalent
to "eternity" or to leave the words without any point or meaning in
their new context. From another point of view, by the reference to the
pre-existent angels as over against the pre-existent Christ, he seems to
imply that this pre-existent Christ rather than any one of the angels
1 Cf. Philo, De Fuga, §11 (Cohn ed., Ill, p. 122) o-tfpspov S' iorlr 0 diriparos koX
dSie^trrrros aliliv jj.r)vdv yap Kal hiavribv Kal <rvv6\tos %pbvuv ireploSoi S&ypara avdpibirav
eUrlv apiBpbv iKTeripnKtyruv t6 8' ayf/evdis Svop.a al&pos r\ o-jjpepov. Leg. Alleg., Ill, 8,
(Cohn ed., I, p. 118) &<" rrjs aijpxpov ^p.ipo.%, tovt4(ttiv del.
2 Diognetus, 11:4, S: OStos 6 dir' &PXVS> ° xaivbs <j>avels Kal ira\aibs eipcdels Kal
¦ndvrore v4os iv aylwr KapSlais yevvd/ievos. ovtos 6 del, 6 rfpepov vlbs \oyiadels, kt\.
3 Heb. 1:5: "For to what one of the angels did he ever say, Thou art my son?" etc.
411

86 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
was at some specific time thus addressed and by this means constituted
or given the status and dignity of "Son" by adoption.
The same uncertainty or double point of view is seen in Heb. 5:5,
where the same passage is quoted but quoted this time in reference to
Christ's becoming High Priest. It has been already noticed that the
author apparently does not specify when Christ entered upon his High-
Priestly office. But this passage (vss. 5, 6) indicates nevertheless that
£he author conceives of Christ not as having been eternally High Priest
but as at some specific time having become or having been declared and
Constituted High Priest. And in these verses the declaration of High-
Priesthood is put upon a par (i<a6u>s) with the declaration of Sonship.
Why the two — Sonship and Priesthood — are here so closely associated
it is hard to tell unless in some way the author conceived of the two as
very simUar in their significance and possibly identical in point of time.
This specific time of inception, however, is not mentioned by the writer
either for the Sonship or for the Priesthood. But at least the natural
or face value of the language he uses in these two passages (1:5; 5:5,6)
makes such an interpretation natural, indeed almost necessary.
Further reference will be made to this view that the writer, even
though vaguely and almost inconsistently, had in mind a specific time
at which Christ was constituted Son and High Priest. It may be well
here to show briefly how this may be in perfect line with the developing
thought of the primitive church, especially upon the question of Sonship.
The simplicity of the Christology of the first few chapters of Acts
has been recognized as indicating that these chapters in all probabUity
reflect with comparative fidelity the actual thought in the primitive
community shortly after the resurrection of Jesus.' Now the primitive
community evidently used Ps. 22 very largely and universally in their
1 Cf. Schmiedel, art. "Acts of the Apostles," Enc. Bib., sec. 14: "it is hardly
possible not to believe that this Christology of the speeches of Peter must have come
from a primitive source." Cf. Harnack's statement from a somewhat different
point of view, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 190 : "Of course what is given us even here
is never tradition absolutely primitive and unaffected by legend; it is rather historical
tradition handed down by enthusiasts." Cf. Conclusion, p. 298: "It is not only,
taken as a whole, a genuinely historical work, but even in the majority of its details it
is trustworthy. Except for a few panegyric aberrations in the direction of the Primi
tive Community, it follows no bias that distorts its representation of the actual course
of events." The aberrations Harnack speaks of, even if granted for these early
chapters, do not destroy their reliability as a source for the thought of the Primitive
Community. What can be considered as the actual facts out of the so-called miracu-
.ous or supernatural stories is of minor importance here.
2 And the related O.T. passages, II Sam. 7: 12-14; Ps. 89.
412

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 87
effort to express the significance of Jesus and their conception of his
person. Acts 2:32-36 refers the inception of the Messiahship and
Lordship of Jesus very pointedly to the exaltation which was a result of
the resurrection. This great enthronement as Lord and Christ would
act in two ways upon the thought of primitive Christians. It would
clarify and intensify whatever tremulous thoughts some of them had had
of Jesus as Messiah before his death and resurrection and it would lead
them in addition to carry the developing and enlarging thought of the
later time back into the earlier period. So the baptism experience
loomed larger as the anointing of this Jesus who was to be Messiah and
King (Acts 4:27, and especially 10:38 which no doubt referred directly
to the baptism). In this primitive Christology the word that plays the
largest part as a designation of Christ is wots Oecm (3:13, 26; 4:27, 30).
This word, which may mean "servant" or "child," is no doubt later
supplanted by vlos, and even in Acts, though not in the earlier chapters,
the quotation of Ps. 2:7 which has been under consideration in Heb.
1:5; 5 : 5 is used and the Sonship of Christ is directly connected with
the resurrection (Acts 13:33). This may indicate a slight advance on a
somewhat earlier conception.' It is true that the words (Acts 13:33)
are in a speech made by Paul. But apart from the nature of the speeches
in Acts2, it is clear that the Christology of the speech does not depart
very far from the Christology of the primitive community, and yet in
one or two respects seems to approach Paul (Acts i3:23=Rom. 1:32),
for Paul too (Rom. 1 : 4) has a modified form of the thought that Christ
was declared or constituted "Son of God" by the resurrection from the
dead.3 Perhaps Paul's thought was that Christ, who was eternally Son,
was pubUcly and powerfully manifested to be such by the resurrection
from the dead. If this was his thought he must be considered as having
advanced more considerably upon the primitive conception and then
would have approached closely to the writer of Hebrews. It may be, all
1 Cf . Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 19s f . Harnack considers 1 2 : 25—15 : 35
a separate section which he calls Antiochean and considers trustworthy also. "We
find in the source nothing that demands a late date of composition, while the excellent
accounts concerning Jerusalem and Stephen, and the special veneration shown to
Barnabas, lead us to conclude that we have here a writing of high antiquity."
2 Cf. Schmiedel, art. "Acts of the Apostles," Enc. Bib., sec. 14: Headlam, art.
"Acts of the Apostles," Hastings' Bib. Diet., I, p. 33.
3 Cf. Jiilicher, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, II, S. 221. Others to be sure
lay the emphasis on "with power," thus reconciling the primitive conception that
Christ was constituted Messiah and Son by the resurrection with the thought of the
pre-existent Christ as Son. 413

88 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
things considered, that this is the more natural and likely view to
attribute to Paul. But his advance, however great, has not obliterated
the mark of the primitive view, which was that Jesus was constituted
Messiah, Lord, and Son by the resurrection and exaltation.
The enlarging conception of Jesus as Son of God continued to press
back the inception of Sonship. The next stage was that of the miracu
lous conception, in which the Semitic idea of Sonship passed over into
the Greek metaphysical idea (Matt, i : 20; Luke 1 :32).
But even this was not sufficient. The idea of pre-existence emerged
very early — indeed in the majority of Jewish views it was predicated of
the Messiah.' At first the thought probably was of an ideal pre-existence
of the Messiah, just as in the case of Wisdom (Prov. 8 : 22 ff.) and of the
Son of Man (Volz, op. cit., S. 215, 217 f.). But the tendency was
increasingly strong to make this pre-existence real and active. This was
done when the ideas of Messiah, Son of Man, and Son of God were to a
large extent fused with the Greek concept of the Logos. The terms
"Son of Man" and "Christ" tended to pass out of use, owing to Greek
influence. The term Logos did not appeal to the early church, though
later on the lips of the early Greek apologists (cf . Justin Martyr, passim)
it became common as a designation for Christ. The strong religious
consciousness of the later primitive church preferred the term Son of
God or Son, and the inception of this Sonship was by the author of the
Fourth Gospel, who says nothing of the virgin birth, carried back to the
beginning (John 1:2, 18). It should still be carefully noted, however,
that within the New Testament period there is apparently a reluctance
to apply the word "Son" to this pre-existent being as such. So much
so that within a number of the books of the New Testament it has been
recognized as a difficult question whether the word "Son" is at aU used
of the pre-existent Christ. This is especially true of Hebrews.2
This reluctance to apply the highest title "Son," "Son of God" to
the pre-existent Christ as such will be referred to again. It is significant
1 Cf. Volz, Jildische Eschatologie, S. 217.
2 Macintosh, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (1 vol.), art. "Person of Christ,"
IV, sec. 3, "A very difficult question is whether in this epistle 'Son' is applied to the
preincarnate One or to the incarnate Christ only  No one can doubt that the
writer's mind starts from Christ the Son as known in history and in his exaltation, and
holds these revealing facts steadily in the foreground of his thought; but does he go
farther back, and carry this Sonship into the pre-existent state ?"; cf . A. B. Davidson,
Hebrews, note on 'the " Son," pp. 73 ff . Also Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 440 f .,
"The same interest, that of magnifying the sacrifice, requires the Sonship to be of
older date than the life on earth." 414

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 89
here as indicating that when the Christians began to identify Christ
with the Logos, thus making him, even if somewhat vaguely, eternal,
the words of Ps. 2:7, especially erfj'pepov yeyivvrjKa ere, tended to lose
their specific reference to any definite inception of Sonship. Their
adoptive significance was lost, the famous christological watchword of
the primitive community only caused confusion, till finally the word
errjpepov was interpreted as denoting the timeless "today" of God in
somewhat the same way as a day of God was said to be a thousand years.
The period of confusion is exhibited in the author of Hebrews
i1 '¦ 5 ! 5 : 5) ¦ For it is clear now, though it was not so clear to the author ,-
that the words are hardly fitting to his thought of Christ. For the
epistle plainly predicates a real and an active pre-existence of Christ,
even if the author hesitates to apply the word "Son" to him as pre-
existent (10:5). But he fails to give any point of time to which tAie
words of Ps. 2:7 could apply, though the words in their proper meaning
require such a time.
That later writers felt the irrelevancy of these words as used of the
Logos or the eternal Christ, and sought to clear up the confusion caused
by them, is shown by the way in which they sometimes explained them.
Clement of Rome1 uses this quotation (Ps. 2:7), but in him the words
have lost their specific reference more than in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Clement says, "But of his Son the Master said thus: 'Thou art my Son,
I this day have begotten thee. Ask of me,' " etc. He speaks of the one
to whom these words are said as already "Son," and does not pause
to explain. A more suggestive use is found in Justin Martyr.2 In this passage
the fundamental thing to be noticed is not the precise meaning of Justin,
about which there may be some doubt.3 It is rather the fact that he
1 Clement, I Ep. ad Cor., chap. 36.
2 Dialog. C. 88, p. 316 C, D: rb irvevpa oSv rb &yiov koI Sid rois dvffpiiirovs, £>s
irpotyyv, iv etSei irepurrepas iiriirrii airy, Kal <t>wv)i ix r&v oipav&v &pa i\rj\i8ei
ijris Kal Sid AavtS heyopivrj, £is dirb rrpoaiiirov airov \4yovros Airep airip diro" tow
irarpbs ep\e\\e \eyetr6ai Tiis pu>v et ai, iyii aijpjepov yeyivvnKd ce- rare ytveaiv airov
\4yuv ylveaBai tois dvBpiiirots, i% Stou ij yvwtris avrov e'p.eKKe ylveaBai. Cf. Explanation
of Methodius: rb de 'E-ycii o-fipxpov yeyivvriKi <re, Un irpobvra ^817 vpb twv aliivoiv iv
to?s oipavois ij3ov\^6riv Kal rif Kfxrpjf yevrqaai, t 81J i<rri, irpoodev dyvoxoipevov
yviaplcai. Cf. also other quotations and explanations as given by Otto in his edition
of Justin Martyr, Dialogue, chap. 88.
s The sentence is loosely formed. The participle \eyu>v is anacoluthic; gram
matically it ought to agree with irvevpa or tpuvij but the real meaning predominates
and the form \iyav is used with the feeling that "God" is the subject, i.e., as if
415

90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
feels the irrelevancy of this quotation and is forced into an explanation
of it which refers the errjp.e.pov to some specific time in the future, viz.,
the time of the yvSo-is or revelation of Christ, whether this yvwo-is be
interpreted historically of Jesus' coming into the world1 or mystically,
that is, spiritually. That Justin should be forced to make this explana
tion shows how the original meaning and face value of the words per
sisted. For Justin does not hesitate to call Christ "God."2 And,
indeed, it is not at all likely that the yevecris of Christ of which
Justin speaks in explaining errjjxEpov yeyewrjica is considered by him as
constituting Christ "Son." Justin would consider and call Christ
eternally Logos and Son. The face value of the words errjptpov yeyewrjua
is satisfied by an explanation of the yevecris at a specific time as the
revelation of this hitherto hidden Son. But this shows that even in
Justin Martyr the atmosphere of the historical Jesus stUl cUngs to the
title "Son."
In the same line of development, there is found a puzzling passage
in the Apostolic Fathers (Ep. to Diognetus, chap, ii).3 There can be
little doubt that Lightfoot is right4 in translating "He, I say, who is
eternal, who today was accounted a son," as against the translation of
the Ante-Nicene Fathers,5 "This is He who, being from everlasting, is
today called the Son." That is, the word erf/pepov does not have the
meaning "at the present time," but is almost certainly a reminiscence of
the common quotation of Ps. 2 : 7. But this does not necessarily annul
the suggestiveness of the passage as a parallel to that of Justin. In fact
Sirep air$ dirb tou irarpbs fueXXe \4ye<r8ai were active. The participle Xfyoifos
would more naturally be taken as agreeing with outoS (Christ), and may indeed be
so taken. But the sense is better if \eyovros is referred back to AavtS. t>tte in
both cases denotes a future-to-a-past point of view, Tore is emphatic and proleptic
pointing forward to ii Stov which may mean either "from which [time]" or "at
which [time]." In its first occurrence ytvctrBai stands for a general present. One would
expect yev^aeaSai but the writer allows his own point of time, viz., the time of
writing, to intrude when he should not. He returns to the future-to-a-past point
of view in e/ieXXe ylvecBai.
1 Justin may have the miraculous conception in mind much as in the previous part
of the sentence he speaks of Jesus as being accounted the son of Joseph, the carpenter:
Kal vop.i£op,hov 'lia<Tij<p toB t&tokos vlov iirdpxeiv.
2 Cf. De Resurrectione, 10. If this reading A debs is refused (cf. Otto, De Resur.
p. 10, n. 16), still it is plain that Justin though never actually identifying Christ with
God gives to him an exceedingly high r61e and calls him "God" (Dial. 57).
JoBtos 0 dir' dpxys, o Kaivbs Ravels, Kal iroXoids eipeBels, Kal irdvrore vA>s iv
dylav KapSlais yevviip.evos. OStos 6 del, [b] trf/pepov vlbs \0yKr8els.
4 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, p. sro. s Vol. I, p. 29.
416

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 91
the whole context bears a striking resemblance to that of the passage in
Justin, and probably the writer to Diognetus would have given an
interpretation to err]pepov similar to that which Justin gives. Like the
passage in Justin, it emphasizes the contrast which was felt between the
eternity of the being who is called "Son" and a word' which by its
proper meaning contradicted that eternity.
What truth there may be in any or all of these varying views of the
inception of Christ's Sonship, viz., resurrection and exaltation, baptism,
miraculous conception, Logos-doctrine, it is not in place to discuss here.
This explanation of their relation and development may not, indeed, be
the right one. But it accounts well for the presence of the quotation of
Ps. 2:7 in Heb. 1:5; 5:5, and also for the fact quite noticeable in the
whole of the New Testament, and especially in the earlier parts, that
there is a reluctance to apply the title "Son" to the Christ as pre-
existent. This view is strengthened by the fact that whUe the writer of Hebrews
conceives the Son as a being whose life extends probably into the eternal
past, yet in none of the other passages in which the title "Son" is used
does he employ it in a clear and unambiguous way of the pre-existent one.
It might be answered that for one who is beforehand determined that the
title "Son" could only apply to the earthly Christ, either in the days of
his flesh or as exalted, it would be impossible for any writer so to use the
title as to compel reference to him as pre-existent. But in such a passage
as 10:5-9, which clearly implies pre-existence,2 arid may appropriately
be compared to Phil. 2:53., the author might have used the title "Son"
so as to refer clearly to the pre-existent one.
It is difficult to determine the precise content of the word "Son" in
the conception of the writer. In fact there are not sufficient data to do
so. In 1 : 8 it is evident from what follows that the conception of " Son ''
is a high one, even though the first part of vs. 8 were to be translatedj
according to Westcott and Hort, "Thy throne is God forever and ever
and the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of His Kingdom." But
even here the adoptive idea thrusts itself to the front in 1:9.
JIt is impossible here to go into the probable date of chaps. 11 and 12 of Ep. to
Diognetus. It is generally recognized that there is a break between chaps. 10 and 11
and that the epistle proper ends with chap. 10. Also that chaps. 11 and 12 are prob
ably a homily; cf. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, S.
757: "Es ist das Fragment einer Homilie und gehort vielleicht in den Kreis des
Methodius." Methodius died eir. 311 a.d.
2 The participle ipxopevos being present implies that what is said vss. 5-7 is said
coincidently with coming into the world. 417

92 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
In 3:6 Christ is contrasted with Moses. While both were faithful,
Moses was faithful only as a servant as being in and therefore also a part
of God's house. But Christ was faithful as a Son over God's house.
The thought here is closely connected with that of Christ as a "first
born" Son (1:6). In God's house Christ holds the high and honored
positton and power which was universally assigned to such a one in
ancient and especially oriental states. But in this passage again it is
interesting as well as perplexing to note that whUe the writer probably
made no conscious distinction between believers of the old dispensation
and those of the new as constituting God's house, yet those over whom
Christ is placed as "Son" are the Christians, not the Old Testament
saints.1 It is another indication that almost unconsciously the title
"Son" carries to the writer the atmosphere of the earthly and exalted
Jesus. It does not refer so fittingly to the pre-existent Christ. In
this passage the word "Son" lacks the article, is qualitative, and
denotes such a one as bears the same relation to God and his house
(Christians) as the firstborn bears to the father of a household. There
is nothing to indicate how he was constituted Son or in what this
Sonship consists.
In 5 : 8 the title occurs again without the article, being quaUtatively
used. It is found in the midst of a passage which, as already noted,
emphasizes thoroughly the humanity of Christ. The thought of the
immediate context is similar to that of 12:5 f., which emphasizes the
Father's love and care in chastening true sons. But the contrast is
clearly and strongly marked in that whUe in 12 : 5 f. the chastening and
consequent training is natural and to be expected of every son (cf. 12:6),
in 5 : 8 the author designates the chastening and sufferings of Christ as
altogether exceptional and exceptional just because he was a "Son."
This marks the Sonship of Christ as in the author's conception unique.
It also clearly predicates Sonship of Jesus before his resurrection and
exaltation. Does it use the title of him as pre-existent? ^Possibly so;
but even if so, the experiences which he relates have to do entirely with
the historical Jesus.
In Heb. 7:28 again the title is qualitative: "one who is a son per
fected forever." This passage also tends to separate Jesus from men,
even from Christians, but this separation is closely connected with the
fact that he is High Priest. As such he is "holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners and made higher than the heavens." This de
scription of the Son is not one that refers to moral character only. It
1 Cf. Heb. 3:66, "whose house are we, if we hold fast," etc.
418

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 93
is in a large measure official perfection, perfection that consists in proper
relations and proper surroundings. It is, however, contrary to the
emphasis of the writer upon the weakness (5 : 26, 7 f .) and true humanity
to say that there is "no contrast between the state of the Son before
perfection and when perfected.'" That would empty his words of any
meaning. It is probably true that in the author's conception the con
trast does not imply any positive moral sinfulness in the Son before
perfection. The state of perfection here is in evident contrast with the
state of weakness (7:28a). The state of perfection as contrasted with
the state of weakness in the days of his flesh has an added increment of
positive moral strength, of power, and of efficiency. This is a condition
of character and saving power unattained by any Levitical high priest,
altogether unattained by anyone. Does the word "Son" here apply to
Christ as pre-existent ? It would surely seem so, for it is the word of
the oath which was after the law, viz., Ps. 110:4, which declares a Son
High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Sonship and Priesthood
are closely associated in 5:5. The writer may well have conceived the
pre-existent Christ as declared by God High Priest proleptically. In
this passage he seems to separate between the Sonship and High-Priest
hood. But as the inception of Sonship is left indefinite by the writer,
so the inception of Priesthood is left indefinite. The Son seems to be
spoken of as pre-existent, but he is described in words which denote
a perfection gained by earthly experiences.
In four other passages2 the full title "Son of God" is used of Jesus.
In the first (4: 14, "Jesus the Son of God"), by being coupled with the
name "Jesus," the title is again redolent of the life and experiences
of the man Jesus. The context is also similar to that of 7:28, since
Jesus, the Son of God, is the great High Priest who by his experiences is
full of sympathy for human sins and weakness. By this too the title
"Son of God" is here surrounded with an atmosphere of earth.
In 6:6 and 10:29, passages which are quite similar, the supreme
and awful Sgnity and worth of the person designated is brought
out by the title "Son of God." The solemn weight which the
title can and does here carry is brought out by the fact that to
trample under foot the Son of God, to count the blood of the
covenant an unholy thing (10:29), to crucify the Son of God afresh
(6:6), and to put him to an open shame is the unforgivable sin, the final
tragedy. It is not necessary to show here what is the source of this
1 A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. 145.
2 Heb 4: 14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:29. 419

94 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
terribly somber strain in Hebrews.1 It is clear that the supreme dignity
and work of the one who is called the Son of God is the very thing that
makes such a sin possible. And yet even in these tragic circumstances
the things which constitute the crime, viz., counting the blood of the
Covenant an unholy thing, crucifying the Son of God afresh, etc.,
involve references only to the experiences of the earthly Jesus.
The third use of the full title "Son of God" occurs in the chapter
which deals with Melchizedek as the type of Christ (7:3, "Being made
like the Son of God," etc.). This bit of characteristic Alexandrian
allegorical exegesis deserves more detailed and intensive study than has
yet been given to it. For the writer as for Philo there is an aureole
around the weird figure of Melchizedek. The oracle of Ps. 110:4 is the
chief cornerstone of the writer's whole presentation of Jesus. Generally
the figure of Melchizedek is viewed as the type of Christ and the writer
views his thesis, of the intricacy of which he is himself fully aware (5:11),
as doubly proved since as a matter of fact one did actuaUy appear in
history who answered all the requirements of this oracle (7 : 15 f.). Jesus
is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of
Aaron (7:11). And this means particularly two things, viz., a new and
better covenant (7:12), and an unchangeable because eternal and perfect
priesthood (7 : 16 f.). But the likeness to the type Melchizedek consists
chiefly in the fact that Christ's Priesthood is forever, eternal (7:16);
it does not pass to another (7 : 24) because he who exercises it possesses
a life of such essential and moral quality as to be indestructible (7:16).
It is to be noted, however, that in this phrase, "made like unto the
Son of God" (7:3), the title is used in a way directly contrary to the
usage of the passage in Ps. 110:4 on which it is supposed to be based,
contrary also to the application which the writer himself makes in the
rest of this passage. This has caused interpreters a great deal of trouble
and it has been explained in various ways.2
The simplest and probably the best explanation is to be found by
considering that the same process of thought occurs here in connection
with the writer's use of the passage in Ps. 110:4 as occurred in con
nection with his use of the passage in Ps. 2:7, as above described. In
1 Perdelwitz (Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Heft 2, 1910; Das
literarische Problem des Hebr&er-Briefs, II, S. 105) argues for the origin of Hebrews in
the circle of presbyters in Asia Minor, on the basis of similarity to a newly discovered
conclusion of Mark and to I John on the question of the forgiveness of sins.
2Cf. Bengel, "non dicitur filius Dei assimilatus Melchisedeco, sed contra; nam
films Dei est antiquior et archetypus"; cf. 8:5; Bleek, II, S. 315 and I, S. 360.
420

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 95
both cases the writer's identification of Christ with the Logos, his view
that Christ is pre-existent and perhaps eternal, causes him to use language
of Jesus as the Son of God and as High Priest which is really at variance
with the original and with any natural meaning of the Old Testament
passages and inconsistent with the writer's own understanding of those
passages. It must be admitted that here if anywhere the writer uses the"
title Son of God of Christ as pre-existent. But in doing so he has
directly reversed the thought of his original passage (Ps. 110:4). He has
not only gone beyond it; he has contradicted it or at least has revealed
that it is inadequate and inappropriate to express the thought that is
in his own mind. It is another support to the thesis that the author is
carrying back contributions from actual history and his own experience
into the Old Testament Scriptures rather than carrying forward only
what is found in the Old Testament Scriptures.
The title " the Son of God " as it is found here (7 : 3) does not indicate
anything additional as to content. Nor does it throw any light on the
question as to how the writer considers Jesus to be or to have become the
Son of God. It is even possible, though hardly natural, to hold that it is
not used of Christ as pre-existent but in a free and somewhat loose way,
by a sort of hysteron-proteron, denotes the earthly Jesus.
There is but one case left of the use of " Son," viz., 1:2. It lacks the
article and is therefore used qualitatively, meaning " one who is a son,"
i.e., "who bears the relation of a Son to God." The context here as in
most of the other cases shows that the word denotes one supreme and
unique in dignity, worth, and power.1 It is possible that the phrases of
1 : 3a carry a somewhat indefinite ontological meaning, but they cannot
be pressed, and the view here taken is that they are conceived by the
author metaphorically rather than metaphysically. By this it is meant
that the author is not endeavoring to express by them the nature or
process of Sonship.
It is quite possible, indeed probable, that here again the writer is
using the word "Son" as denoting not merely the earthly but also the
pre-existent Christ. This is the more likely since in the immediate con
text he speaks of him as creator and sustainer of the worlds. But as noted
already, the writer's thought moves not back to further pre-existent pro
cesses or activities, but immediately forward to the High-Priestly work
of salvation, the exaltation and the superior dignity of the Son.
Further, even here in this succinct, artistic, and lofty epitome and
introduction, the thought of the writer transcends the limits of his
1 Cf. use of "Son" in the parable of the Husbandman (Mark 12: 1-12).
421

96 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
language. It is not only that in his supreme function as revealer the
Son is placed with the prophets, so that here too the atmosphere which
surrounds the word "Son" is that of the earthly life of Jesus. But
the phrase "whom he appointed heir of all things" (1:26) points to
a specific time. If the word ZOrjKe.v is taken to mean "placed,"
"established," and the word KXrjpovopos made to denote a realization
stUl future to the IBrjKai,1 this time may well be taken to be the
exaltation. But whether taken in this way or in some other way the
phrase seems somewhat incongruous with eternal sonship. The word
carries with it something of the adoptive idea.
c) Summary. — To sum up the content of the title "Son" or "Son of
God": The writer's free and unexplained use of the word shows that he
had taken it over from the early Christian usage. He feels no need of
defining it in any precise way but uses the term as one quite famiUar.
The ethical and religious use of the term is easily distinguished, the
atmosphere of the earthly life of Jesus surrounds it continuaUy. Never
theless it is clear that in the writer's conception the term has passed
beyond its Hebraic meaning and has taken on somewhat of the Greek
meaning. For the writer clearly applies the term "Son" to one whom
he considers pre-existent in a real sense. In a few cases probably he
uses the title "Son" of this pre-existent being as such, but he does not
reveal in what precise way he considers him to be the Son of God. He
probably considers him as eternal, but he does not dwell upon or attempt
to give a rationale of his past eternity. Yet by the language used he
reveals that he had taken up terms which originally denoted an adoptive
conception of the Sonship which in all probabUity was the conception
first developed and held by the Christian church. The writer's own
thought, however, has passed beyond this. He holds the Son to be a
being altogether unique in his mission and work, in the dignity and
worth of his person, and in his eternal relation to God as Father.
1 Davidson, Hebrews, p. 40.

422

III. RESUME: THE TOTAL CHRIST PERSONALITY
It is clear that the writer holds that there were three well-marked
periods in the career of this person whom he calls Jesus, the Son, the
Christ, the Lord, or Jesus Christ. These periods are, first, the period of
pre-existence, secondly the period of the earthly life, "the days of his
flesh," and thirdly the period of the exaltation. It is one and the same
person whose career embraces these three periods. This person is
represented as speaking in the first period with a consciousness of what
would happen in the second (10:5; 2:12), and as acting in the second
period with a consciousness of what would happen in the third period^
(12:2). The oneness of this personality is assumed in the introductory
words of the epistle (1:2-4) as weU as in other portions of it (7:16;
2:9; 2:12). In fact, it is an assumption that pervades the epistle in
such a way that the writer feels no need of specific reference to it.
The duality in the personality of Jesus expressed in this thesis by the
phrases "human elements" and "transcendent elements" might be
considered with advantage from the standpoint of the three periods
above named. The human element is manifested particularly in the
earthly period denoted by the writer as the "days of his flesh," the
second period. This is the period of temporary humiliation (2 : 9 f .)
between the former period of glory and the succeeding period of stUl
greater glory. But it is in this period of humiliation that he lives his
life and does his work as a man in such a way that he earns the exaltation
and the greater glory of the third period.
There is little reference to the historical Jesus because the writer is
interested in the sacrificial death and the High-Priestly work. His life
as a man is viewed as the essential preliminary, first for the sacrificial
death, and secondly for the sympathetic discharge of his High-Priestly
function in salvation (2 : 14, 17; 10: 5 f.). In the case of Jesus, both the
becoming man and the death are voluntary, not involuntary as in the
case of other men. It is not in the life of Jesus as such that the writer
is interested. But it does not follow that the writer presents the life of Jesus as a
mere semblance of human life, a make-believe. There is no tinge of
Docetism in the epistle. This perhaps results from the fact that the writer
may have viewed all human lives as incarnations of pre-existent spirits
423] 97

98 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
(12:9,236; 10:5b).1 In any case, in describing the earthly period of the
career of Jesus the writer shows an insight probably surpassing that of
any other New Testament writer into the development of character
under stress and suffering. And further, there is no intrusion of the
miraculous in the presentation of the writer, such for instance as is
found running parallel with the teaching in the Fourth Gospel. The
writer may have accepted much of this miraculous element in connection
with the historical life of Jesus, but he does not use it in his presentation.
The use of historical material by the writer is decidedly limited, but in
so far as he does use it he makes it abundantly clear that in his con
ception the life of Jesus was a genuinely human Ufe. It was lived under
conditions and limitations that hampered other lives. Its characteristic
was not that it was a life free from these limitations but that it over
came them.
The "transcendent element" in the life of Jesus is manifested rather
in the first and third periods than in the second. The third period
begins with the exaltation preceded by that which corresponds to the
ascension (4:14; 6:20). In the case of Jesus these are transcendent
elements, though the writer has the conception of the ascension or
translation of Enoch (11:5). Repeatedly it is stated that Jesus is
exaltedat the right hand of God (1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). Thisexalta-
tion is conceived of as a reward for work accomplished (5: 8 f ; 8:6) and
as befitting the nature and inner worth of Jesus (12 : 2 f.). It is couched
in the most august and solemn language, denoting emphaticaUy an
epoch in the career of Jesus.
The language in which the exaltation is expressed implies that Jesus
is to rest and enjoy the fruit of his labors for the salvation of men. He
has finished his labors and has entered upon the state of personal and
official perfection (2: 10; 5:8). He has entered into the sabbatismos for
the people of God (4:9). And the notion of rest is extended to denote
that Jesus is to wait expectant untU God shall have subdued all his
enemies beneath his feet (1:13; 10:13). Who or what these enemies
were the writer does not say, unless he includes among them death and
the devil (2 : 14) .2 He may be assumed to include further all the forces
1 There is no direct evidence of this, but there are some hints that point toward
such a view. It would not be out of accord with his Platonic tendency and would
explain the peculiar way in which he speaks of the incarnation of Jesus. This is the
view of the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon with which Hebrews has some affinity
(Wisd. 8:19, 20; 7: if.).
aCf. Wisd. 2:23, 24. 424

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 99
among men and in the universe that make for wickedness and thwart
the realization of the perfect messianic kingdom. But the Son himself
is not active in the subduing of these enemies. God is to make them
the footstool of his feet (i : 13b). This emphasizes the subordination of
Jesus to God, even in the period of the exaltation of Jesus. In Paul I
Jesus is represented as in charge of the government of the world and of J
the kingdom, which government he finally surrenders to God. In/
Hebrews God never surrenders his unique and supreme place.
It is rather cUffkult to interpret the idea of rest involved in the writer's
language expressing the exaltation. But it must not be so interpreted
as to make the exalted Christ inactive. It is probable that the writer
conceives the cosmic activity of the pre-existent period (1:2, 3) to be
continuous throughout the time subsequent to exaltation. But his
thought is not directed primarUy to the cosmic relations or activities of
Christ. The emphasis of the writer is soteriological. Christ is active
in the time subsequent to exaltation, but it is an activity that is related
to salvation and has as its object and goal the realization of perfect
salvation in the messianic kingdom (9: 28). This wUl be inaugurated at
the second coming. In the meantime Christ is active asiHigh Priest in
the heavenly tabernacle in the very presence of God (5:9; 6:20; 7:24,
25). The modern mind finds it hard to conceive of this heavenly activity
in any definite way. The writer of Hebrews, in true Platonic fashion,
considered the heavenly the real (9:23, 24). He conceived the unseen
activity of Christ in the heavenly tabernacle as exerting a real influence
on God and on men. It saved men, purifying and sanctifying them
(5:9; 9:14; 10:19 f-)j and it restrained the righteous wrath of God
(12:29). 1
All this High-Priestly activity is transcendent. It belongs to a being t
that is transcendent, that is more than man, for it is directed to the ,
saving of men. Christ is a mediator between God and men since he is J
the mediator (12 : 24) and surety of the new covenant (7:22). No high
priest of the old covenant, indeed no human being as such, could perform ;
this office of savior (2:16, 17). It was performed in a transcendent
sphere and required a transcendent being.
In regard to the activity and position of Christ in the second stage
of the exaltation period, the perfected messianic age, the writer is still
more reticent. The voice of God that once shook the earth only will
again shake both earth and heaven so that the things that are made
shall be shaken and pass away and only the unseen realities shall remain
(1:10-12; 12:26 f.). He identifies Christianity with this kingdom of
425

^

100 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
abiding reality that cannot be changed. This is probably a Chris
tianized form of the Platonic and Philonic contrast of the inteUigible
and the tangible worlds, the i<6crpos vorjros and the Kocrpos aio-%rds.
Angels in one place (i : 76) are spoken of as if they might be among those
beings that would pass away. In another place (12:226) they are
associated with the kingdom of abiding reality. As to what would
happen ultimately to men in general and to spirit-beings at this great
metathesis the writer apparently did not think definitely; or if he did,
he did not express himself in this epistle. He declares uriequivocaUy
that Christ is eternal and does not pass away with the worlds which he
has made (1:12). And he probably holds to the immortaUty through
Christ of Christians, but his thought does not pursue this topic. The
writer does not complete his picture of the perfected messianic kingdom
with material gathered from apocalyptical sources, as the writer of
Revelation does. He prefers to leave detaUs of the eternal kingdom to
reverent imagination. He is content to emphasize the abiding reaUty,
the eternity of Christ and his kingdom.
The language which expresses the exaltation of Jesus denotes further
the unique place which Jesus holds in the world of beings in relation to
God. There is only one place in all the universe that can be described
as at the right hand of the Majesty on high, and Jesus holds that place.
He is the eternal vicegerent of God. It is the place of supremacy,
the place of power. It is not God's place, yet it is the unique place of
power and honor next to God.
^ But what may be called a higher degree of transcendency in the
writer's conception of Jesus is manffested in what the writer says of him
in the first period. This is expressed most fuUy in the words of the
introduction (1:2, 3). Christ is the agent of creation and the support
of the worlds which under God he has created. This conception of the
cosmic significance of Christ is not found in the Christology of the
primitive church, but is quite characteristic of the later New Testament
view. In Hebrews at least it is a corollary of the writer's Platonic and
PhUonic doctrine. God is too august, too pure and holy to have direct,
unmediated contact with the world of tangible things. He is con
cerned rather with the intelligible world of eternal realities (9:23, 24;
12:22, 27). To be sure, the author does not hold this phUosophic
idea in the outspoken, unrelieved form in which PhUo holds it. It is
considerably modified by the writer's emphasis on the Christian ele
ment, so that the phUosophic idea lies latent. But there can hardly
be any doubt that for Christians in general, and for the writer of
426

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 101
Hebrews in particular, the way to the thought of Christ as the agent of
creation was paved by the philosophic idea that God was too holy and
transcendent to be brought into direct contact with the material world.
At the time of the writing of Hebrews this idea in a more or less definite
form was the common property of the Uterature of the nations. But it
was particularly prominent in Philo. Met by the Christian faith in the
Messiahship of Jesus and the Christian consciousness of his religious
supremacy and uniqueness, it produced in modified and more sober
form the common Christian tenet that Christ was the agent and support
of creation. This however hardly carries the transcendent element in the con
ception of Christ beyond that which is implied in his being seated at the
right hand of God at his exaltation. Both imply only a secondary
divinity. Christ is in a sense on a par with angels as being with them a
spirit-being (1:4, 96). He has become better than they by that which
he has experienced and accomplished on earth (1:3, 4), so that after his
exaltation, when he comes again into the world, the angels, who formerly
were in a sense his companions (1 :gb), must worship him (1:6).
The striking words of 1:3a decidedly enhance the transcendent
element. They may indicate, probably do indicate, that the writer
with more or less phUosophical feeling and thought transferred these
words from the Logos and Wisdom to Christ.1 One must beware of
making logical and metaphysical inferences from these terms.2 For, in
addition to a measure of uncertainty as to their precise meaning, they
are at bottom metaphorical. They are terms that strike the imagina
tion. The writer was reaching after the highest terms within his
knowledge to express the supreme significance of Christ and his unique
relation to God without actually identifying him with God. These
terms enhance the transcendent element in the person of Christ but
cannot with certainty be considered to carry it into the realm of the
essentially divine. They say nothing about the essential nature of
Christ. The titles, with the possible exception of 6 vlos and 6 wpwtotokos
say nothing about the essential nature of Christ. The title 6 rrpoyrerro.
kos is practically equal to 6 vlos, denoting a unique relation to God
implying pre-existence and priority in pre-existence. It need not of
itself denote essential relationship to God, but may denote an ethical
relationship of honor, responsibiUty, love, and devotion, such as a
1 Philo, De opif. mundi, sec. 51, p. 33D; Wisd. 7: 26.
2 E. Menegoz, La theologie de I'epUre aux Hebreux, p. 78.
427

102 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
firstborn holds in the house of his father. It is more likely however that,
Uke the terms in i : 3a, it denotes some sort of actual, that is, essential
relation to God, a relation which is not expUcitly denned but which falls
short of identity.
The title " Son " is more frequent and more august, but it is a question
whether it carries anything stronger or more definite in essential relation
ship than "firstborn." The title Son is used of Jesus both in the earthly
period and in the period of exaltation. It is not certainly used of him
in the pre-existent period, though the writer might very easUy have so
used it as, for mstance, U he had said in 10:5, "Wherefore when [the
Son] cometh into the world, he saith," etc. There are various other
ways by which the author, if he had so desired, might have made it
unambiguous that he considered Christ as Son of God in the pre-existent
state, that is as eternaUy Son. And it 'is not possible to deny on the
basis of the epistle that the writer did so consider Christ as eternaUy the
Son of God. It is altogether probable that he did. He uses the term
as one famUiar to himself and his readers, and so famiUar that it needed
no explanation. If he conceived the relationship of Son as eternal, he
stUl furnishes no means whatsoever of apprehending the modus operandi
of that relationship. His thought was not turned in that direction.
But the adoptive meaning of the language used in regard to Sonship,
the fact that in no instance does he unambiguously use the term Son of
Christ as pre-existent, the fact that he seems to guard the subordination
of Christ to God even when he speaks of Christ in the highest terms —
all these as weU as other indications go to show that the writer probably
marked a transition from an earlier christological view which his adoptive
language fitted to a later and more advanced view for the expression of
which there was no fitting terminology. He therefore used his
Alexandrian terminology notably in 1:30, and this terminology soon
became used to express a view stUl further advanced than that of the
writer. But this terminology even as meant by the writer expressed an
advanced view inconsistent with the view expressed by. the adoptive
terminology. Probably the writer understood the Sonship as eternal,
probably as in some sense essential. But the writer did not advance to
the idea of an essential divinity of the Son in the sense of identity with
God. That was left for his successors. He approached so closely
however to the more advanced view that he has generally been credited
with holding it. As Menegoz says, it is "une illusion d'optique."1
« Menegoz, op. cit., p. 101. 428

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 103
SUMMARY
To sum up in brief the writer's view of the person of Jesus: The
writer holds that this being whose earthly name was Jesus was a supreme
spirit-being who had lived and worked before his appearance in time.
During this pre-existent period this being was comparable to the angels,
but at the same time stood in a unique relation to God1 as compared
with other spirit-beings including angels (1:3a, 6). He performed
works which no other spirit-beings performed, both in relation to the
world (1:26, 10) and to men (5:9). By an ex post facto method of
thought he is implicitly credited with a special relationship to men even
in the pre-existent period (2:11). This undefined relationship to men
issues in his becoming man, taking bodUy form that in accordance with
the wiU of God he might become an efficient Savior and a sympathetic
High Priest on men's behaU. This earthly period was a period of
comparative humUiation, a period during which he was inferior to. the
angels to whom before he had been in a measure superior. But this
time of temporary humUiation and suffering issues in sinless perfection,
both personal and official, and finally, after the voluntary sacrificial
death which secures forgiveness, brings communion with God, and
perfect salvation, in exaltation. Because he has accompUshed through
suffering this great end of perfect salvation for men, he is raised to greater
than his former glory. He is exalted at the right hand of God, the
supreme place of honor and power. Here in the heavenly tabernacle he
exercises his office as Savior and High Priest, until finaUy he shall come
again to usher in the messianic age of perfect salvation. But all these
activities are carried on in subordination to God " for whom are all things
and through whom are aU things." God i,s supreme over aU. ....
In commenting on the blending or balance of the human and tran
scendent elements in the picture of the Christ, it may be said again that
the human elements are genuine. It is true that the writer uses only
those elements which bear upon the great purpose that he assigns to
Christ, the salvation of men. But within these bounds the writer
presents a sober picture of human development such that one instinc
tively feels that it is not artificial but genuine.
And in spite of much to the contrary, much that renders plausible
the thought that the supernatural in the crude sense, the bizarre, is the
emphatic thing with the author— in spite of this it is true that the
taproot of his presentation is the life and death of the human person
1 Heb. 1:3a, 6. Jesus was "firstborn" in relation to angels as the angels were in
relation to men (12:23). 429

104 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Jesus interpreted primarily through his own experience of salvation and
his knowledge of the similar experiences of his fellows.1 But this
knowledge and experience of the benefits that flowed directly or
indirectly from Jesus justified the author, in his own mind at least, in
accepting the interpretation of his fellow-Christians that this Jesus was
the Messiah, that he was risen from the dead, that he was divine and
pre-existent, and that he would come again. This experience of the
benefits springing from faith in Jesus justified him also in adding many
peculiar elements from his own Alexandrian training. Such may have
been the doctrine that Jesus was the Logos, that he was the agent of
God in creation and revelation, that he was the mediator of a new
covenant, that he was High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, that
he ministered in the real tabernacle in heaven, etc. These inferences
may not all be acceptable to the modern mind. They belong, many
of them at least, to a particular phUosophy and world- view that is past.
They give a kaleidoscopic picture of Jesus that could hardly be free from
inconsistencies and incongruities. Such, for instance, are the repre
sentations of Jesus as speaking when he is about to come into the world
(2:12; 10: 5), the language that denotes an inception of the Sonship and
Priesthood (5:5, 6), the implication that Jesus was one with beUeving
men before he came to earth (2:11), his relation to the angels (1:4, 6),
cleansing of the things in the heavens with his blood (9: 23), and many
other ideas which time may prove to be transitory and untenable.
But there may have been in the writer's own mind a consciousness
that part of this was realistic poetic symbolism. And even if this was
not so, it must be admitted that these peculiar features were only the
phUosophic molds into which the author poured the fuU content of his
rich religious experience.
1 McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 477 : " It was thus the humanity, and not the divinity
or pre-existence of Christ, which chiefly concerns our author." This contrast, though
fundamentally true, is put too sharply to be the best representation of the author of
the epistle.

430

IV. SOURCES AND RELATIONS OF THE THOUGHT OF
THE EPISTLE
I. SOURCES AND RELATIONS OF THE GENERAL DOCTRINE
I. CLASSIC JUDAISM
The fundamentally Jewish basis of the Epistle to the Hebrews is
easUy recognized without going to the extreme of inferring that the
readers were exclusively Jews or that the epistle must have been written
before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. and the consequent cessa
tion of the Temple ritual. As already remarked, the fundament of the
epistle is rather the ritual of classic Judaism blended with ideas from later
apocalyptic Judaism. The God of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the
Jehovah of the Old Testament who spoke in the prophets to the fathers
(1 : 2) and presided over all the fortunes of the ancient people (4:2 ff. ;
chap. 11). He is a consuming fire (12:29). The whole ritual and law
used as illustration by the writer is clearly that of the Old Testament.
The priesthood is the Levitical priesthood with the variety of thoughts
associated therewith — the thought of the sympathy of the high priest as
being weak and requiring to offer for himself as well as for the people
(5:1 f.), the idea that the high priest is not self-appointed (5:4) but
caUed of God, the idea of purification (1:3 and passim), the idea of God's
mediating by an oath as in the case of Abraham (6:13 f.; 7:28f.), the
idea of hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and bodies washed
with pure water (10:22). There is also the idea of the new covenant
taken over from the prophet Jeremiah (8:8 f.). The whole picture of
Melchizedek, though painted with Alexandrian colors, has its roots in
the Old Testament story (5 : n f .). Though much might be added, this
point need not be labored further. It is quite plain that the author of
Hebrews was steeped in Old Testament Uterature and religious ideas.
2. LATER JUDAISM AND PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY
But the writer has added ideas from later apocalyptic Judaism and
from primitive Jewish Christianity. From later Judaism the writer has
the idea of the two ages (9:26), the idea of a future judgment (9:27;
10:30 f. 12:23;), and the idea of a renovated earth as the theater of
the future messianic age (2:5; 12:26). The slight emphasis however
upon apocalyptic and eschatological ideas is quite noteworthy.
The renovation or regeneration is not limited to the earth, as in
431] 105

106 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Psalms of Solomon, but involves heaven as weU as earth, the universe
of things (12:26). This conception is based very distinctly and
precisely upon Old Testament prophecy (Hag. 2:6), but is given a
characteristic turn by reference to created things which are to be shaken
loose from the things that remain, leaving only the kingdom of abiding
reality which is the goal and prize of the believer's faith. This is a
characteristic combination of the apocalyptic view of later Judaism and
primitive Christianity with the Alexandrian conception of the invisible
world of abiding reality which is in its turn identified with the to
yevoixeva ayaOd (9:11) of Christian faith. It may be noted here that
the present tenses of 12:28 harmonize weU with the idea of a present
participation of and activity in that kingdom whose fuU revelation is still
future. From later Judaism the writer has also his doctrine of angels
(1:4; 2:5; 12:22; 13:2), though his pecuUar use and emphasis of it
may be due to other influences; his emphasis upon the thought that the
Old Testament law was given by angels (2:2); and the idea, simUar to
that of PhUo, that God or the Holy Spirit was speaking in aU the
words and ceremonies of the Old Testament (9:8).
More directly from the Christian community and their tradition,
primitive or Pauline, the writer has the doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah,
Son of God, as pre-existent, humUiated during the days of his flesh but
as raised by God and exalted at the right hand of the Majesty in the
heavens tUl aU his enemies shall have been subdued, but coming again
presumably for the complete inauguration of the messianic kingdom,
though the writer does not make his thought definite in this respect.
He has the idea also of distributions of the Holy Spirit (2:4), that God
was in all the marvelous signs and works of the postresurrection period
(2:4). From the tradition of the church the writer has also the thought
of Jesus' being of the tribe of Judah (7 : 14), of his suppUcating with tears
and strong crying for release from death (5:7). From the early church
he has his views of catechetical doctrine, which he calls the doctrine of
the beginning of the Christ (6:1), the elements of the beginning of the
doctrines of God (5:12), viz., repentance, faith in God, the teaching of
baptisms, the laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal
judgment. The eschatological views of the writer already referred to
which have their roots in Judaism are modified by the thought of the
Christian church in their application to the historical Jesus as the
Messiah. If the writer has received from primitive Christianity the
suggestion of his great thesis that Jesus is the mediator of a new cove
nant, and at the same time its great High Priest and final and sufficient
432

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 107
sacrifice (9:26, 28), who has entered into the true holy place to appear
before God on behalf of believers, he has at any rate given it an entirely
origmal application and development. With Paul the writer has the
idea of the glory and honor of Jesus in his exaltation as the reward of
the suffering of death (12:2; cf . PhU. 2 : 9). The thought that believers
are partakers of a heavenly calling is comparable to that of Paul (I Cor.
1:26). So also is his idea that the Old Testament law, the foregoing
commandment (7:18), is set aside because of its weakness (Gal. 3:21);
but his method is stiU quite distinct and original. He conceives of the
old as shadow and the new as substance, the famUiar Alexandrian
contrast. Paul does not use this category. Paul thinks of the law as a
tutor to lead to Christ by stressing the human consciousness of sinfulness
and weakness. Paul's conception is rather doctrinal and ethical: that
of the author of Hebrews is rather ritualistic and religious.
3. ALEXANDRIANISM
This dependence of the author of Hebrews upon the classic Judaism
of the Old Testament and upon later Judaism and upon primitive Chris
tianity is strongly colored and modified by his relation to Alexandrian
thought. From this source mainly he has his idea of Christ as the Logos
(though he does not apply the term to him) and as Creator and Sup
porter of the world (1 : 2), as the image and representative of God (1 :^),
possibly as a second God (1:8). He has the idea of inspiration developed
among Alexandrian Jews according to which not the actual writers but
God (1 : 1 f . ; 5:5; 8 : 8, 13) or Christ (10 : 5) or the Holy Spirit (3:7; 10 :
15) or "some one" (2:6) — a method of citation indefinite because God
himself reaUy speaks in all the Scripture — speaks in the prophets and in a
Son (1 : 2). God is for the author of Hebrews the father of spirits, not a
merely technical or phUosophical designation, but one that has a certain
warmth and beauty of religious feeling about it (12:96). This is a
characteristic Alexandrian thought.1 So is the thought of suffering as the
chastening of God.2 The peculiar use which the author of Hebrews makes
of the weird figure of Melchizedek is Alexandrian in its exegesis and in its
whole thought and atmosphere. The thought of the High-Priesthood,
whUe essentially that of the Old Testament with its emphasis on ritual,
is yet touched with the more refined, mystical, abstract conception of
PhUo's thought. The thought of heaven as being the true Sanctuary
as opposed to the sanctuary of this world which is but the copy and
shadow of the heavenly is of course thoroughly Alexandrian (8:5). The
1 Wisd. 11:26. 2Wisd. 3:5, 6.
433

108 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Alexandrian attitude and tendency of the author is evident in his method
of exegesis, in his description of the word of God (4: 12), in the terms which
he applies and the functions which he assigns to Christ (1 : 2 f.), in his
identification of Christianity with the Philonic archetypal world of invis
ible reality. 4. ORIENTAL MYSTERY-RELIGIONS
But though it is patent on every page of Hebrews that the Old Tes
tament and the primitive Christian community including Paul provide
the substance, while the form or mold in the main is Alexandrian —
yet one is occasionally conscious of a certain peculiar strain, an unusual
emphasis, a peculiar atmosphere that does not properly belong to the
above sources. The explanation of this is to be found in large part, no
doubt, in the striking originality of the writer. To this factor is to be
assigned the whole point of view and attack, as weU as many separate
thoughts. Leaving, however, the original element for later consideration, the
variation from the above-named three sources is to be accounted for by
a certain tinge from the oriental mystery-religions of the time. In the
first place, the writer's whole method of presentation is in all probability
determined by his knowledge of and a certain sympathy with the rites of
the Hellenistic mystery-religions. It has already been noted that the
writer's thought does not revolve about the temple in Jerusalem and its
services, but about the tabernacle of the Old Testament. It is to a cer
tain extent academic. But no man is wholly academic — certainly the
writer to the Hebrews is only partly so. He is in close touch with his
people, intensely hortatory and practical. He was writing considerably
after the fall of Jerusalem when the sacrifices of the temple ceased
(70 a.d.), but he was not writing to a people — gentUes though they
probably were — who were unfamiliar with such rites or familiar with
them only in Old Testament forms. Both he and they were famUiar
with variant forms of that ritual on every side about them. The ritual
of sacrifice, purification, and baptisms was dead at Jerusalem, but not at
Rome or in the place whatever it may have been to which this epistle
was sent.1 To be sure, the whole setting and presentation of the ritual
is that of the Old Testament with the Jewish high priest serving in the
tabernacle. But in its application to Jesus as the great High Priest it
reveals certain influences from the syncretistic mystery-religions of the
time. Still more emphatically one may say that this presentation of
the Christian salvation under the high-priestly category would exhibit
1 Cf. Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism.
434

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 109
many features thoroughly famUiar to the devotees of the varied oriental
cults. In spite of some uncertainty, it is possible to enumerate at least many
of the touches that seem to be more noticeable. With an emphasis and
definiteness unknown to the Old Testament, the writer of Hebrews
declares that "perfection" was the aim of the Levitical law and ritual,
an aim which it did not and could not attain but which was attained
finally and perfectly by the new law and voluntary sacrifice of Jesus as
High Priest. Both the conception of and the emphasis upon
"perfection" is, I think, indirectly the result of the influence of the
mystery-religions. Mithraism, the greatest rival of Christianity for
some centuries, was most intent on securing purification and perfection
in a very deep moral and spiritual sense1 by various rites of washing, etc.,
and all the other mystery-religions had simUar rites with a simUar
aim. The idea that sanctification (dyiao-p.ds, 12:14) is necessary in
order to see the Lord is even for our writer himself tinged with the
gnostic idea of the mystery-religions. His description of the worshipers
who are to approach the holy place with hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience, and their bodies washed with pure water keeps strictly
neither to Old Testament nor to New Testament phraseology, but bears
the marks of the mystery-religions.
The emphasis of the writer upon "salvation" has its counterpart in
the mystery-reUgions.2 It is not meant that the writer took his conception
directly from the mystery-religions. The idea of salvation, of a future
salvation, of an eternal salvation secured by participation in some form
of the divine Ufe and of the God was widespread, but it had become
widespread through the influence of the thought of mystery-religions.
Mithra was the Savior-God. Isis gave to her votaries the gift of salva
tion, which was a new life after a figurative death, a new life which
would be enjoyed to the full after death.3 The salvation of the mystery-
cults was an eternal salvation. In all this, as will be readily felt, the
thought of the mystery-religions has worked indirectly but perceptibly
upon the writer of Hebrews. Jesus Christ has become, after suffering
death and after resurrection to a new eternal, indissoluble life, the cause
of eternal salvation to all those who obey him (5:9). Jesus is o-wnfp,
'FarneE, Evolution of Religion, p. 127; Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman
Paganism, pp. 154 1.
2 Cf. Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland.
3 Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, S. 25 f.
435

110 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
"Savior," as were the deities of the various oriental cults. The vision
of God is "salvation" (11:27; i2:i4).1
And not only in the peculiar emphasis upon and atmosphere about
the concept of salvation {ermrrjpia.), but also in the significance of the term,
is the influence of the Gnosticism of the oriental religions discernible.
As is well known, these Gnostic cults amid their many variations agree
in ringing the changes upon life, light, and gnosis or knowledge. In
this, according to them, consists salvation, in contrast with the primitive
Christian community where salvation meant rather forgiveness of sins
and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33; 2:38, 47), secured upon
repentance (Acts 3 : 19 f .) and faith in Jesus Christ as risen Messiah and
Lord (Acts 3:26; 4:2). The Pauline conception of salvation reaches
to more profound and mystical depths, and by so much approaches the
conception of salvation held by the oriental cults. Paul's own salvation
was due to a superhuman enlightenment. But though Paul manifests
the influence of Gnosticism, he does not conform his conception of
salvation to that of the gnostic sects. The Pauline salvation is a
justification by faith involving forgiveness of sins, release of the con
science from the sense and burden of guilt, right relations with God, and
a new power of life generated by the mystical indweUing of Christ by
faith. The Pauline thought, while touched with Gnosticism, is rather
mystical in an independent, original manner. The writer to the Hebrews
is less mystical, but has more approach to the oriental cults in his
technical descriptions of salvation and conversion. With him con
version is an enlightenment (10:32), as with Paul (II Cor. 4:6), and
that too, a single (aVa£) enlightenment. <pmri£eiv is the technical word
of the oriental cults.2 The Epistle to the Hebrews makes very Uttle
reference to what is now called conversion, as it is directed forward
rather than backward; it is theological rather than historical. But this
reference (10:32) which it makes is decidedly gnostic. So too is the
phrase of 10: 26, also descriptive of conversion, viz., "After that we have
received the knowledge of the truth." Perhaps the peculiar use of
the term "word of hearing" (4:2), as used by this Jewish-Christian
writer, manifests a touch of influence of the mysteries. Indeed the
writer casts a strange halo about the function of hearing. He idealizes
'Cf. Reitzenstein, op. cit., S. 39 f.; also S. 25: "Ob unsere theologischen Er-
klarungen des <rwTi}p-Begriffes nicht gut taten, letztere Bedeutung auch in den Kultbe-
zeichnungen salutaris dea, Iiris otbreipa, Sdpairis aar^p ein wenig mehr zu betonen?"
Cf . also Apuleius, and Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland.
2 Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, S. 119.
436

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 111
it in the case both of Jesus and the disciples (2 : 3) and of the ancient
IsraeUtes (4:2). The oriental religions, especially in their earlier stages
of development, made much of the sacred office of "hearing." To
"hear" the word of the God was to receive his power and his inbreathing,
his wvevpa.* In the thought of the mysteries hearing was sufficient,
faith was not required. But in the thought of the writer to the Hebrews,
the ancient IsraeUtes faUed to enter into the promised rest because their
hearing was not united with faith.
There are still other touches of the mystery-religions in the Epistle
to the Hebrews. The writer's conception of faith differs somewhat from
that of Judaism, that of the primitive Christian church, and that of Paul.
It approaches the conception of the mystery-reUgions. It is intuitive and
phUosophical rather than personal and ethical as with the Jews and the
primitive Christian church, or personal, ethical, and mystical as with
Paul. In this epistle the view of faith, particularly as presented
in the eleventh chapter, reckons doctrinal content as comparatively
secondary. Insight, the vision power, is the important thing, the
reaUzation of things unseen. Faith is seeing the invisible God (n :i;
11 :27s2), which is a very close approach to the gnosis of the mystery-
religions. It is probably under the influence of these mystery-religions
that our author gives this particular turn to faith.3 This conception is
a powerful one, however, not for what it is in itself, but for its power of
reflex action. It is a giving substance to things that are as yet but
hoped for, and therefore a putting to the test of things unseen (11:1).
Closely related to this conception of faith is the writer's emphasis on
hope; this may also be a touch from the Hellenistic mysteries, which
greatly emphasized hope.
In all probabUity the peculiar emphasis of our writer upon the place
and function of angels is due to the influence of the mystery-religions.
The roots of the doctrine of angels go back to early Semitic teaching.
They bear their fruit in the emphasis upon angels in the Old Testament.
Further development is found in the figurative, phUosophical interpre
tations of PhUo with regard to the angels. But PhUo is not to be credited
with aU the development in this direction which he manifests. The
'Cf. Gal. 3:2, "received ye the spirit from the works of the law or from the
hearing of faith," i£ dKorjs irlareas ; Reitzenstein, op. cit., S. 138. A somewhat similar
use of the word dKoj is found in Corp. Herm., XIII, 17, quoted by Reitzenstein: rraaa
<pi<rts Kbajuov rrpoaSexisBui rov ipwov rijv dmfiv.
'Reitzenstem,Poimandres, S. 12; cf. Heb. 11:27.
3 Reitzenstein, op. cit., S. 85, note: rb ydp vorjaai iarl rb irurrevaai.
437

112 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
emphasis on angels is a mark of the syncretistic reUgious development of
his day. Many of the mystery-religions made much of the place and
functions of minor gods often called angels or powers.1 This was
especially true of the more pronouncedly dualistic religions, such as
that of Mithra, which was compounded with a strong Persian element.
Here there were demons under Ahriman arrayed against the good angels
who were the celestial spirits, the messengers of Ahura-Mazda.2 That
there was any direct contact between Mithraism and the Epistle to the
Hebrews it would be hazardous to state, but there may very weU have
been contact with common origins in the syncretistic religions of the day.
The writer makes much of angels. They are God's ministers sent forth
to do service for those who are to inherit salvation (1:14). In
aU probabUity the general assembly and gathering of the firstborn
enroUed in heaven is the myriads of angels (12 : 23). This does not sound
like Old Testament, primitive Christian, or Pauline doctrine, but is not
on that account to be rejected.3 This peculiar importance attached to
angels is probably mediated by the syncretistic religions of the day,
which made so much of celestial spirits, angels, powers, deities, and
demons.4 But though the author gives an exalted position to angels, it
is not at the expense of the position of Christ. Many of the oriental
syncretistic religions gave high places and great powers to these subor
dinate deities and celestial beings, as is evidenced from the gnostic
systems into which they developed. The circles to whom the writer to
the Hebrews wrote were yielding to the tendency to exalt angels unduly.
Consequently at the very beginning of his remarkable epistle the writer
claims the supreme place and the supreme name for the "Son" (1:4 f.),
adding that to Jesus and not to angels did God subject the coming age,
the perfect world that was to be, the subject of his discourse (2:5). In
the Hermetic literature the same Greek word is used in the passive,
expressing the subjection of the world to Hermes.s Such thoughts as
these led the author of this Epistle to give the supreme place in the
world to come to Jesus who alone was worthy of it.6
Is it possible that the impulse to the rich and original thought of the
sequel of this passage (2 : 5 f.), particularly of 2 : 10 f ., should have come
1 Plutarch, De Isis et Osiris, 30.
2 Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, pp. 152, 158.
3 Cf. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, ad loc.
« Plutarch, De defectu orac., 10, p. 415/I.
5 Reitzenstein, Poimandres, S. 23: Sib koI irdvra viroriraKTal <rot; cf. Heb. 10:13.
6 Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, p. 266, n. 38.
438

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 113
from the oriental cults? The picture is that of a man taken from the
midst of his companions, his brethren (2 : 1 1 f .), charged by God with the
responsibUity of leading his brethren to salvation and glory, and for this
cause becoming identified with them, vanquishing death and delivering
them from their Ufelong bondage to death (2:14 f.).1 These are the
main outlines of the Redeemer of the various mystery-religions, and
especially that of Mithra, which apparently was very mUitant and withal
very democratic. The situation reminds one also of the deliverance of
Alcestis from death by Heracles. Jesus became like his brethren that
through death he might bring to naught him that had the power of
death, that is, the devU, and deliver those who through fear of death
were all their lifetime subject to bondage (2:14 f.). Mithra was such
a redeemer on behalf of men. He was the captain and leader of the
soldiers, one of their company and in sympathy with them, the strong
companion of souls in their trials and struggles (2 : 17, 18). Like Jesus,
Mithra brought the souls of those who took the oath of loyalty to him
out of the darkness into the supernal light of the upper heaven (cf . Heb.
4:i4f.; 7:26f.; 9: n f., 24, 28). The emphasis upon devotion, loyalty,
faithfulness, the necessity of perseverance, the virUe qualities so char
acteristic of Hebrews, was characteristic of the Mithra cult.2 Mithra was
perfected, "sanctus";3 so was Jesus. Mithra led the way of souls into
the upper regions of light. Hermes also was the guide or attendant of
souls.4 So Jesus is the forerunner of believers, entering for them into the
very inner shrine, the true sanctuary, where dweUs the divine presence,
and thus opening up for his foUowers also a new and living way of access
into the divine presence (4:14; 6:20; 9:11 f.). Mithra is ptatTrjsf
so is Jesus. Do not both the ideas and the terminology here show traces
of the mystery-cults ? Mithra, Isis, OsUis, Adonis are all men who are
represented as vanquishing death in personal victory. They died and
rose as gods. Immortality and divinity are to be gained by union with
them (cf. 3:14; 5:9; 7:16). Perhaps the extremely somber tinge in
Hebrews has some relation to the simUar feeling of awe that attended
the mystery-cults.
There is a striking parallel drawn between Moses and Jesus in their
relation to the house of God, showing the superiority of Jesus (3:2 f.).
1 Cumont, op. cit., p. 1536. 2 Cumont, op. cit., pp. 153, 156 f.
3 Cumont, op. cit., p. 269.
* Reitzenstein, Poimandres, S. 236 : " Die Tatigkeit dieses Hermes ist nach der von
Dieterich herausgegebenen Theogonie das oSrryeiv der Seele."
s Plutarch, De Isis et Osiris, 46; cf. Gruppe, Griech. Mythologie, S. 159.
439

114 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
In this passage the phrase oTkos tov Beov is used in an unusual man
ner, equivalent to "household" and denoting Christian believers
(3:6). An approach to this peculiar use is quoted by Reitzenstein."
To Heb. 2:10, "For whom are all things and through whom are all
things," there is found a close parallel in the mystery-religions as given
by Berthelot,2 ev to irav koX 81 avTOV to rrav ko\ els airo to irav (cf. Rom.
11:36). There are still many simUarities in Hebrews as compared with the
mystery-cults. The mystae were called "brethren," and ayioi,3 and
were considered as receiving a heavenly calling (3:1). The emphasis
in the epistle upon the fact that Christ did not presume to take this high
and holy office of Priesthood to himself but was caUed of God (5:4, 5)
has its counterpart in the mystic cults.4 The worthy worship of the
mystic on seeing the vision of God and securing salvation is the song of
praise (cf. 13 : 15). The mystic after his new birth is fed with milk until
he is able to bear the deeper mysteries.5 Among some of the deity
worshipers of the mystery-cults the deity was Be6s vi/aoros (cf . Heb. 7 : 1).
The thought of Jesus as the "great shepherd" may have its roots in
the Hermetic literature of the mystery-reUgions, as is the case with John,
chap. 10, the Shepherd of Hermas, and other Christian passages.6
There are other ideas in Hebrews which might suggest the influence
of mystery-cults, but about which there must remain considerable
uncertainty, at least in the present state of knowledge upon the subject.
They may be mentioned briefly. The description of the word of God as
living, active, etc., of 4:12; the thought of a general assembly and
gathering in heaven, an assembly of spirit-beings of whom Jesus is one
(12 : 23) having gone through the heavens (4: 14; 7 : 26) may be paraUeled
by the ascension of Mithra and stUl more closely by that of Hermes7 the
Great who was exalted to the spirit world and classed among the number
of the spirits. As to the deep conviction of the writer of Hebrews that
the old priesthood and the old covenant have failed to meet the deep
need of the conscience and therefore have passed away, because God
who spoke formerly in the prophets has now spoken in a Son, Jesus,
1 Op. cit., S. 25: 0 of/cos tow iravTOKpdropos Beov; cf. footnote 1.
2Alchemistes grecs, Introduction, S. 133.
3 Reitzenstein, op. cit., S. 27.
<Ibid., S. 256, 266.
5Ibid., S. 52, 53; cf. I Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12.
6 Reitzenstein, op. cit., S. 346, 35; also cf. ibid., Gebet, VIII, IX, S. 31, n. 3.
' Reitzenstein, op. cit., S. 171 and n. 3.
440

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 115
may this profound thought, with its roots in the Melchizedek-story
of the Old Testament and in Jeremiah, have had its counterpart in the
idea of the mystery-religions that if God spoke to an individual con
secrated to himself, that word, that revelation superseded the earlier?1
Summary. — This presentation is by no means complete. The aim
has simply been to show that there is some influence from the mystery-
religions of the time upon the Epistle to the Hebrews — more than has
been recognized. Indeed it would be hazardous at this stage of the
historical study of the relation of primitive Christianity to the Hellenistic
mystery-religions to say with precision just how much from the mystery-
reUgions is found in any of the New Testament books — even in that one
in which the mystery-element is most easily detected, the Fourth
Gospel. It can only be said of the New Testament as a whole, as has
been said just above of this epistle, that the element from the mystery-
reUgions is larger than has been generally recognized.
With stUl less certainty can the exact nature and sources of this
relationship be stated. In the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews at
least, it is clear that classic Judaism as seen in the Old Testament,
Alexandrianism, and primitive Christianity including Paulinism, fqrm the
three main strands. But it is to be noted that in all probability Alex
andrianism, whose influence in the book is clear and has been emphasized,
is not nearly so much of a unit as has hitherto been thought. It (and
particularly Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon) has been more strongly
charged with the mystery element of the syncretism of the day than we
have supposed. In any case it is hoped it will be clear from the above
that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews was neither a man who
interpreted and presented Christianity from the current Judaism of
his day as it was carried out in rite and ceremony, nor on the other hand
was he ah academic recluse who viewed the ancient tabernacle afar off
and theorized upon it. It may be added that he was not fundamentally
ethical and eschatological as were the synoptists, not profoundly ethical,
phUosophical, and mystical as was Paul, nor yet so non-eschatological,
phUosophical, and mystical as the author of the Fourth Gospel. He was
a cultured, earnest man (probably a Jew of the Dispersion) who felt
within himself the deep need for a redemption (9:12), a purification
(9:14), and a salvation (7:25) which would be satisfactory and final,
for both the present and the future. Like Paul, he felt the whole
creation groaning and travailing together, and longed for a satisfactory
deliverance. This he found secured for the present and the future in
*Ibid., S. 18 f. 441

116 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Jesus Christ, and sealed in his own personal experience, upon the testi
mony of those who had known and heard Jesus himself. When however
he would express this experience, when he would expound the thought-
relations of his new faith which, in its religious substance, he had received
from the Christian tradition, he fell back instinctively upon the Jewish
Scriptures and the Jewish ritual and law or covenant. As compared
with Paul and the primitive Christian community, however, the writer
of Hebrews makes much more of the Levitical ritual and particularly of
the category of the high-priesthood and its sacrifices. The Christian
tradition had indeed come to connect the forgiveness of sin at first with
the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (Acts 3 : 26; 5:31), and later with
his crucifixion and death (Matt. 26: 28). Paul also had made close con
nection between forgiveness and the death of Jesus (Rom. 4:25), and
had even made an approach toward explaining the significance and work
of Jesus by use of the Old Testament ritual (I Cor. 5 : 7). But it is to be
noted that this reference to Christ as the Passover sacrifice is not
employed by Paul to expound the significance of the death of Christ,
but to point quite another lesson (I Cor. 5:8). It was left for the writer
of the Hebrews to blaze the way toward a thorough exposition of the
significance of Jesus and of primitive Christianity by reference to the
Levitical priesthood and ritual of the Old Testament.
This frame of thought which our author uses for the exposition of his
Christian experience secured through the Christian tradition is fiUed in,
so to speak, under the immediate influence of two contemporaneous
movements of thought, viz., Alexandrianism and the syncretism of the
mystery-religions. As has been already noted, these two were not by
any means wholly independent, for the latter had influenced the former.
But practically they were two quite distinguishable streams of thought.
The former gave to our author the great contrast of the Koerjxos vorrros
and the Kocrpos aierBrjros, which he uses with such splendid effect in
the exposition of his Christian experience. Both Paul and our author
had broken decisively with ancient Judaism in their thought of Chris
tianity as an independent and final movement. But each is independent
and different in his conception of the relation of the new to the old, or
at least in his expression of that conception. With Paul the law
(Paul puts no emphasis whatever on the ritual) was intercalated, tem
porary, and preparatory. The real thing both before and after the law
was faith and the promises of God. The law was but a paidagogos to
bring men to Christ (Gal. 3:7 f.). This was quite derogatory to the
law, and it is not surprising that in the wake of Paul's view many extreme
442

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 117
heresies followed, subversive of elements of value in Judaism. Our
author on the other hand views the law and the ritual as temporary
and preparatory, but not as intercalated. The Alexandrian contrast is
seized upon by our author. The law and its ritual is an adumbration
only of the real thing, an imperfect copy of the heavenly antitype; it
belongs to "this" world, the world of the visible and tangible. Jesus
Christ and Christianity, on the other hand, in spite of a certain unsatis
factory indefiniteness, are meant evidently to be identified with the
"other" world, with the world of heavenly realities, the world of the
invisible and intangible. The Old Testament law and ritual were but
shadow: Christianity is the substance. It would surely be ingratitude
to complain of our author because he has still left Christianity bound up
with a contrast, both of tune and space, as E. F. Scott seems to do.1
We ought to be thankful that he has set up the contrast which is bound
to be permanent in some form in the Christian view and has identified
Christianity with the other world of permanent realities. He could
express his feeling of the contrast only in some one of the thought-forms
of his day and he chose the Platonic-PhUonic form because it came to
him spontaneously and naturally as the best and richest medium of
expression. But the writer's frame of thought was filled out also from the syn
cretism of the mystery-religions of his day. This element may be
comparatively small, but it is an influence that must be noted. That
our writer emphasized the ritual while Paul spoke only of the law may be
due to the contemporaneous influence of the rites and ceremonies of the
mystery-cults. Their influence on his idea of the function of the angels,
on his conception of faith, of revelation, of perfection, of conversion as
enUghtenment, of voluntary self-offering, as well as on many other
conceptions of the writer, has been noticed. But the chief influence of
the mystery-religions has been upon the writer's conception, or perhaps
rather, description, of salvation and redemption and upon his picture of
Jesus as the divine-human Redeemer. This influence is indirect, prob
ably, and is shared by other Christian writers, e.g., Paul. But it is more
marked in Hebrews than in Paul, inasmuch as Hebrews makes much
more of the human element in Jesus than does Paul. With the author
of Hebrews Jesus is pre-existent, to be sure, but yet a man who has
struggled through opposition and suffering to personal perfection, who
has fought his way to victory over death and him who has the power of
death. He has done this as an earnest, God-fearing, devout man who
1 Apologetic of the New Testament, pp. 202, 203.
443

118 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
has therefore, being called and exalted by God, become the Redeemer
and Savior of men, having passed through the heavens and entered the
inner sanctuary of God's presence. This picture of Jesus is modeled
after the human redeemer of the mystery-religions much more than that
of Paul is. It occurs at a more advanced stage. On the other hand, as
compared with the Fourth Gospel, the influence of the mystery-religions
is less and earUer. In Hebrews the influence of the mystery-reUgions is
ritualistic and reUgious in its character. In the Fourth Gospel it has
become decidedly phUosophical. It is not phUosophical in Hebrews.
In fact, one might say that in the Fourth Gospel the influence is that
of the later Gnosticism, not of the earlier mystery-reUgions. In the
Fourth Gospel the picture of Christ is not at aU that of the devout,
faithful man struggUng toward perfection and victory and so mediating
salvation. He is a real man in theory, to be sure, as must be held
against extreme Gnosticism, but he is actually and always the perfect
divine form of the Son of God. It may of course be repUed that he is
really such in Hebrews also, and there is a certain degree of truth in the
statement. But the emphasis is very much more upon the human side
involving faithfulness, struggle, and development. This is evident from
the very vivid and realistic picture of Jesus given in Heb. 5:7-10, a
passage which bears marks of the influence of the mystery-reUgions with
their pictures of the human-divine Redeemer.
5. PROBABLE ORIGINAL ELEMENTS
To return to the attempt to present the various strands of the
writer's thought, it is necessary only to call attention finaUy to what
seem in all probabUity to be the original thoughts of the writer. This
is a rather difficult task. The original element in a writer wUl vary or
even vanish according to the severity of the critic's judgment. The
effort to trace genetic development is apt to eliminate the original
element, with the result that no individual is origmal. AUowance must
be made for difference of opinion. Strict and definite decisions are quite
impossible, but the foUowing is an attempt to set forth in a general and
brief way the elements probably original in Hebrews.
As already noted, the effort to set forth the significance and supe
riority of Christ and Christianity by extended and detaUed comparison
with the Old Testament ritual and law is original with our writer. Very
soon, indeed, after the resurrection of Jesus the Christians began to see in
Jesus and the new movement the fulfilment of various Old Testament
prophecies (Acts 1:20; 2:i6f.; 4:25). This conviction entered the
444

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 119
earliest tradition (Mark 1:2-8; cf. Matt. 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18), and is
especially prominent in Matthew's Gospel. Paul had made much of the
same thought (Rom. 1:2; 3:21; 16:26; Gal. 3:8, etc.). But no one
makes the close connection which the writer of this epistle makes. No
one had deliberately chosen the Old Testament ritual and law as the
background against which to present in fulness of detaU, partly as
paraUel, partly as contrast, the substance of the significance of Jesus
Christ and the Christian system. This was original with the author
of Hebrews. Insight into the weakness and unsatisf actoriness of the Old Testament
law and ritual was not origmal. Paul felt it in very much the same way
(Gal. 3:21). But conceiving of the Old Testament law and ritual as
shadow and identifying Christianity with the substance is original. A
feeling of the necessity of sacrifice for the sake of forgiveness and inner
moral harmony and victory is common to both Paul and our author,
more profoundly felt by Paul but more expressly stated by Hebrews
(9:22; 10:4). But our author is original in the clearness and definiteness
with which he feels and states that the essence of the final religion,
Christianity, consists in two things, viz., the forgiveness of sins implying
a cleansing of the conscience on the one hand (9:14), and on the other
communion with and devotion to the service of the living God, father of
Jesus Christ (9:14; 10:19, passim). The writer feels that where this
is attained, all rites and ceremonies are forthwith rendered useless and
obsolete (10:18); so much so that he apparently has no place for the
forgiveness of further sins (10:26 f.) as the Johannine author has (I
John 1 : 7 f.). This view of salvation is not attended by an elaborate
and profound theological system. It is original in its directness and
simpUcity. The attainment of this final goal of satisfactory religious
experience is assigned, causally, whoUy to the voluntary sacrifice of the
perfected Christ (5:9; io:i9f.), interpreted according to the ritual of
Old Testament sacrifice. But it is very plain that the basal reality is
the experience and not the interpretation.
The author is original in being the first to relate the new to the old
as being both revelations of the one Uving God parallel to each other,
though the revelation in the Son is supreme and final. It is noteworthy
too that he compares the revelation in Jesus to the revelation in the
prophets (: :i f.).
There are many other comparatively minor elements which are
peculiar to, the author. Such, for example, are his line of argument
showing Jesus Christ to be superior to the angels, to Moses, and to the
445

120 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Levitical high priest, as well as his idea of the superiority of the new
sacrifice and the new covenant; the idea of the perfecting of Jesus
through suffering; the identification of Jesus as captain of salvation
with the sons whom God is bringing unto glory, an identification com
plete in all respects excepting sin; the idea that Jesus is not ashamed to
call these sons brethren; the idea of believers as God's house with Moses
in it and Jesus over it, both alike faithful, the one as servant, the other
as Son; the idea of a sabbatismos or spiritual rest with God; the idea of
the impossibility of a second repentance, forgiveness, and restoration
(6:6); the idea of "tasting," which is so frequent with the author,
tasting of death (2:9), tasting of the heavenly gift, the good word of
God, the powers of the age to come (6:4f.); the idea of hope entering
as an anchor into the inner sanctuary and steadying the soul (6:19);
the idea of Jesus as a forerunner (6:20); the thought that Jesus is High
Priest by oath of God (7 : 20) ; that Jesus is the surety of a better cove
nant (7:22); interpretation of the veU as indication of the thought that
access into the fulness of God's presence was not yet secured (9:8); the
idea that the veil is the flesh of Jesus (10: 20) (this may turn out to be
an idea from the mystery-religions) ; the repeated exhortation to patience,
confidence, and obedience in order to secure the promise which still
reaches into the future for the readers as it had for their fathers (10:39;
1 1 : 40) ; the idea of Jesus as the leader and perfecter of faith (12:2); the
emphasis upon the greater danger, responsibUity, and punishment of
apostates (12:14 f-)> upon the need of meeting together, confessing to
the name of God, offering the sacrifice of praise, etc. (13:15).
II. SOURCES AND RELATIONS OF THE CHRISTOLOGICAL DOCTRINE,
INCLUDING AN OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY
I. CONSIDERATION OF PS. 2 : 7 AS USED IN HEB. r : 5 AND 5 : 5
In considering more precisely the sources and relations of the chris
tological doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews the starting-point wUl be
the passage already discussed with considerable fulness and found as a
quotation from Ps. 2:7 in Heb. 1:5 and 5:5, viz., "Thou art my son, I
today have begotten thee." This passage is quoted in the first case
(1 : 5) as proving the superior dignity of the Son over that of the angels;
in the second case (5 : 5) as constituting the call by God to the High-
Priesthood. It has been shown above that this quotation is a remnant
of the adoption Christology, probably the earliest form of Christology
held by the primitive church (Acts 2:22, 36). It is not at ell a. propos
of the situation in Hebrews, as the Christology of the writer of the
446

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 121
Epistle is certainly not the adoption Christology. Any Uteral and in
fact any meaningful application of the phrase in the connection in
Hebrews (i : 5 and 5:5) is impossible. Where and when could and did
the phrase have a proper meaning as applied to Jesus? The most
satisfactory answer seems to be furnished by the words of Paul in his
address in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:33-39). It is
true that this passage does not happen to fall within the earlier twelve
chapters which clearly represent a primitive Christology. But a double
answer to this objection may be made. First, the thought of the passage
(Acts 13:33-39) is very closely paralleled by various passages in the
earlier chapters (Acts 2:22-36; 3:18-26; 5:30-32), although the words
from Ps. 2:7 are not quoted. Secondly, there are good reasons for
beUeving that Luke is here in substance following good sources.1 But
this passage itself is ambiguous. The words "having raised up Jesus"
of vs. 33 may refer to God's bringing Jesus into his active prophetic
work of preaching and so be locaUzed in the Baptism (cf. Acts 3:22;
I3:22).a On the other hand it may refer to the Resurrection.3 It would
seem most probable that Chase's point is well taken in referring Acts
13:32 to the Baptism of Jesus and Acts 13:34 to the Resurrection, and
in drawing a comparison with Rom. 1:4 where, by emphasizing the
phrase "with power," a distinct though latent reference to the declara
tion of Sonship at the Baptism may be felt.
If this is so, then these two passages (Acts 13:32, 33 and Rom. 1:4)
represent a stage of christological development with two prominent foci,
viz., the Baptism and the Resurrection.4 They are not mutually
exclusive except to the severely logical. Both however were unsatis
factory declarations of Sonship as primitive Christian thought struggled
in its polemic with Greek phUosophy and the mystery-religions. A
higher conception of Sonship must be developed, both to express the
wonderful significance of Jesus as it dawned increasingly upon the early
Christians and to cope adequately with the higher conceptions of the
Graeco-Roman world of reUgious thought. The thought of the Resur
rection in the Sonship of Jesus naturally became more prominent while
the thought of the Baptism in connection with Sonship vanished. So
the most plausible though not necessary references of the quotations of
1 Chase, The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 179 f.; Harnack,
The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 195 f .
2 So Chase, op. cit., pp. 187 f.
3 So H. J. Holtzmann, Handcommentar zum N.T., ad loc.
4Cf. Luke 3: 22; D et al. 447

122 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Ps. 2:7 in Hebrews (1:5; 5:5) is to the time of the Resurrection. For
the early Christians the Resurrection was the more prominent, but their
conception of Jesus' experience at the Baptism did not fail them. They
were consistent adoptionists. With Paul the idea of Sonship by divine
choice and descent of the spirit at the Baptism was latent and unempha-
sized, if present at all. With the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews
the idea of Sonship at the Baptism was gone and the idea of Sonship by
the Resurrection was latent and unemphasized. Both Paul and this
writer had made far advance toward the higher category of essential
Sonship implying pre-existence and some approach to Deity. In certain
circles the inception of Sonship was pushed back to the very beginning
of the earthly life and made dependent directly upon God himself
(Matt. i:i8=Luke 1:35) and essential, not merely declarative or
adoptive. The Fourth Gospel, as is well known, aboUshes the thought
of the inception of Sonship entirely. Jesus was the incarnation of the
Logos, the word made flesh, the eternal Son of God.
2. JESTTS' SELF-ESTIMATE
What was Jesus' own conception of his Sonship and of the Baptism
experience in relation to it ? The most varied answers are given to this
question. On the one hand he is conceived as a thoroughgoing but sadly
deluded eschatologist (Schweitzer); on the other, by clever critical
cutting and slashing, every eschatological reference and thought is
removed from him (Sharman). Again, by the orthodox view he is
credited with a thought of himself as Son of God and Savior of men,
such as Paul or the Fourth Gospel held of him (Warfield). By others
(Harnack) he was in his own thought of himself and his mission a mono-
theist of the purest type whose whole thought and only thought was of
God and the Kingdom of God, who had not the slightest thought of
interjecting himself in any sense or to any degree between his brother-
men and God.
The following presentation of Jesus' thought of himself is meant to
be tentative. In spite of the fact that mediating views are apt to be
unsatisfactory, it appears increasingly probable that in this case only a
mediating view of some sort wUl meet the most important facts and
satisfy the situation. At the heart and at the summit of Jesus' reUgious
life and thought there were two dominant and all-engrossing conceptions,
viz., his conception of God and his conception of the Kingdom of God.
With Jesus, God is supreme, and never for one moment does he think of
displacing or supplanting God as the sole and supreme object, not only
448

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 123
of his own affections and efforts, but also of the affections and efforts of
his fellow-men (Mark 12 : 29, 30 )|). There can be no discounting of this
fact so strongly emphasized by the religious-historical school of interpre
tation. And yet the records and experience of primitive Christianity
demand caution in two directions. In the first place, the most careful
and conscientious historical criticism leaves a residuum which demands
for Jesus in his thought of himself a unique place, not only in the fate
and fortune of his nation and of individual persons (Mark 1:22 ||;
2:9^; 8: 28 [[ ; Matt. 23:29 f.=Luke n:47f.; Matt. n:n=Luke 7:28;
Mark 2:21 f. ||; Mark 10:17 f.; Mark 10:45, etc.),1 but also in his
relation to God (Mark 1 : 11 ]| and in Q [second source]; Matt. 4:1-11 ||
=Luke 4:1-12; Mark 14:61 ||; Matt. n:27=Luke io:22).2 It is
clear that Jesus possessed unique God-consciousness. The conditions of
possessing it, however, were not exclusive or peculiar to himself. He
expected others to share it, yet only through himself (Matt. 11:27).
Its uniqueness was not necessarily a soUtary, exclusive thing: it was a
simple fact.3 The incidents and words which remain after historical
criticism of the synoptic picture of Jesus, indicate that in his own thought
Jesus became the way to God, the mediator of this unique God-
consciousness which for Jesus also implied salvation.4 The liberal school
recognizes this high place which Jesus took in his own thought and
bearing — a certain commanding, Napoleonic attitude in the moral and
spiritual realm of God and of national and human Ufe. But with them
it is simply the regular attitude of the prophet. It is doubtful however
whether such an explanation wUl prove satisfactory. Some special
explanation is demanded, and need not be feared provided one remem
bers constantly that it is the fact of Jesus' consciousness and men's
experience that is of supreme and permanent value, not the explanation,
even though it be the right one.5
1 Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, sec. 32, recognizes this quite
keenly. 2 Harnack, What Is Christianity? p. 128, minimizes the depth and richness of this
passage (Matt. 11:27). In its original form it was probably less Johannine in its
atmosphere and significance, but in its clear depths rich personal relationships are
mirrored rather than mere knowledge.
3 Weinel, op. cit., sec. 33, S. 1856.
4 Weinel, op. cit., sec. 24.
5 The liberal school has done splendid work in presenting the historical Jesus.
Because of the excellence of its work one is reluctant to criticize. But it is a fact that
in one sentence they put such a high estimate upon Jesus that they place him per
manently beyond our reach (Bousset, Jesus, p. 149: "He is, and must remain, beyond,
449

124 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
In the second place, caution against over-accentuating the supremacy
of God in Jesus' thought must be corrected by remembering that preg
nant word of Jesus himself that a prophet is not without honor save in
his own country and among his own kin and in his own house (Mark
6:4=Matt. 13:57)- Rarely is a great man's significance rightly esti
mated by his own generation and his own people. But does this not
apply to the great man himself? Can he see himself in his true sig
nificance ? Can he evaluate himself and his work precisely ? And even
if he can, need he consciously insist on that evaluation and the position
consonant therewith ? In the increasing recognition of the contribution
of the general social religious consciousness to the Christianity of the first
century is it not necessary to make room for an added increment to the
significance of Jesus, recognized not by himself but by the primitive
Christian community? The immense results foUowing in the wake of
Jesus' life and death surely contributed something to the elucidation of
Jesus' significance, much as the results following upon the pubUcation of
the origin of species contributed something to the elucidation of the
significance of Darwin. The results of the Christian movement may
quite legitimately show that Jesus' significance was greater, his position
higher than he himself claimed, indeed than he himself was conscious of.
It depends on a careful consideration of aU the facts, not merely and
only upon arriving at Jesus' own self-estimate.1
Next to the thought of God as Father, the conception of the Kingdom
of God aroused the enthusiasm and engaged the attention and effort of
Jesus. His thought of the Kingdom was not purely eschatological
(Schweitzer), not purely inner and ethical (Harnack) ; not whoUy future,
not wholly present. Jesus changed the meaning and content of the terms
Kingdom of God and Messiah for the better in much the same way as
our reach "), while in another sentence they tend to minimize his person and function.
Their high estimate of Jesus leaves the impression of being somewhat reluctantly
given. They reject the orthodox explanation of his uniqueness or divinity, yet they
hold to his uniqueness without apparently feeling under obligation to give another
and better explanation. They exalt Jesus beyond the confines and experiences of
humanity as humanity is regularly considered, while they expect their readers never
theless to consider Jesus as being wholly and only within the human category. An
explanation of some kind is called for. The real heresy (if the unfortunate word may be
permitted) is not that view which rejects the orthodox or any other explanation of the
uniqueness of Jesus, but the view which holds to the uniqueness of Jesus and yet says
that no special explanation of it is necessary. Bousset however makes some very
helpful suggestions in "The Significance of the PersonaUty of Jesus for Belief," Pro
ceedings of Fifth International Congress of Free Christianity, 1910, p. 208.
1 Case, The Historicity of Jesus, p. 272. 450

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 125
certain men changed the meaning and content of the word "tyrant" for
the worse. Jesus eliminated the political element so prominent in the
Jewish thought of his day (Mark 11:10; Acts 1:6, etc.; cf. the Zealot
movement). Yet the Kingdom was with him no organization, at least
in any formal sense. It was simply the company of those who with
faith in God Uved or sought to live the Ufe of purity, simplicity, honesty,
freedom, humUity, service, and love, such as was pleasing to God and
necessary to communion with the father — such as he himself enjoyed.
To be sure, this new life was something more radical and intense than
the mere stringing together of the foregoing words indicates. It might
be described as a new birth, but Jesus had no technical or doctrinal
name for it. Faith in the Father whom Jesus revealed, so to speak,
released an inner spring which gave the impulse to return to God Uke
the Prodigal in penitence, prayer, and devotion to God's wiU as supreme.
Forgiveness, freedom from care and sorrow, confidence in the goodness
and care of God, mingled with an element of fear, and hope for the
future, foUow. Men thus living together in love to God and their fel
lows form the heart and substance of the Kingdom of God in Jesus'
conception of it.
Thus it may be said that in substance, even if not in expression and
form, the Kingdom of God in Jesus' conception is something present,
as some of his parables teach (Mark 4: 30-3 2 = Matt. 13:31 f. = Luke
13 : 18-21). The little company of the disciples was the beginning of the
Kingdom (Mark 10:42 ||). But this is not aU. Jesus realized, per
haps increasingly, that there was what he conceived to be a kingdom
of this world, a kingdom of Satan over against the Kingdom of God
(Mark 1 : 12, 13 |[). In the healing of men, in the casting out of demons
(Matt. 12:28), in the work both of himself and his disciples, he saw
the Kingdom of God coming (Luke 10:18; Mark 3:23). He evi
dently felt that by more enthusiastic effort on both his own part and
that of his disciples he could hasten the coming of the Kingdom (Mark
1: 35-39) .x But he felt that the Kingdom was not fully come (Matt.
6: 10= Luke 11:2), yea, that it could not fuUy come except by a world-
catastrophe which was at the same time an act of God and a judgment of
God which would set the seal upon his work and give him the supreme
place in the Kingdom (Mark 10:35 f. ||). Jesus also felt his death as in
some sense a necessary service for this coming of the Kingdom (Mark
8:27 f.). In all this Jesus shared the national and apocalyptic ideas of
his time. Doubtless this element has been exaggerated by his reporters.
1 Scott, The Kingdom and the Messiah, p. 134-
451

126 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
They put undue emphasis upon that which to them was supreme (Acts
i :6 f.). How much of this apocalyptic element Jesus himself shared no
one can say precisely, but that he shared some of the eschatological
views cannot successfully be denied, though he was very sober and
restrained (Mark 13:32; Acts 1:6). Technically Jesus was not an
apocalyptist, though he shared some of the apocalyptical views of his
day.1 If apocalyptic ideas had not been ready to hand, Jesus' con
sciousness and knowledge of God as Father, as good and holy, the
enthusiasm of his life with God must have developed some other con
ception of the future final victory of God and righteousness. Jesus did
not have the view of a world developing according to the modern scientific
evolutionary conception. He could conceive of the consummation of the
Kingdom only in the form of a personal victory of God and his Kingdom
over Satan and his Kingdom. This must take some time; it must
depend upon the will of God and upon the act of God. Hence Jesus' use
of apocalyptic views. But they do not express the heart of his thought
and message.
But Jesus felt himself called to be the chief instrument in God's
hand of bringing in the Kingdom of God. No doubt the acceptance of
this official duty of Messiahship sprang from Jesus' own deep and
distinctive religious life in relation to the Father, and his conception of
the messianic function was assimUated in large measure to his conception
of life in communion and harmony with God and in earnest and aggres
sive fulfilment of his will. He poured into the title a new meaning
distilled from the depths of his own deep religious experience of God and
life. Most probably he felt the messianic call in the Baptism experience.
If so, it was rooted in his sense of filial sonship which was also personal,
ethical, religious.2 The fact that the current messianic doctrine was not
in harmony with this deep sense of sonship compeUed Jesus to withhold
the idea that he was the Messiah. When he claimed to be the Messiah,
he wished the claim to be based, not on signs or on outward display,
but upon inward merit and reality. Hence he did not proclaim himself
Messiah, but expected his disciples and the people to discover it for
themselves (Mark 8:27 ||; Matt. n:4=Luke 7:22). He in a large
measure spiritualized the concept of the Messiah as he did that of the
Law and the Kingdom.
1 Weinel, op. cit., sec. 8.
2 Cf. Luke 3 : 22, cod. D, "Thou art my son, today have I begotten thee," which
reading may have been taken from Q by Luke; Wellhausen, Einleitung, S. 74; Harnack,
Spriiche und Reden Jesu, S. 136, 218 f . 452

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 127
There is much uncertainty about the significance of the term Son of
Man in Jesus' thought and usage, and the uncertainty seems to be
increasing rather than diminishing. What was the origin and significance
of the term?1 Did Jesus use the term of himself, and if so to what
extent and with what meaning ? Was the term a current one for the
Messiah in Jesus' day and U so, how could he use it of himself and keep
his Messiahship secret tUl toward the close of his ministry ? Difficulty
and some uncertainty hover about the answers to these questions. It
seems clear that in apocalyptic circles of Jesus' day the phrase "Son
of Man" was used of the Messiah. In fact it gives to o xpicrrck its
particular New Testament content.2 It is to be noted however that there
is considerable variation in the form of the title indicating in all
probabUity a lack of definiteness and fixedness in its meaning.3 All
things considered, it is entirely probable that Jesus used the term, though
to what extent and with what significance it is difficult to say. A study
of the passages in which the term occurs reveals two distinct classes, the
one speaking of the Son of Man as lowly, destitute, suffering, a self-title
of Jesus; the other, as exalted, coming upon the clouds of glory, like the
Son of Man of apocalyptic. Weinel4 holds that in this clear distinction
there Ues at once the main problem in connection with the title " Son of
Man" and the solution of it. Only the latter, the eschatological
passages, are really genuine, for only Jesus could say, "The Son of
Man wUl come." Others would say, if the title denoted Jesus, "The
Son of Man wUl come again." But though Jesus spoke of the Son of
Man as another person, he himself considered himself the Son of Man,
and so his reporters were not substantially wrong in giving him the title
in the other group of passages.5 Weinel rejects the idea that Jesus may
have used the term just because it was many-sided and somewhat
enigmatic. Someone would surely have asked its significance, as the
Fourth Gospel represents the Jews doing later.6 Is this argument not
1 Babylonian, say Hommel (Expository Times, XI, 341 f .) and Zimmem (Archiv
fur Religionswiss., II, 165, 1899), connecting it with the Adapa-Marduk myth; cf. also
W. B. Kristensen, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1911, De Term, "Zoon des Menschen," S.
1-38; F. P. Badham, ibid., The title " Son of Man," S. 395-448-
2 Book of Enoch, 36:1 ff.; 46:1 ff.; 480:2,11; 486 : 2 et passim; cf. Volz, Judische
Eschatologie, S. 214.
s Volz, op. cit., S. 214: "Der Wechsel im Ausdruck zeigt aber, dass der Terminus
noch nicht fixiert war."
*Bib. Theol. d. N.T., S. 199.
s Weinel, Bib. Theol. d. N.T., sec. 34, "Der Menschensohn."
6 John 12 :34: Who is this Son of Man ?
453

128 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
too hypothetical and, so to speak, too clear-cut? There were various
forms of the messianic hope current in Jesus' day in different circles.
There was the narrow conception of the Zealots; there was the some
what wider national hope which thought of the Messiah as Son of David
(Luke 20:41); there was the wider apocalyptic conception of the Son
of Man, current possibly only in comparatively limited circles; and there
were various shades between.1 Among the people with whom Jesus
worked, and even with his disciples, Jesus might conceivably have
occasionally used the title Son of Man, with more or less distinct reference
to himself, even before he openly declared himself to them as the
Messiah. But the element of uncertainty increases here. It is clear
however that for some special reason Jesus preferred the title Son of
Man rather than Son of David or Son of God, and that he used it at
first possibly with latent but finally with open reference to himself.
The same holds true substantially of the title " Messiah." That which
impelled him to use these titles was his profound sense of Sonship. The
titles formed the mold, the sense of Sonship gave to them their essential
content. Though very restrained in depicting the future, Jesus evidently
expected (in spite of death, which he felt to be in some sense a means to
an end) the overthrow of the kingdom of Satan, the establishment of the
Kingdom of God some time in the near but unknown future, by some sort
of special intervention of God himself. Possibly he felt assured of his
own restoration, in spite of death, and so spoke of it to his disciples that
on looking back they were satisfied that he had been speaking to them of
his resurrection. With the consummation of the Kingdom of God, Jesus
associated judgment, probably with himself as judge under God. Prob
ably too he expected a general resurrection of some sort (Mark 10:40;
Matt. 8:11, i2=Luke 13:28 f.).
Secondary then in Jesus' estimate of himself, but genuine, is his
conception of himself as Messiah, of the future consummation of the
Kingdom accompanied by resurrection and judgment and the over
throw of Satan and his kingdom; primary, is his profound consciousness
of God and life with God begetting within him the conviction that
salvation (though he does not use the term) consisted in or perhaps
rather issued from this knowledge of God and life with God, and that he
not only in his example and his teaching but in some way in his person
mediated this knowledge of God and salvation which was something such
1 Heitmuller, art. "Jesus Christus," II, 5b, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegen-
warl, Bd. III. 454

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 129
as not even the prophets had known, something new in the world (Matt.
io:37=Luke 14:26; Matt. 8:2i=Luke 9:60; Matt. i3:i7=Luke
10:23; Matt. 11:27 f.). This does not necessarily mean that Jesus
required that men should believe in him for this salvation, as the Fourth
Gospel represents, though this would seem to be a very natural and
easy advance to make. It means only that Jesus in his own thought
felt himseli to be in some sense a mediator, yes, the (Matt. 11:27 *•)
mediator in actual fact between God and men. In the last analysis,
however, the difference on this point between the synoptic and the
Johannine representation is more one of form than one of substance. In
Johannine terminology the synoptic Jesus felt himself to be the revelation
of God and the "way" to God.
3. PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN CHRISTOLOGY
From this tentative statement of Jesus' self-estimate we pass to the
earliest Christian views of Jesus, the earliest Christian Christology. It
has been commonly felt that from the time of their conviction of Jesus'
resurrection the first Christians began forthwith to depart from Jesus'
conception of himseff. They began to lay the emphasis upon the
secondary elements above mentioned and not upon the primary elements.
This is true only in a measure. They laid emphasis on both primary and
secondary elements in different degrees and at different times and places.
Beyond reasonable doubt the earliest form of Christology was that
Jesus was the Messiah. During Jesus' Ufe some at least believed,
perhaps rather hoped, that he would prove to be the Messiah and would
declare himself as such. But it was only their faith in the Resurrection
of Jesus in which God declared him the Messiah and Son of God with
power (Acts 2:36; Rom. 1 : 4) that crystallized this hope into an undying
conviction. The early chapters of Acts (chaps. 1-12) represent this
earliest Christology for which the Resurrection is decisive and pivotal.
It is clearly adoptive. God wrought through Jesus, and because of his
approval of him accepted and declared him Messiah and Lord by the
resurrection (Acts 2:22 f.; 5:42). God glorified and exalted him
(Acts 5:30 f.). God would send him again at the end of all things
(Acts 3:20, 21). These experiences and hopes established a new and
peculiar kind of life (Acts 5 : 20) initiated by repentance, faith in Jesus
as Messiah, and baptism in his name (Acts 2:38; 8:16), and character
ized by forgiveness of sins through Christ (Acts 3 : 26) and the gift of the
Holy Spirit in his name (Acts 5:32). This was at least one if not the
only form of the earliest Christology. 455

130 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
But, as already noted, these conceptions of Jesus immediately con
sequent upon his resurrection were not really the first beginnings of
Christology, though very naturally they appeared to many to be so then
and stUl appear to many to be so, owing to the overshadowing importance
of the Resurrection. Unless violence is applied to the sources, it is clear
that sometime before his death Jesus was regarded by some as prophet,
by some as Messiah, whether as Son of David or as Son of Man or as
Bon of God. From both sources, Mark and the Sayings of Jesus, it is
clear that the disciples and the very earUest tradition weU remembered
the discussions about the Messiahship and the strange experiences and
high claims of Jesus in this regard, especially toward the close of his
ministry. How did they relate this to their idea that the resurrection
constituted Jesus the Messiah? They simply carried the adoptive
theory of the Messiahship back into the history of the ministry of Jesus.
Along one line they attached it to the experience upon the Mount of
Transfiguration (Mark 9:7 ||), but with more assurance they attached
the idea of adoption as Messiah and Son to the Baptism experience
(Mark 1:11 1|) in which Jesus, according to the early Christian view,
received the gift of the Spirit which constituted him Son.1 The tes
timony of the sources that Jesus used the title Son of Man with either
open or latent reference to himself seems at first to tell against the idea
that the earliest Christians carried back the adoptive idea to the Baptism
experience. But apart from the possibUity of Weinel's explanation,2 the
phrase "Son of Man" with its accompanying idea of pre-existence was
too limited and too indefinite to hinder the employment of the adoptive
idea to explain the experiences and words of Jesus which the disciples
and earUest Christians very well remembered. Possibly the adoptive
idea, which was truly Semitic, vied for some time with its later rival, the
"Son of Man" or pre-existence idea, which was in part Greek or at least
Hellenistic as well as Jewish.
¦Possibly the true text of Luke 3:22 is that of codex D: "Thou art my son:
today have I begotten thee," thus meeting the word of Ps. 2 : 7 with the occasion of
the Baptism. Cf. Gospel to the Hebrews in description of the Baptism: "My Son, in
all the prophets I waited for you till you should come and I should find rest in you.
For you are my rest, you are my firstborn son who rulest forever." Again, inter
preting the Baptism as the occasion of the adoption to Messiahship and Sonship
explains the otherwise extremely puzzling aorist, eiSbKijo-a (Mk. i:ii), in a perfectly
natural way, as an inceptive aorist.
2 Bib. Theol. d. N. Test., S. 198.

456

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 131
4. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF PAUL
At this stage the development of christological thought is taken up
and carried on by Paul. For Paul too with the Christian community,
the Resurrection means that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God (Phil.
2:9-11). Probably in this passage as in Rom. 1:4 there is a trace, a
remnant of the adoptive idea of the earUest Christian community. But
in reaUty Paul had discarded the adoptive idea probably as too super
ficial and not at all adequate to the proper expression of his profound'
experience of, and thought upon, the risen and glorified Christ. Paul
used rather the category of pre-existence and the idea of Son of Man
as the better expression of the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus. Paul
chose and elaborated this form because it was natural to him. He
belonged to the educated Jewish and HeUenistic circles where the Son
of Man concept which he transferred to Jesus as Messiah was familiar.
Yet, as Paul does not wholly give up the idea of God's favoritism for
Israel as a nation (Rom. 11 : 25, 26), so naturally he holds to the Son of
David idea of Jesus as Messiah. But this is, merely according to the
flesh, and Paul lays Uttle stress upon this. With Paul there begins an
elaborate development of the higher category. For the expression of his
experience of Jesus and salvation in him Paul lays hold of elements from
various HeUenistic thought-circles of his day including the mystery-
reUgions. On the basis of his personal experience, aided by thoughts of
the Hebrew prophets as weU as of the mystery-religions, Paul develops
the original doctrine of mystical union with Christ by faith. By the
death of Christ through faith, deliverance from the curse of the law,
forgiveness, new life, new power, new hope for the coming age, and
union with Christ — all which with many added elements constitute
salvation — are secured. Of Paul, though in a lesser degree, it may be
said as it was said of Jesus that soteriology not Christology is his main
concern. But Paul has also an elaborate Christology. The term "Son of
Man" falls away and in its place comes the idea of the heavenly man,
the second Adam, probably very closely related to the Son of Man idea.
Jesus is identified with this pre-existent heavenly man, the second
Adam. But this heavenly man is also Son of God. Paul nowhere
reveals just in what sense he considers Jesus Son of God. Rom. 1:4
- may very plausibly be interpreted so that Jesus is constituted "Son" by
the Resurrection. But this adoptive idea can hardly express Paul's full
thought. He considers Jesus a spirit-being (I Cor. 15 : 45 ; II Cor. 3 : 17),
the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1 : 14 i-), who for a time dwelt upon the
457

132 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
earth (II Cor. 8 : 9) and was restored to greater glory than before (PhU.
2:6 f.). This spirit-being was Son of God, but in what sense? The
Hebrew feeling of Sonship through sympathy, likeness, love is not
excluded (Col. 1 : 13), but probably Paul thought, if he thought upon
it specially, of Sonship in some of the Greek forms. It is clear that the
Logos-doctrine is present in Paul, latent though not expressed1 (I Cor.
8:6; 11:3). Christ is the creator and bond of the cosmos (Col. 1:16).
He is the image of God (II Cor. 4:4). A certain degree of figurative,
spiritual, and ethical meaning must not be denied to these and similar
terms. But they clearly have a metaphysical force, and it is likely that
Paul conceived of Christ as a second God somewhat after the fashion of
Philo, with probably additional touches from the atmosphere and thought
of the mystery-religions and of Stoicism. Paul also identified the
heavenly Christ with the Spirit (II Cor. 3 : 7).2 It is impossible here to go
into the question of the relation of Paul and the New Testament as a
whole to the Hellenistic syncretism of the mystery-religions of his day.
How much of what has hitherto been placed genetically in direct rela
tion either (1) to the historical Jesus, (2) to the Old Testament, or (3)
to Alexandrianism must rather be related directly to the reUgious
Hellenistic syncretism of the mystery-religions and considered rather as
a parallel to Old Testament thought? In 1903 Heinrich Zimmern,
after outlining the questions, says that investigation into this problem
is as yet in its early stages and no definite answer can be given.3 His
statement wiU stUl hold, though much advance since then has been
made, with the result that there is a strong tendency to affirm that
much of New Testament thought of the person of Jesus is due to the
fact that the first interpreters of Jesus in their effort to set forth from
their experience his supreme significance, used the terms and thought-
forms current in the atmosphere and reUgious thought of their day.4
1 Weinel, op. cit., S. 3680. 2 Reitzenstein, Poimandres, S. 39.
' Zimmern, Keilinschriften und Bibel: " Eine definitive Antwort lasst sich bis
jetzt noch auf keine dieser die schwierigsten Probleme der orientalischen Religions-
geschichte beruhrenden fragen geben .... von einer endgultigen Losung dieser
Probleme noch keine Rede sein kann, die Erorterung iiber sie vielmehr noch in den
ersten Anfangen steht."
4 Cf. also Zimmern, Keilinschriften und das Alle Testament,* S. 372-94, and
the whole chapter "Der Christus, Jesus " in his Keilinschriften und Bibel. The whole
subject is receiving intense attention at present, but there is no justification for
the extreme position taken by Drews as a result of it that there was no historical
Jesus. This is a wholly unwarranted interpretation of the facts which rather go to
show simply that to a greater degree than has been hitherto supposed the formal,
doctrinal, ritual, largely external portion of Christianity was a part of the religious
milieu of the time and indeed in a large measure grew out of it.
458

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 133
Presumably these elements from the mystery-religions, whether Graeco-
Persian or Graeco-Egyptian, were mediated to Paul by the popular
eclectic phUosophy of the day. They are in all probability the following :
(i) the idea of Jesus' pre-existence as the heavenly man, the second
Adam, a divine spirit-being who was also Creator of the world, Son of
God and heavenly man; cf. Adapa-Marduk, son of Ea, and world-
creator; (2) the idea of Jesus as sent into the world by God appearing as
Savior and destined to be the inaugurator of the new era (Gal. 4:4) ; cf.
Mithra's r61e in the Persian cult; (3) the idea of the temporary humilia
tion and suffering of Christ; cf. Osiris in the Egyptian cult and the star-
deities, Sin, Samas, and Istar in the Babylonian cult; (4) the idea of the
Resurrection and exaltation and coming again of Christ; (5) the idea of
two opposing worlds with the thought that Christ shall reign tUl he shall
conquer all enemies, even death.1
Paul laid great emphasis upon eschatology, especially in the earlier
part of his Ufe and work. As soon as he accepted the historical Jesus as
the Messiah he assigned to him the r61e of the Jewish Messiah whom he
already had in mind. The period of the earthly life of Jesus was a
temporary and preparatory period of humUiation and suffering. But
Jesus would come again and fulfil the eschatological r61e of the Jewish
Messiah. With the coming of Christ the dead would be raised (II
Thess. 2 : 1-12 if Pauline; I Cor., chap. 15), the living would be changed
or transformed, the judgment-seat of Christ would be set (I Thess.
2:19, 20; II Cor. 5:10; 11:15), ah enemies and evU, including death,
would be overcome, ending in the final consummation of the messianic
Kingdom and the surrender by Christ of his high prerogative as mediator
and vicegerent, so that God might be immediate ruler and "all in all'
(I Cor. 15:24-28). Eschatology is prominent in Paul. It is urged as
an impulse to worthy practical Christian living (I Cor. 15:58) and as
the consummation of salvation and life (Rom. 13:11).
5. DIVERGENT MOVEMENTS AFTER PAUL
But this highly developed christological doctrine of Paul, with its
accompanying elaborate theology and profound mysticism and scant
emphasis upon the earthly life of Jesus, was not whoUy satisfactory to
the primitive Christian church. In substance Paul's view of Jesus as the
Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, a divine, pre-existent spirit-being,
whose earthly Itfe was a short period of humUiation and veUed glory and
1 Cf. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions (1913).
459

134 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
power, was accepted by the primitive church, but various and consider
able modifications were made in different directions.
It was a striking conviction, gamed after much anguish and struggle
of mind and soul, that the one who appeared to Paul on the way to
Damascus was none other than Jesus of Nazareth, risen and Uving, and
that he was the Messiah. The result was that Paul applied to the
historical Jesus many concepts which were proper and becoming only to
an abstract figure of the religious and phUosophical imagination — ideas
whose Heimat was the world of the eternal and invisible. The tendency
of the Pauline Christology was to lose the historical figure of Jesus in the
drapings of religious and phUosophical ideas. This tendency is easUy
discoverable in Paul himseff on comparing his earliest with his latest
works (I Thess. vs. Col.). In it there lay the subtle danger of the
so-called "entangling alliance" of history on the one hand, and religion
and phUosophy on the other, an alliance which apparently defies dis
entangling. The natural result was divergent movements, one radical,
leading to a stUl greater emphasis of the eternal, a second apocalyptic,
and a third reactionary, emphasizing history.
a) The reactionary movement. — The reactionary movement was
probably first in time after Paul. Men, some of them Paul's associates
in his work, none of them associates of Jesus, accepted indeed the PauUne
identification of the Messiah, Son of Man and Logos with Jesus of
Nazareth, but felt that Paul made too meager a use of the detaUed
information of the words and deeds of Jesus preserved in the tradition
of the early community and in part written down in various fragmen
tary documents. This information was needed especiaUy for the gentile
mission. Thus we find the synoptists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
counteracting or perhaps complementing the christological doctrine of
Paul. In the main they accept the Pauline doctrine, but they add the
outlines of the actual historical figure adapted to be sure in many
respects to the later doctrine.
The Gospel of Mark (65-70 a.d.), the oldest of our present Gospels
at least, is interested chiefly — almost solely — in the public activity and
ministry of Jesus, his healing and miracle-working power, and but
slightly in his teaching. Mark considered Jesus the Son of God, but
like Paul, does not reveal how or in what sense. His quoting of the
remark of the centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39) probably indicates
Greek leanings, and it is likely that Mark with Paul considered Jesus as
essentially a divine spirit-being who became man, though he does not
say how. His Sonship was latent, recognized with difficulty (Mark
460

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 135
l5 :39) or only by the demons (3:11; 5 : 7), as was also his Messiahship
(8:29). Mark considers Jesus also as the heavenly man and with the
idea retams no doubt rightly the phrase "Son of Man," which Paul
dropped. Mark gives a vivid picture also, as he intended to do, of the
humanity of Jesus, a picture clearer and stronger than that of any
other Gospel (1:41; 2:8; 3:5; 4:38; 8:5; 10:14; 10:17, 4°). He
gives the most satisfactory outline of the main events and developments
of his ministry.
The question as to how much in this Gospel (as in the others) belongs
tp Mark himself and the primitive Christian community will vary from
less to more according to the evidence of historical criticism and each
man's tendency or inclination. It may be that the demands of a high
Christology caused the Christian community and Mark with them to
push back into the life and work of Jesus much more than has yet been
recognized. After outlining Mark's testimony to the amazing dulness
and stupidity of the disciples Case maintains that this dulness serves as
a means for carrying back later thought.1 But whatever the extent of
this pushing back of thoughts and practices of a later time into the Ufe
of Jesus may prove to be, it need not, and cannot, as Case splendidly
shows, annul the historicity of Jesus, dUminish the uniqueness and power
of his personal reUgious Ufe with God, invalidate the resurrection appear
ances, or destroy the experience of salvation in some sense through
Jesus which is after aU the fundamental fact in and impulse toward the
development of any Christology.
It -is clear, then, that Mark has a high Christology, Pauline in its
main lines, to which he adds a vivid picture of the human side of Jesus,
of his prophetic activity as preacher of repentance, herald of the Kingdom
of God, and worker of miracles as well as teacher — a picture which
shows indications of being unconsciously molded and changed to a
greater or less degree, both by the adoption Christology of the early
Christians and by the higher Christology of Paul.
Matthew and Luke naturally manifest a stiU greater degree of
change of the early tradition, of the Ufe, activity, and teaching of Jesus.
Their common non-Markan source or sources represents Jesus consist-
1 The Historicity of Jesus, 1912, p. 226: "In all this Mark is clearly recognizing
that Jesus made no such impression upon his contemporaries as his later interpreters
thought he ought to have produced, and as they would have him produce on the
minds of believers in their day. But by making the blindness of Jesus' associates
responsible for this failure, the early theologians could still think of him as displaying
unique power commensurate with their faith in him as the heavenly Lord, and at the
same time they could harmonize the history with their Christology."
461

136 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
ently, however, as the great prophetic teacher, rather than divine healer
and miracle worker. As this source (or sources) of the teachings of
Jesus is generally considered to be somewhat earlier than Mark and
largely free from the tendency to miracle and Christology, it leads many
to think that Mark as well as the later writers have very materially
altered the original representation of Jesus. It must be remembered,
however, that it was the custom of the time to distinguish to a greater
or less degree between the deeds and the words of a teacher (Acts i : i).
The need for the teaching was naturally felt first and strongest.
The most striking addition of Matthew and Luke to christological
doctrine is found in the story of the miraculous conception as displayed
in their infancy narratives. Unless the story here given is considered
as fact in some way hidden from Paul and Mark, it requires considerable
time for its development and indicates a late date, say, toward the end
of the first century and a decisive advance upon the Christology of Paul
and Mark. It is conceived as an explanation of the uniqueness and
greatness of Jesus and of the modus operandi of his Sonship. It is a
composite, a blend in aU probabUity of Old Testament ideas, the
adoption-Christology of the primitive community, and the conceptions
of the various mystery-reUgions with added Greek elements.1 The
thought itself is probably Greek, but the prominence of the Holy Spirit
as weU as the general context indicates a strong Semitic element. In
fact it is probably in a measure a further pushing back of the idea of
adoption as it is found in the Baptism experience in which the Holy
Spirit plays a quite simUar r61e. The Greek element appears distinctly,
however, in that the story explains the Sonship as metaphysical, that is,
essential.2 Paul and Mark had felt no need of such an explanation. In
fact, such an explanation seems out of harmony with the idea of pre-
existence, about which Matthew and Luke say nothing. In many other
respects Matthew tends to a heightened Christology (Matt. 8:8, 16;
12:28; 21:20).' With Paul he emphasized the eschatological element
and specifically the death of Christ as necessary in the divine plan
(16:21, 23) as redemptive (26:28) and ratifying a new covenant (20:28;
26:28). •Granbery, Outline of New Testament Christology, p. 57 and n. 1; Petersen,
Wunderbare Geburt des Heilandes, Kap. 3, "Die ubernatiirliche Geburt Jesu im Lichte
der Religionsgeschichte." 2 J. Weiss, Christus, S. 81; cf. Inscription at Priene, quoted by Pfleiderer in
Monist, XIV, 5.
3 Allen, Commentary on Matthew, pp. xxxi-xxxiii; cf. also his summary of the
Christology, p. Ixvi. 462

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 137
^ Luke does not so fuUy reveal his personal christological standpoint.
It is however strongly Pauline, charged with the universal gentile spirit,
and emphasizes strongly the human element in Jesus in addition to the
Pauline lines.
But the synoptists were not the only reactionaries against the
Pauline extreme which discounted the earthly Ufe and teaching of Jesus.
The great majority of Christians, even the personal disciples of Jesus,
were not so original, independent, and creative as Paul. They therefore
feU back on Jesus' specific deeds and words. A spiritual bond, like a
great cable reaching into the unseen, held Paul true to Jesus in the
main, though not in detaU, in spirit, though not in form. Paul felt the
fuUest freedom in beating out his own views of truth, centering them all
about the Incarnation and the cross of Christ as the great redemptive
triumph for the world. Very largely he formed his own molds with
material gathered from every quarter, but he filled them with the spirit
of the gospel of Jesus. It wiU be found that essentiaUy Paul represented
and developed the message of his master Jesus.1
But less independent and original spirits could not have broken this
new way, and indeed could not even foUow Paul's lead without greater
support from Jesus himself. Hence our Synoptic Gospels. But even
where the writing did not take the new form of a Gospel, the reaction
toward more support from Jesus himself is seen. Two such writings are
the Epistle of I Peter and the Epistle to the Hebrews. These two
writings are in some way closely related.2 They probably spring from
the same general situation and atmosphere and express an unconscious
reaction against the mystical depth of Paulinism and its disregard of the
experiences of the earthly Jesus. They both make much of the experi
ence of suffering; they are both rather practical than profound or
mystical; they both exhort after the fashion of a homUy; they both
emphasize the death of Christ as propitiatory in a simUar way; they
make much of hope, of the future glory of Christ and Christians, of the
inspiration of the prophets, of the reproach and sufferings of the pre-
existent Christ (I Pet. i:n; cf. Heb. 11:26). The Epistle to the
Hebrews, however, makes larger use of the experiences of Jesus' earthly
lUe than does I Peter. It makes an astonishingly close approach to the
modern psychological developmental view of the reflex action of suffering
upon character, both for Christ (Heb. 5 : 7-10) and for Christians (12:7).
1 A. Meyer, Jesus or Paul, p. 106.
2 Holtzmann, Handcommentar zum N. T., Ill, "Der Brief an die Hebraer,"
Einleitung, n, 3. 463

138 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Unlike Paul, Hebrews deliberately states that the salvation which it
proclaims was first proclaimed by Jesus when on earth (2:3), and was
delivered by faithful witnesses (2:3). Paul would not make such
connections. Paul claims indeed the identity of inner personality
between the exalted Christ and the earthly Jesus, but he is not con
cerned to make such detaUed connection. The writer to the Hebrews
follows the same main christological lines as Paul — pre-existence,
incarnation, redemptive death, resurrection, and exaltation. He has
the main eschatological lines also, though with less emphasis and promi
nence, viz., parousia, judgment, transformation of the world, yet
in a way different from that of Paul (Heb. 12:27, 2$)- The writer
develops the idea of the sacrifice and High-Priesthood of Jesus in detaU
as Paul does not do.
b) The apocalyptic movement. — Another divergent tendency of a more
radical type may be noted in writings belonging to this same period, viz.,
ca. 90 a.d. This tendency may be caUed apocalyptic.1 Apocalyptic
views were common property at this period. Paul shared them very
strongly, especiaUy at the beginning of his Christian career, though there
is evidence of a loss of interest and emphasis toward the end. Jesus the
Messiah had suffered death, but he would come again to fulfil those
expectations of glory and triumph which they had in their shortsighted
ness expected of him at his first coming. So the early Christians
reasoned. Thus apocalyptic could still breathe the breath of Ufe. Its
activity was increased also by persecutions. Now Paul did not paint
the glories of the future triumph of Christ and Christians with sufficient
color or in sufficient detaU. He was too moderate, too severely ethical,
perhaps, and mystical. Hence such a writing as the Apocalypse of John,
the only representative of its type in the Canon of the New Testament,
but a writing which probably represents the views of a fairly large
number of Christians at this time. Its Christology is clearly post-
Pauline. " The dignity, glory, and authority of Christ and the greatness
of his redeeming work are set forth in exalted terms and the strongest
imagery is employed (1:5). He is a priest (1 : 13), is Lord of the church
(1:12-16), is pre-existent and eternal, and determines who shaU enter
and who be released from the realms of the dead (1:8, 17, 18; 21:6;
22 : 13), is King of kings and Lord of lords (17 : 14; 19 : 16), is the bright,
the morning star that will rise upon the world to usher in the consumma
tion (22:16)  Given titles that belong to God, and worshiped
by men and angels, Christ reigns not only during the earthly miUennium,
1 Granbery, Outline of New Testament Christology, pp. 87-91.
464

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 139
but sits with God in the final consummation."1 The apocalyptic
tendency toward external glory and imagery has carried the writer
even beyond the Christology of Paul. Christ is closely associated with
God (19:11-16; 21:22; 22:1, 3).
c) The radical movement. — But the climax of christological develop
ment within the New Testament is found in the Johannine writings,
particularly the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle. For some years
the Fourth Gospel has been closely studied. It is still in many respects
an enigma and may always be. But certain main lines in connection
with it are standing out more clearly as a result of the work. From
the reUgio-historical point of view, if not from the literary point of
view, it is a unit. The historical element in it is^ quite subsidiary,
though not without some value even in the strictly historical sense;
it is selected and used for the purpose of a religious and theological
interpretation of Jesus. The Gospel is partly apologetic and polemic.2
It manifests the greatest influence by and the closest approach to
the mystery-religions so prevalent at the end of the first century
A.D. In fact, as Christianity on its mission to the gentUes moved out into
the reUgious and phUosophical milieu of the Graeco-Roman world, it
found itself confronted everywhere with conceptions of great worth and
vitaUty — conceptions of human need, human helplessness and sinfulness,
conceptions of divine helpfulness, mercy, and salvation, of divine Saviors,
of divine revelations, and of Ufe, light, truth, resurrection, immortality,
and future blessedness through association and union of God and man.
These were abstract conceptions, to be sure, and therein lay their
weakness and their danger. Gnosticism is the term applied to the sum-
total of these conceptions. But strictly speaking these are the concep
tions of the mystery-religions. Gnosticism is the term to describe
them after they have passed through the alembic of Christianity.
Now the writer of the Fourth Gospel confronted this religious and
phUosophical thought-world of the mystery-religions. It is not im
possible to suppose that he was himseU a convert to Christianity
from this thought-world of the mystery-religions. In any case he
sympathizes with much that they contain. He realizes that if Chris
tianity is to hold its own and win the day it must absorb their vital
elements and express itself in terms of their conceptions. He is perfectly
confident that Christianity is the supreme religion, and he sets himself
to the task of presenting it as such.
1 Granbery, op. cit., p. 91. 2 E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel2, chap. iii.
465

140 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Only a brief outline of his christological attitude can be given and
comparison drawn between him and other New Testament writers.
The Fourth Gospel uses the titles "Christ" or "Messiah" (1:17; 1:20,
25; 3:28; 10:24, etc.), "Son of Man" (1:51; 3:13,14; 6:27, etc.),
"King of Israel" (1:49), and "Lord" (1:23; 6:23; 11:2, etc.); but
they have all lost their primitive Semitic meaning and have become
more or less technical and conventional. The term "Lamb of God" is
important for the Fourth Gospel, as it indicates the writer's firm faith
in the redemptive sacrificial death of Jesus. A stUl more striking term
however is "Logos," so prominent in the Prologue. Though the term
does not occur elsewhere in the Gospel, the doctrine is assumed through
out. Jesus was the Logos in the beginning, but the characteristic
thought of the writer is that the Logos became flesh and thus revealed
God in the form of man. In this respect the Fourth Gospel fuUy de
veloped that idea which, though plainly present, was nevertheless some
what latent in Paul and Hebrews. The writer of the Fourth Gospel is
generally credited with taking the term frOm Philo, but it is more likely
that it came from semi-popular usage. At any rate, as compared with
PhUo's usage, that of the Fourth Gospel is less abstract, more concrete
and personal, full of a sense of reality and saving significance through
identification with the historical Jesus.
But the most common and the most significant designation of Jesus
in the Fourth Gospel is the title "Son" or "Son of God," denoting the
relation of Jesus to God whom he frequently calls his Father. The term
is surprisingly rich in content. As Son Jesus is pre-existent, only-
begotten, one with God the Father by whom he was sent and to whom
he is always subject (1:14; 3:35, etc.). He enlightens and saves the
world by communicating the teaching and the truth which he has received
from the Father. He fulfils Scripture, bestows the Spirit by whom he is
himseff filled, displays supernatural knowledge, gives eternal life and
future blessedness with the Father, to whom he returns. Prayer in his
name is effective (14: 13 f.), and abiding in him makes the Christian Ufe
fruitful (15:1, 2). In short, Jesus, not only in his deeds and words, but
in his person, not only in the future, but in the present, is the revelation
of the invisible God the Father, eternally the Son of God and the way to
life and light and truth and God which is salvation. Accordingly the
Gospel was written that its readers might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that believing they might have life in his name
(John 20:21).
In conclusion, it may be said that the Johannine Christology presents
466

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 141
formaUy a fusing of the Christology of Paul, which emphasizes the
eternal and divine in Christ at the expense of the historical and earthly,
with the reactionary Christology of such writings as Hebrews and the
Synoptic Gospels. The gnostic systems of Paul's day and later had
pushed the higher side, the divine side of the Pauline Christology to
violent extremes issuing in Docetism. The Gnostics emphasized the
pre-existent, the divine, at the expense of, even with the annihUation of,
the human element. Such writings as Hebrews and the synoptists
reacted and added the human by emphasizing the historical Ufe of Jesus
— his human nature. The Fourth Gospel aims to meet the violent
extremes of Gnosticism, such as Docetism, but has itself such deep sym
pathy with and regard for the vital truths in Gnosticism that it carries
the Pauline emphasis on the divine to quite a new extreme, viz., the
eternal divinity of Jesus Christ as Logos and Son. Not merely in his
Incarnation and Death did Jesus reveal God and bring salvation. Jesus
revealed God in his lUe on earth, his daily life. Those who could not see
the divine glory even in the earthly Jesus were blinded (14:22) by
ignorance and evil. They were of the world. But Jesus on earth
declared God (1:18), though his future glory would be enhanced. His
ufe was a constant revelation of God. Hence no need of a transfigura
tion as in the Synoptic Gospels. The synoptic writers did not advance
to the idea that Jesus was the eternal revelation and declaration of the
glory and character of God. They with Paul thought of the " days of his
flesh" as a period of humUiation, sacrifice, and suffering only. Hebrews
advances somewhat on the PauUne idea in making more of the earthly
Jesus like the synoptists and in making Jesus' place in relation to God
apparently permanent. Jesus in Hebrews is the constant vicegerent of
God. Paul, Hebrews, and the synoptists all reveal closer dependence
than the Fourth Gospel on the christological ideas of the primitive
Christian community in that they aU show traces in lessening degree of
the adoptive idea of Sonship. The Fourth Gospel has broken with the
adoptive idea altogether. The idea of Sonship in the Fourth Gospel
approaches that of the mystery-religions, in which Sonship consists in
wisdom and perfect knowledge of the divine. The Fourth Gospel does
not have the idea of the miraculous conception as Matthew and Luke,
nor the theocratic or adoptive idea of the primitive community. In a
very true and deep sense the Fourth Gospel has carried to its climax
what appears to have been Jesus' own sense of Sonship (Matt. 11:27).
Like Jesus, the Fourth Gospel has discounted the "Son of David"
idea in connection with the Messiahship. It has also discounted the
467

142 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
eschatological element. The parousia has been largely spiritualized
into the abiding presence of Christ through the presence of the Spirit
or Comforter whom he wiU send. The future judgment and resurrection
have become spirituaUzed and made present experiences. In this
reduction of the eschatological element the Fourth Gospel is also at one
with Jesus. The writer has developed, enlarged, made objective and
absolute the feeUng which Jesus himself had, viz., that the Son alone knew
the Father and that only the Son could therefore adequately reveal
the Father to men. And moreover he has sincerely tried to do this
without destroying the historical Jesus, indeed by using the historical
Jesus and stoutly maintaining his humanity. The modern critic can
see his failures; he feels that the writer of the Fourth Gospel has warped
the historical and human in Jesus. But the mistakes of the writer need
not and do not invaUdate his fundamental thesis that, reUgiously
speaking, Jesus is the final revelation of God because he actuaUy leads
men to God. Even the modern critic, indeed especiaUy the modern
critic, is beginning to see that in the historical Jesus there is the satisfying
and efficient revelation of God. In this he is substantiating the main
truth of the Fourth Gospel.

468

CONCLUDING REMARKS
It has been the custom with scholars to class the Epistle to the
Hebrews with those epistles which, though bearing marks of strong
Pauline influence, cannot with sufficient certainty be assigned to the
great apostle himself.1 They have taken form under the shadow of the
figure of Paul and are caUed "deutero-Pauline."
In the course of this study numerous instances of contact with
PauUne thought have appeared. But in every case the simUarity has
been somewhat superficial. The point of view and the method of
presentation have been quite different. It would be exaggerating to
say that the writer of this Epistle was not influenced by Paul and his
letters. But it is clear that this influence has been greatly exaggerated.
Holtzmann, von Soden, and Bruckner have aU emphasized dependence
upon Paul, and their cases are strong for some measure of dependence.
But in many of the cases which they cite the simUarity is to be assigned
to common sources rather than to direct contact. The tradition and
doctrine of the primitive Christian church were the common source of
much that is simUar in Paul and the writer of Hebrews. In other cases
of contact the simUarity is eclipsed by the dissimUarity. Our author is
original and characteristic in his presentation of thoughts and doctrine
that are also PauUne.
The writer of this Epistle had not the religious genius of Paul. He
was intense, but not with the intensity and abandon that characterized
Paul. He was intellectual and religious, though not profound and
mystical. But he should not be put in the shadow of the great apostle,
for he was not dominated by him. He deserves to stand alone as pre
senting a distinctive view of Christian experience and thought.
And as his general view of Christian truth is distinctive, even more
is his Christology distinctive. It is not predominantly PauUne. Paulin-
ism is one of the strands in it, but it is subordinate. The Christology of
the Epistle to the Hebrews is not strictly a unity. It is a composite
formed amid the atmosphere of the mystery-religions by the union of the
views of the primitive Christian church with the writer's Alexandrian
views of the Logos, the distinctively PauUne view forming a third, but
subordinate strand. In many respects the distinctively Pauline view
1 Ephesians, I and II Timothy, and Titus. Cf. Moffatt, Introduction to the
Literature of the New Testament, Chap. iii.
469] 143

144 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
itself approached closely to the Alexandrian view of the Logos in sub
stance though not in form. This has helped to give color to the view
that Hebrews is "deutero-Pauline." But the proper way to view the
movement is not to think of the writer of Hebrews as approaching the
• Logos doctrine by combining the primitive Christian and distinctively
Pauline views, but rather to think of him as approaching the PauUne
view by combining the primitive Christian view with the Alexandrian
Logos -doctrine. This attempt to combine the two views produces in
Hebrews what Harnack calls the "pneumatic Christology"1 as over
against its chief rival in the apostolic age, the " adoption Christology."2
Harnack fails to see what an important part the adoption Christology
^>lays in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
In the primitive Christian view, which the writer of Hebrews sought
to combine with the Alexandrian, there were the two rival Christologies,
the adoption and the pneumatic.3 It is difficult to say how far the
writer of Hebrews used the primitive Christian pneumatic view, for the
Alexandrian thought when applied to a historic person would produce
something very simUar to the pneumatic view. It is likely that the
writer belonged to a circle of Christians who held both the adoption
and the pneumatic views, though strictly speaking they are mutuaUy
exclusive. Harnack says that the two "came very near each other
when the Sphit of God implanted in the man Jesus was conceived
as the pre-existent Son of God."4 The adoption view was especiaUy
strong at Rome,5 and this may be another link uniting our author
with the Roman church.
It is at any rate clear that in addition to the Alexandrian and pneu
matic views, which cannot be clearly distinguished, our author had
accepted the adoption Christology of the primitive church and used the
language of this view. Moreover, his emphasis on the humanity of
Jesus, on the qualities of character which to the Oriental more than to
the Occidental indicated a noble God-fearing man, on the development
of his character through suffering, on his exaltation of character — all
1 Harnack, History of Dogma, I, pp. 190 f., 192, n. 1.
2 Ibid., I, p. 191, n. i.'
3 Ibid., I, chap, iii, sec. 6.
1 1bid., I, p. 193.
s Eusebius, H.E., V, 28, 3; cf. Harnack, op. cit., I, p. 191, n. 1 : "The representa
tives of this [adoption] Christology, who in the third century were declared to be
heretics, expressly maintained that it was at one time the ruling Christology at Rome
and had been handed down by the apostles." 470

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 145
these and many other elements are in essential harmony with the adop
tion view. In this respect Hebrews is with the synoptists rather than
with Paul.
On the other hand, the writer as distinctly holds the "pneumatic"
view since he holds that Jesus was a pre-existent spirit-being, identifying
him with the Logos of PhUo, though he does not use the term. The '
truth is that he has faUed to fuse the two views. He speaks of an
inception of Sonship, yet leaves the impression that the Son was eternal.
More than Paul he subordinates Jesus to God, comparing him as a
spirit-being to the angels. Yet he apphes to him the term Beos, though
only indirectly, and he uses language so exalted (1:3) as to indicate
that he probably conceived of Christ as an eternal spirit-being in some
unique relation to God as compared with other spirit-beings, a relation'
however which he does not define.

471

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bleek, Commentar iiber den Hebraer-Brief. 1828-40.
Delitzsch, Epistle to the Hebrews. 1857.
Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebraerbrief s. 1867.
Davidson, Hebrews. 1882.
Reil, Commentar iiber den Hebraer-Brief. 1885.
von Soden, "Hebraerbrief" [Handcommentar zum N.T.]. 1892.
Menegoz, La theologie de I'epitre aux Hibreux. 1894.
Harnack, History of Dogma. 1894.
Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1899.
Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 1899.
Weiss, B., "Der Brief an die Hebraer" [Meyer Kommentar zum N.T.]. 1902.
Peake, Hebrews. 1904.
Wernle, Die Anfange unserer Religion. 1904.
Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1906.
Juxicher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1906.
Scott, Apologetic of the New Testament. 1907.
Hollmann, "Hebraerbrief" [Die Schriften des N.T.]. 1907.
Bousset, Hauplprobleme der Gnosis. 1907.
Goodspeed, The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1908.
Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament. 1909.
Sanday, Christoiogies, Ancient and Modern. 1910.
Weiss, B., Der Hebraerbrief in zeitgeschicMicher Beleuchtung. 1910.
Weiss, J., Christ, the Beginnings of Dogma. 1911.
Holtzmann, H., Neutestamentliche Theologie. 191 1.
Feine, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 191 1.
Moitatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. 1911.
Pfleiderer, Die Vorbereitung des Christentums in der griechischen Philosophic.
1912.
Clemen, Primitive Christianity and Its Non-Jewish Sources. 1912.
Riggenbach, "Der Brief an die Hebraer" [Zahn Kommentar zum N.T.].
1913-
Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 1913.
Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions. 1913.
Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood. 1914.

472 [146

INDEX TO PASSAGES
HEB- PAGE HEB. PAGE HEB. PAGE
1:1-4  SS i; 69. 4:14  40. g:»3 t.  46, 47.
1:2  49, So, 95 *• 4:'S  44. g:14  13.
1:3  101,102. 5 = s  29, 9:1s  47.
i:5. ..29,30, 84 f., 89, 120. 30,64, 86,89,91, 120. 9:16  47-
1:3-14  37- S:7 {-  54- io:»-4  45 f-
r:6  68 f. 5:7-1°  22, 28. io:S  23, 102.
I:8e-  53- 5:8  92- ro:?  54,55-
i:8  91- 5:9  44- ro:i3  53.
i:,c  76. 5:"  13. io:*o  93 f.
i:»°-"  so. 5:1*  48. 10:33  no.
i:*3*  99. 6:«f-  13. n;i  iii.
2:3  76 f. 6:4-8  52. n:3  53.
2:4  45. 6:6  93 f. Il:i3 £.  38.
2:10  27. 6:7-8  53. Ii;a6  64 f.
2:"  32 f. 7:i-*S  41 f. 11:39.40  35.
2:"f-  113. 7-3  51, 94 f- 12 ¦'  25, 26.
2:16  51. 7:85  47,49- 12:10  46.
3:'  66 f. 7:26  27, 43. I2:*3  69.
3:1-6  38,39- 7-'s  92 i- !3:8  63-
3:**-  114- 8:*  78. 13:0  14-
3:6  92. 8:4  12. i3:l3  64 f.
3:"  13. 8: '3  12. 13:"°  77-
4:2  no. 9:"  106.

147] 473

LIST OF ERRATA
(In MacNeill, H. L. : The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews)
For "OnS read "OHS, page 71, lines 2, 5, and 10.

TK

u

"f^

" 72, lines 18 and 21.

"5TS

a

"3hs t _:

" 73, line 20.

1?wj

((

fins

" 71, line 14.

™bs

a

nibs

" 71, line 8.

nibs

«

nibs

" 71, line 15.

tfbs

it

fi^i*

" 72, line 22.

¦pa

a

T?9

" 72, line 9 and note 4.

"p?

a

T!?

" 73, line 19.

TO

"

sto

" 72, lines 15 and 19.

^

"

sto
T T

" 73, lines 4 and 16.

">o

u

sto

" 75, line 23.

n?o

it

sto
T T

" 78, line 13.

¦91a

a

"TO • T

" 72, note 1.

"•¦153

a

"TO

" 72, note 4.

«b-rt

a

sb"ri

" 72, note 3 (end).

»1?

n

s-na
t : t

" 72, note 4.

rnrr

11

nirr t :

" 73, note 2.

ni'rr

a

nirr

" 75, note 3-

" frnpavada " papav aBd, page 72, line 8.
Paste this in your copy of the book

Date Due

UfcY

¦AY20'*Q

HAY 2 2 '66

SEP 2 9 '6 Bun i '66

s

HLUS8
APR 3 Q 77
6- a 0. V8

7T

JUN8 '6

JUN i '66

Tg 2 s 7<

JUL 2 7 '6t JAN 1* '68

MAY 1 Sljjft^Q

OEC 7*tfl

MAY 7 71 JUIM

3

S82

jairti i. w w'

1991 ig,

,S

OV 2 8 '63

,EC30'€

8**0*7*

APR MfrR8 0 78

P-

"Aunnf

Yale Divinity Library
New Haven, Connecticut