AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

BY A H McNEILE
Copyright A H McNeile - first published at the University Press, Oxford 1927.
2nd Edition revised by C S C WILLIAMS 1953.
This Edition prepared for Katapi in Arial Unicode MS by Paul Ingram 2003.

Chapter VIII - Part 2 - GENERAL EPISTLES AND HOMILIES

HOME | Hebrews (pages 224-239)

§ 3. HEBREWS

purpose.

The occasion of this writing, as of i Peter, was the readers' need of encouragement in the face of trouble. They were suffering tribulation for their faith, though it had not actually reached the point of martyrdom (xii. 4), and the author tries to rouse them to hold firmly to their Christian steadfastness. Their danger, however, was not merely despondency but religious apostasy; and he therefore supports his appeal by means of a carefully composed doctrinal argument, the various stages of which lead up successively to exhortations and warnings. In the sufferings which had come upon them, their dullness and denseness of faith and understanding were letting them drift towards the point of spiritual shipwreck, and he aimed at putting before them a presentation of Christ and Christianity such as would brace them to spiritual effort.

The doctrinal argument' is shaped under the influence of Alexandrian, and ultimately of Platonic, thought.² There is an antithesis between that which is Real, the heavenly Idea permanent and perfect, and the earthly 'copy' (ix. 23), 'shadow'

(See A. H. McNeile's New Testament Teaching, pp. 222-6.)

(The Platonic influence on Heb. is sometimes exaggerated. As O. Cullmann has shown, our author remains true to the biblical conception of time (Christ and Time, Eng. trans., F. V. Filson, 1951, pp. 54 f.).)

(x.1), 'copy and shadow' (viii.5), 'figure' (ix.9), 'type' (ix.24) which is imperfect, inadequate, transitory. The latter is seen in the sacrificial religion and priesthood of the Old Testament, and in the whole economy of God's people Israel; the former in Christianity. This does not mean, however, that the Real is merely substituted for the copy, but that the copy became obsolete when the heavenly Ideal was realized, actualized, in Christ and Christianity. The author says, in effect, 'That which is perfect is come, and if you fall away from it you lose everything. If it was perilous to disobey and disbelieve the divine message as imperfectly revealed in the Mosaic system, how much more perilous now that it is perfectly revealed in the ideal Christian system. On the other hand, if you hold firmly to your confidence and faith you enjoy all that is contained in the Ideal.'

Page ^

contents.

Many different analyses of the epistle have been offered by commentators, but they often fail to present it as a literary whole, and an organic unity. Some writers speak of 'digressions' and 'parentheses' as though the main outline would have been complete without them. This results from regarding the writing as primarily a doctrinal treatise, in the course of which the author takes the opportunity, at frequent intervals, of improving the occasion by homiletic exhortation. But even when it is recognized that the exhortations are as essential to the plan as the doctrinal portions, and that the former are throughout the ground and purpose of the latter (This is well shown by B. Weiss, Texte u. Untersuchungen, vol. xxxv, 1910.), another feature of the epistle is seldom explained, i.e. the repetition both of doctrinal statements and of exhortations.

The best analysis known to the present writers is that of von Haering in the Zeitschriftf. d. neutest. Wissenschaft, xviii, 1918, pp. 145-63. He refers to von Soden's fourfold division of the epistle (In the Handkommentar mm n.T. (Freiburg, 1890).), corresponding broadly to the fourfold division of a discourse that was conventional among ancient rhetoricians: (The rhetorical care with which it was written is evident. Blass even prints it in στίχοι - (stochoi) as rhythmical, a striking example of Kunstprosa.)

1.	Προοίμιον πρὸς εὔνοιαν- prooimion pros eunoian, leading up to the πρόθεσις - (prothesis).
2.	Διήγησις πρὸς πιθανότητα - diegesis pros pithanoteta.
3.	ἀπόδειξις πρὸς πειθώ - apodeixis pros peitho.
4.	ἐπίλογος - epilogos.

And while the contents of the epistle are very different from those of a conventional discourse, he divides it as follows:

A.	The prooimion	i.1-iv.13	leads up to the main thesis
		iv.14-16	which is expressed in a simple and undeveloped form.
B.	The diegesis	v.1-vi.20	is a preliminary treatment of the doctrinal theme, followed by a preliminary exhortation.
C.	The apodeixis	vii.1-x.18	is a fuller treatment of the doctrinal theme.
D.	The epilogos	x.19-xiii.21	is a fuller exhortation.

A.			The greatness of the final revelation that Christ brought, and of the salvation that He wrought, are due to His greatness as 'Apostle' and 'High Priest'. Correspondingly great is the responsibility of despising, disbelieving, falling away from, Him and His salvation	i.1-iv.13.
	(a)		The Son, Heir of all things, is the Bringer of the final revelation, and performs the High Priestly function of cleansing away sin	i.1-3.
			The uniqueness of His office and Person measured by comparison with the angels, the bringers of the Old Testament revelation	cf. ii.2,
			and the proof from Scripture	i.4-14.
	(b)		Exhortation to take heed to this unique revelation	ii.1-4.
	(c)		The temporary subordination to the angels, which seems to conflict with the superiority, was the very means of His exaltation, that by the subordination He might become the archegos of our salvation, being identified with man.
			This is proved from Scripture	ii.5-9.
			The reason why this was the means, befitting God	v.10,
			to such an end—because to bring many sons to glory the Son must take blood and flesh to rescue them, and to have sympathy with men as a merciful and faithful High Priest	vv.10-18.
			[Thus the consideration of the greatness of the Son as the Bringer of revelation leads dialectically to His worth as High Priest, and so the thesis of iv.14-16 is prepared for.]
	(d)		Exhortation combining the thoughts of 'Apostle' and 'High Priest', all that has been said being completed by reference to Moses, the Old Testament Apostle and High Priest. Like him in faithfulness Christ is superior to him as the Preparer of the house is greater than the house, and the son than the servant.
			Therefore on our faithful holding to the hope depends our belonging to the house	iii.1-6).
			[And so His faithfulness is the motive and force of ours.]
			Exhortation which takes content and colour from the leading thought of the prooimion of the Son as Bringer of revelation. Refuse not the word which Christianity receives from Psalm xcv.7 f.	iii.7-iv.13.
			thesis.
			The heavenly High Priesthood of the Son, whose greatness does not alienate us from Him, because He was tempted as we are, and can sympathize with us, is the ground of our free, bold access to the Throne of grace to obtain help	iv.14-16.

B.			Preliminary treatment of the thesis	v.1-vi.20.
	(a)		Preliminary treatment of the Son's High Priesthood, to which the Old Testament pointed	v.1-10.:
			His priestly function	v.1.
			[In section C the functions are placed second viii.1-x.18 and the qualifications first vii. See v.1 repeated in viii.3.] His priestly qualifications, which are twofold:
			Sympathy with men because He shares human nature	v.2f.,7-9.
			Distinction from men because (like Aaron) He is called by God, His call being 'according to the order of Melchisedek'	vv.4 f., 10.
	(b)		Preliminary exhortation	v.11-vi.20.
			Rebuke of the undeveloped state of the readers towards the truth of Christ's High Priesthood	v.11-14.
			Exhortation to develop	vi.1-3.
			Warning that no second repentance is possible	vv.4-8.
			[Parallel to x.26-31.] Ground for hope: God will consider their behaviour in the past	vi.9-12.
			[Parallel to x.32-39.] The spurring thought of the certainty of God's sworn promise	vi.13-20.
			[vi.20 takes up the Melchisedek priesthood again.]

C.			Fuller treatment of the thesis, showing the meaning of Christ's High Priesthood as the mediation of the New Diatheke	vii.1-x.18.
	(a)		His priestly qualifications	vii.1-28.
			What the Melchisedek priesthood means: a priesthood for ever	vv.1-3.
			It is greater than the Levitical priesthood because
		(i)	Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedek,
		(ii)	Abraham was blessed by Melchisedek,
		(iii)	Levitical priests are many in number because of death	vv.4-10.
			The superiority of the Melchisedek priesthood involves the changing of the old for the new, which means the change of the whole law and all that that includes	vv.11, 12.
			That takes place in Jesus, for He was Judaean not Levite; and His priesthood is of a wholly different kind, due not to an external command but to internal power of life, and that a life indissoluble because the oath was 'for ever'	vv.13-17.
			That means the annulling of the old, which could not accomplish what the bringing in of the better hope accomplished	vv.18, 19.
			The measure of the change is the superiority of the new priesthood	vv.20-28:
			in that it is
		(i)	by oath	vv.20-22,
		(ii)	eternal	vv.23-25,
		(iii)	that of one who is ethically perfect	v.26,
		(iv)	eternally permanent in its operation, not constantly repeated	vv.27, 28.
	(b)		His priestly function in the heavenly sanctuary is greater than the Levitical; hence the New Diatheke mediated by it is greater than the old, as the old itself testifies	viii.1-x.18.
			This chief thought (κεφάλαιον - kephalaion) stated summarily	viii.1-13.
			The function is executed in the True Tabernacle	vv. 1-5.
			The correspondingly better Diatheke foretold by Jeremiah	vv.6-13.
			The same thought worked out more fully	ix.1-x.18:
			The Old Testament type: the place	ix.1-5,
			the function	vv.6, 7,
			the result	vv.8-10.
			The New Testament fulfilment	ix.11-x.18:
		(i)	Summary statement	ix.11-15.
		(ii)	Why an offering, and that a better one?	ix.16-28:
			Because every diathekeis mediated with blood	vv.16, 17;
			the old one	vv.18-22;
			the new one	vv.23-28.
		(iii)	Why is Christ's offering a better one?	x.1-14:
			Because the old could make nothing perfect	vv.1-3,
<