The naming of the Hebrew epistle

Does anyone know how we came to call it 'Hebrews', seeing it doesn't have the usual introductory statement and name of writer?

...cuz it was written to the Hebrew believers? I think if you look at how the epistle addresses many things from a Hebrew point of view... the Hebrews would understand it better than the Gentiles would didnt have that back ground.

Krispy

KrispyKrittr said

I think if you look at how the epistle addresses many things from a Hebrew point of view... the Hebrews would understand it better than the Gentiles would didnt have that back ground.

Wouldn't that mean he need [i]not[/i] have explained all that history to them, and how the tabernacle was a pattern of heaven itself, and all those comparasons of priesthoods?

Do you think, then, that gentiles don't need to understand these aspects of the faith?

Thats a good point... at which my next question becomes "what difference does it make?".

I reckon someone smarter than me way back in time discerned it should be called Hebrews for a reason. When I get time I'll consult a couple commentaries.

Krispy

The purpose of the epistle was to reassure Jewish believers that their faith in Jesus as the Messiah was secure and legitimate. Also, it was intended to prepare them for the impending disaster of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. The temple, with its system of animal sacrifices, and the office of the priest, would soon be done away with, just as Jesus had predicted. The Book of Hebrews explains that there was no more need for a priest to intercede before God on an individual’s behalf since Christ’s death provided believers with direct access to God’s throne (Heb. 4:14-16; 10:19-22). Furthermore, the blood of Christ now continually takes away sin (Heb. 9:18-26).
The Book of Hebrews is divided into two major sections: the first deals with doctrinal issues (Heb. 1:1-10:18), and the second focuses on practical living (Heb. 10:19-13:25). In addition to this, it contains several warnings to Jewish Christians not to revert back to Judaism and that system of worship (Heb. 10:39). It was evident that these believers were weak in their faith; when they should have been teaching others, they themselves still required teaching. The writer urges them to grow and not remain as “babes” in Christ (Heb. 5:12-14). A major theme in the book, often expressed by the words “better” and “great,” is the superiority and preeminence of Christ (Heb. 1:4; 2:3; 4:14; 8:6; 12:1; 13:20).
The Complete Word Study Bible, King James Version, (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers) 2000.

dorcas wrote:
Wouldn't that mean he need [i]not[/i] have explained all that history to them, and how the tabernacle was a pattern of heaven itself, and all those comparasons of priesthoods?

Didn't the Jews often use the method of going back in history and explaining things? I'm thinking of Stephen's sermon in Acts 7 and how he went back into OT history and built his sermon upon that history. Also at the Jewish passover, and even at Purim they seem to have a way of repeating history...why is it repeated? To remember what God did and why they keep the feasts.

Could it be the author of Hebrews was using that method to reach a Jewish audience?

Just some thoughts...

Roniya asked

Could it be the author of Hebrews was using that method to reach a Jewish audience?

I think also, that the modern Western world is unaware of how [i]much[/i] information - such as history - and pure academic learning and method in the form of memory work, is still carried today in the heads of those brought up under a more Eastern culture.

In that the gospel of Christ was originally preached from a knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures, I believe it was also for the gentiles to understand how the gospel applied to them also. For instance, Matthew quotes Isaiah several times, pointing out that these prophecies pointed towards gentile salvation.

So, while maybe a Jewish writer used a form familiar to Jews, I don't believe it was [u]only[/u] [i]for[/i] Jews, as [i]anyone[/i] hearing the epistle, would be edified into a deeper understanding of who Christ is and how He becomes (their) [i]my[/i] High Priest to bring (them) me to God. This is basic for all believers, including gentiles.

This is why I asked why it is called 'Hebrews', as if it only applies to them. The name itself seems to have led to schools of thought within the church, such as teach that gentiles don't even need to [i]read[/i] Hebrews. :-o

Roniya wrote:

dorcas wrote:
Wouldn't that mean he need [i]not[/i] have explained all that history to them, and how the tabernacle was a pattern of heaven itself, and all those comparasons of priesthoods?

Didn't the Jews often use the method of going back in history and explaining things? I'm thinking of Stephen's sermon in Acts 7 and how he went back into OT history and built his sermon upon that history. Also at the Jewish passover, and even at Purim they seem to have a way of repeating history...why is it repeated? To remember what God did and why they keep the feasts.

Could it be the author of Hebrews was using that method to reach a Jewish audience?

Just some thoughts...

I was thinking of something along those lines, but you said it first, and better! :-D

I understand that even Jews today repeat, or even re-enact, parts of their history at festival times. Especially Passover, where the youngest child asks what is meant by the symbolic meal, and the senior member of the family tells the story of the Exodus again.

... By the way, who do you think is the author of Hebrews? Some say it's Paul. If that is the case I can understand why he didn't "sign" it - his stand against reverting to observance of the Mosaic Law was like a red rag to a bull in many Jewish circles - even those who had accepted Jesus.

So maybe he decided to be anonymous, hoping that the epistle would be at least read by those it was sent to?

Jeannette