Truth Magazine

By Donnie V. Rader

Temperance is essential to .. .

Becoming a Christian Basic happiness

Unity

Living pure

A happy marriage

Temperance is needed in .. .

Our temper Our pride

Our words

Our thoughts Our reactions Our will

Our opinions

Our buying and spending

Anything that might be a hindrance to us

General self-discipline (self-help)

God’s word instructs us to be temperate. It is one of the “Christian graces” that is to be added as we grow in grace and in knowledge.

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance . . . (2 Peter 1:5-6).

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things (1 Cor. 9:25).

That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience (Titus 2:2).

Temperance is self-control. In fact, some translations use that expression in the above passages. A.T. Robertson suggests that it comes from a word describing one “holding him-self in” (Word Pictures of the New Testament, en-line edition).

Passages like the above tell us that we can (and we must) control our-selves. Furthermore, they tell us that we can make ourselves do what we know we need to do. Temperance is a general principle that applies in many areas. Let’s see the things that temperance is essential to and some areas wherein we need to apply it.

Temperance Is Essential To .. .

1. Becoming a Christian (Acts 24:25). One cannot even obey the gospel unless and until he denies his own will and yields to the will of God. That involves controlling self. Repentance involving ceasing things that are contrary to God. That involves self-control.

2. Basic happiness (Matt. 5:5). Those who are truly happy are those who place restraints on themselves. Sometimes young people think that if they can ever get out from under their parent’s rule they will be able to really enjoy life. They think that if they can live without any control, life would be fun. Not so. True happiness comes only when we learn to master ourselves.

3. Unity (Eph. 4:1-3). In this text Paul lays down several attitudes that are essential to have unity. He says, “I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one an-other in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” These cannot be attained with-out self-control.

4. Living pure (Titus 2:12). God’s grace teaches us to “deny ungodliness and worldly lust”. We must say “NO!” to these in order to live pure. That re-quires self-control. Do you realize that every sin involves a lack of self-control? Thus, temperance is essential to living pure.

5. A happy marriage. Self-denial is essential to harmony in the home. I can’t think of a marriage problem that doesn’t involve a lack of self denial or self-control. Immorality, nagging, lack of communication, lack of love, being inconsiderate and not understanding one another are all due to a lack of self-control.

Several years ago I saw a book about solving marital problems. I haven’t seen a copy of it since. I’ve wished several times I had bought a copy of it then. Throughout the book various problems in marriage were listed and explained. Then below that the answer to the problem was given. As I thumbed through a copy, I noticed that every problem was given the same basic answer: Mark 8:34. That passage deals with self-denial. At the time I thought the approach was quiet simple so I didn’t buy a copy. However, I have thought about that simple approach many times. The more I think about it the more I realize how much self-denial is a factor in a happy marriage. As I see people with marriage problems I can quickly identify that either one or both are not denying themselves.

Temperance Is Needed In .. .

Temperance must be applied in all areas of life. I wonder if we don’t limit the idea of temperance to our temper or our tongue. Certainly, these must be con-trolled. However, there are many areas wherein we must apply self-control.

1. Our temper. The Proverb writer said, “A quick-tempered man acts foolishly” (14:17). Just twelve verses later he said, “He who is slow to wrath has great understanding, But he who is impulsive exalts folly” (v. 29). The same books states, “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city” (16:32). Again, “Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls” (25:28).

2. Our pride. We must control what we think about ourselves. Paul urged all not to think more highly of themselves than they ought to think (Rom. 12:3).

3. Our words. While the tongue is hard to control, it is not impossible to handle. We must be slow to speak (James 1:19). If we do not bridle our tongue, our religion is empty and vain (v. 26). The fact that Paul accused some of “saying things which they ought not” (1 Tim. 5:13) suggests that we must control the tongue. In the Proverbs we read, “He who has knowledge spares his words …” (Prov. 17:27).

4. Our Thoughts. Not only our words, but even our thoughts must be put into subjection to the Lord (2 Cor. 10:5). While some say, “I can’t help what I think,” we can and must control our thoughts. Controlling our thoughts means we must: (a) cease lust and immoral fantasies (Matt. 5:28; 2 Tim. 2:22), (b) fight bitterness (James 3:14), (c) be forgiving (Eph. 4:32) and (d) be optimistic (Phil. 4:8, 13).

5. Our reactions. We cannot retaliate when we have been wronged. We must treat others right whether or not they do so to us. Jesus set us an example of controlling our reactions, ” when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten” (1 Peter 2:23). Remember what Jesus said about those who put him on the cross, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

6. Our will. We have previously noted that we must yield our will to the will of God in order to become Christians (Acts 24:25). Paul exemplified temperance in his will, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

7. Our opinions. While we may be entitled to hold to our own opinions, we must not bind that which is not a part of divine revelation on others (Rom. 14:22). Thus, we must exercise self-control.

8. Our buying and spending. Many live in debt and struggle with financial difficulties simply because they do not curb their desire to buy and spend. We must be careful about how much we owe. We cannot afford to get to the point that we cannot pay our debts (Rom. 13:8). The impulsive buyer does not exercise temperance.

9. Anything that might be a hindrance to us. That applies even to things right within themselves (1 Cor. 6:12). Whether it be sports, a romance, or a job that could little by little lead me away from my diligent service to the Lord, I must be in control.

10. General self-discipline (self-help). Temperance (self-control) means that I make myself do what I know I need to do. If not, then how could we be practicing self-control? Thus, it includes (a) making myself study the Bible without being forced to prepare lest I be embarrassed in class, (b) working without a boss or time-clock, (c) taking care of my body (using some will power), and (d) con-trolling my time and not wasting it.

Without Temperance .. .

Can you image what life would be like if we threw temperance out the window? We would follow our own de-sires and pleasures. But, then so would others, which might cause harm to us. We would be selfish. We would live like beasts. Unhappiness would fill our lives. Our relationships would turn sour. Our spirituality, our health, our finances, our self-esteem, and our jobs would suffer. Satan would take over and reign in our lives (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5).

Misconceptions About Temperance

It is not unusual for someone to do something like letting their temper flare and then justifying it on the basis of “That’s just my nature” or “I just can’t help it, that’s just the way I am.” A lack of self-control may be your “nature” in the sense that it is something you have developed and learned. However, it is not something beyond your ability to control. Since the Bible demands self-control, we can help what we think, say, and do.

Quite often we hear someone say, “I just don’t have any will-power.” This sounds as if I can’t help it. It suggests that some have will-power and others don’t, just like some are tall and some are short. Thus, if we don’t have any will-power, it is because we haven’t tried to develop and use it.

Conclusion

We can and must control ourselves. Real self-control will not just say “We should . . .” but, “We will . . .” In the last article in this series we will consider how to develop self-discipline.

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 6-7
May 2, 1996

By David McClister

Open any number of commonly used Bible reference works and look up the entry for “Satan.” You will probably get a familiar story. I quote L.O. Richards’ Complete Bible Handbook as typical:

The O.T. indicates that Satan was created by God as a ruling angel called Lucifer, with great powers. But pride led Lucifer to rebel against God (cf. Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-15). Warped now by sin, Lucifer is transformed into Satan, which means “enemy” or “adversary.” .. . Satan is a powerful fallen angel, intensely hostile to God and antagonistic to God’s people (pp. 245, 801).

Ask most Bible-believing people where Satan came from and nine out of ten will give you a version of the story quoted above. The idea that Satan is a fallen angel whom God kicked out of heaven and who fell to earth is so wide-spread that many people believe that the Bible teaches it.

It may surprise you to find that the Bible teaches no such thing. Sure, there are passages in the Bible that speak of beings falling from heaven, but they are not about Satan and they use figurative language. Only by a careless reading of these texts can anyone arrive at the popular story concerning Satan’s origin. Let us examine the relevant biblical passages in context.

Just Who is Satan?

The name “Satan” is a transliteration of the Hebrew satan, denoting an accuser in the legal sense, a plaintiff with a charge to bring. In Zechariah 3:1 we read: “then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him” (NASB). In a word, Satan opposes us, works against us, or “prosecutes” us in an attempt to defeat us spiritually and morally. Jesus called him a murderer and a liar in John 8:44. In Revelation, John pictures Satan as a great dragon (Rev 12:9), a depiction that emphasizes his terrible nature. That same verse identifies him as the serpent (a reference to Gen. 3) and as the devil, which is another common biblical name for him. Perhaps 1 Peter 5:8 tells us what we most need to know about him: “Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

The biblical emphasis is on what Satan is in relation to us (an enemy). Some people, however, think that certain biblical texts go even farther and tell us how Satan came to be this way. Let us examine these texts carefully.

Isaiah 14:12-14

This passage reads: “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! But you said in your heart, `I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. `I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”‘ You will notice immediately that this passage does not mention Satan by any of his common biblical names. One can wring from this text a theory of Satan’s origin only by assuming that this passage describes him and by ignoring the context of this passage in Isaiah’s message.

Isaiah was not discussing Satan in Isaiah 12, nor does the origin of Satan in any way figure into the prophet’s message. If we say that this text is about the origin of Satan, it simply makes nonsense of the larger context. Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of the Hebrew kings: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Isa 1:1). His ministry spanned (approximately) 750-686 B.C., some 65 years at the most. This was a time when God’s people had become corrupted with idolatry. God sent Isaiah to preach repentance to his people and to warn them that a failure to turn from idolatry would mean disaster on a national scale. Isaiah preached to both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, fulfilling his commission by telling the people of those kingdoms that they would suffer terribly if they refused to repent. Isaiah 10:5-6 summarizes the message to the northern kingdom. There is similar language (13:3-6) reserved for the southern kingdom, the kingdom against which God would send the Babylonians.

Isaiah’s message was not completely one of gloom and doom. The Assyrians and the Babylonians, he preached, were simply instruments that God would use to punish his people. Once God had used these nations for his purposes, he would then turn and exact his judgment on them for their own wickedness. It is an awe-inspiring look at the sovereignty of God in action. Babylon would fall, and after this God would renew and regather his people and give them a glorious new existence. Isaiah 14 is about the fall of the Babylonian empire. Isaiah tells the inhabitants of the southern kingdom of Judah that after they had endured punishment the day would come when they would be able to see the fall of their oppressor and jeer at Babylon the way Babylon once jeered at Judah. Look at verses 4 and following. This is about Babylon.

Now why would Isaiah start the chapter talking about the downfall of Babylon, interrupt it with a description of the origin of Satan, and then resume speaking about the fall of Babylon? It just does not make any sense in the context here to see 12:12-14 as about Satan’s origin. The fact is that Isaiah was describing for the Judahites what they would be saying as they jeered at the king of Babylon who had been brought low and who had fallen from power (v 4). The tables would turn, and Isaiah is describing the irony of it all. Even a cursory reading of the passage reveals that the language here is poetic and figurative, and we need to treat it accordingly. “Heaven” in verse 12 is figurative language for that which is high and exalted, and Isaiah is here de-scribing the high esteem in which the king of Babylon was held. The prophet describes his fall from power figuratively as a fall from heaven. He then calls the Babylonian monarch, also figuratively, the “star of the morning.” In his glory, at one time, the sovereign of Babylon was like a brilliant star in the sky. However, his kingdom and his power would fall, and, in keeping with the imagery, Isaiah depicts his demise as a falling star.

Part of the popular misunderstanding of this passage stems from the appearance of the word “Lucifer” in the King James Version rendering of verse 12. The Hebrew word in question here is helel, which means “morning star” and has no connection with Satan. The translators of the King James Version used a word that, in 1611, was equivalent to the Hebrew word helel. “Lucifer” is an old Latin word that originally meant “light bearer” and was the name of the planet Venus whenever it appeared in the morning sky (Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1072). When King James English was still being spoken, “Lucifer” did not mean Satan. Unfortunately, to many people today Lucifer is the name of Satan (because Isa. 12:12-14 is assumed to be about Satan!). It is not that the translators goofed but that people of later times either forgot what Lucifer meant or they wrongly assumed it was a name for Satan, or both.

Isaiah 12:13 recites the arrogant boasting of the Babylonian king. He once thought he was the greatest one in the world, that he had power and authority equal to God himself. One of the characteristics of the prophetic picture of Babylon is its great pride. However, God would bring this king low, to the lowest level imaginable to the Hebrew mind: Sheol, the abode of the dead (v. 15). Verses 9-11 de-scribe how the inhabitants of Sheol would stand surprised that one who was thought to be so “high” was now among them in a place so “low.” The point is that the Babylonian king went from the extreme of worldly exaltation to the extreme of humiliation, and this was God’s doing, God’s judgment. The whole thing is a picture, an image, but not a literal historical narrative. The emphasis is on the contrast between the Babylonian ruler’s “before” and “after” conditions. People would then look at the failure of the Babylonian king and ask, “Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a wilderness and overthrew its cities, who did not allow his prisoners to go home?” (vv. 16-17).

You see, then, that when we examine Isaiah 14:12-14 in its context it tells us nothing about the origin of Satan. It is a figurative description of the fall of the king of Babylon.

Ezekiel 28:12-16

Another supposed origin-of-Satan passage is Ezekiel 28:12-16, which reads: “. . . Thus says the Lord GOD, `You had the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: the ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; the lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; and the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, was in you. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; you walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you. By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, and you sinned; therefore I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, 0 covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.'”

The reference to Eden is, for many, a sure indicator that this passage must be about the origin of Satan. Never mind that Satan was already man’s enemy in Eden. But again, it is only by assuming that this passage is about Satan (the very thing that must be proved) that we can read it that ext page

When we examine way. The context here argues in another direction.

Ezekiel’s words here concern the king of Tyre. Verses 1 and 11 make this plain. Chapter 27 is about the fall of the nation, and chapter 28 is specifically about the fall of that nation’s king. Paying a little attention to the context goes a long way! Just as in the Isaiah passage, to take the prophet’s words as descriptive of Satan and his “fall” is to make complete nonsense out of this chapter.

The message here is in two parts, but each part presents the same message. Verses 1-10 describe the king of Tyre from God’s viewpoint. Like the king of Babylon, the king of Tyre was proud, arrogant, and boastful. He thought of himself as divine, and thus he claimed glory that did not belong to him (vv. 2, 6, 9). The prophet describes the monarch’s greatness sarcastically in verses 3-5. For his arrogance, the proud king will reap the judgment of God.

The judgment upon him is that God will bring him low (vv. 7-10). Verses 11-19 repeat this message. The prophet’s sarcastic portrait of the king reappears in verses 12b-16a. The increase in the level of imagery and figures in the language heightens the sarcasm. The king thought of himself in the absolute highest terms, but to God this was pure foolishness. The reference to Eden in verse 13 is not literal but means that the king thought of himself as being privileged above all others. He thought he was so special, like God’s anointed cherub or as one who lived on the very mountain of God (v. 14). He pictured himself in the most glorious terms. For this arrogance, God would judge him severely (vv. 16b-19).

Again, therefore, when we read this passage in its con-text, we see that it has nothing to do with the origin of Satan. In the next part of this study we will look at some New Testament passages that are commonly put forth as explaining the origin of Satan and then try to draw some conclusions.

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 9-10
May 2, 1996

By Kyle Campbell

The book of Hebrews is one of the most intriguing books the Epistle to the apostle Paul. in the New Testament. Its argumentation and flow of thought is unrivaled among all of the other epistles and letters which have been handed down in our New Testament canon. William G. Johnsson says, “Hebrews is a work of art. It may well attract us with its magnificent language, its vivid images, and the sweep and subtlety of its argument; but its world of ideas and its methods of reasoning are so different from those of today that we shall probably feel that we are missing a great deal of its meaning” (1984131). To the author of Hebrews, Christianity is the best of all possible systems of religion.

Man has always been more naturally inquisitive towards matters of which he knows very little. Perhaps the dispute over authorship is the one of the keys to understanding the popularity of Hebrews. Borchert remarks, “It would be an understatement to say that the book of Hebrews has been involved in disputes with respect to some of its aspects. Few matters of Hebrews have been untouched by debate” (1985 319). Conybeare and Howson have rightly said, “There is no portion of the New Testament whose authorship is so disputed, nor any of which the inspiration is more indisputable” (1910 848). The controversy over authorship has lasted from the earliest possible time until the present day.

Although the list of potential authors of Hebrews is endless, it will be the purpose of this article to examine the ancient and modern external evidence, and the assumptions which must be made about the author from the book itself.

The Ancient External Evidence For Authorship

When one examines the earliest external evidence for the Epistle, it becomes clear that no firm tradition existed regarding its authorship. The first attestation concerning the author of Hebrews is from Pantaenus, an eminent Oriental scholar, who was for several years President of the Catechetical School of Sacred Learning in Egypt (Milligan 1875 6). The next oldest extant evidence on the authorship of Hebrews comes from Clement of Alexandria, near the close of the second century (Lightfoot 1976 20). He was a pupil of Pantaenus and believed that the Epistle was writ-ten by Paul for the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that it was translated into Greek by Luke for the Greeks. Moffatt (1924 18) explains the popularity of attributing the Epistle to the apostle Paul.

Since Paul was the most considerable letter-writer of the primitive church, it was natural that in some quarters this anonymous writing should be assigned to him, as was done apparently in the Alexandrian church, although even there scholarly readers felt qualms at an early period, and endeavored to explain the idiosyncrasies of style by supposing that some disciple of Paul, like Luke, translated it from Hebrew into Greek.

The next witness for the authorship of Hebrews is Origen. Origen noted the differences in style between Hebrews and Paul’s Epistles but was impressed by the Pauline character of the thoughts (Guthrie 1982 2664). He suggested that the book was written by a Pauline disciple, although his famous dictum has sounded down through the corridors of history: “who wrote the epistle, God knows for sure” (Borchert 1985 320). After the age of Origen, the Council of Antioch and Eusebius also both attributed the Epistle to Paul. After this period, the Epistle was commonly held as Pauline in the East. Guthrie states, “Since the work so clearly possessed apostolic authority, it is not difficult to see why the assumption arose that Paul was the author” (1982 2665).

While it seems that early tradition unanimously attributes the Epistle to Paul, there were other dissenting voices. Tertullian, around A.D. 190 or 200, attributed the Epistle to Barnabas. Filson was so impressed by this witness that he says, “The only ancient tradition worth considering is that of Tertullian, who said that Barnabas wrote Hebrews” (1954 21). Many scholars are quick to point out that Tertullian was a lone voice which suggested Barnabas, but Hill states, “Tertullian names Barnabas as the author of the epistle, and in such a way as to suggest that this was not a private opinion of his own, but a commonly agreed ascription in his circles” (1979 144). However, Hiebert (1977 77) states that Tertullian may only be acknowledging the view of the Montanists rather than giving his own opinion on the matter.

In the West, Pauline authorship did not appear to be taken seriously. The Epistle was not received by Marcion (Wescott 1892 63), although the omission may have been for dogmatic reasons, since he would have found the theme of Hebrews unpalatable (Guthrie 1982 2665). The omission from the Muratorian canon is more significant, which could reflect the enormous influence of scholars such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Milligan names several other Latin writers of the third century who are considered witnesses against Pauline authorship: Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage; Navatian, a Presbyter of Rome; and Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau in Pannonia (1875 11).

Around the end of the fourth century, the situation between the East and the West changed because of the influence of Jerome and Augustine. Within a short amount of time, the West began to accept Pauline authorship of Hebrews (Borchert 1985 321). Borchert goes on to say, “After Augustine the canonicity of Hebrews and its Pauline authorship remained pretty much undisputed during the next thousand years” (1985 321).

The Modern External Evidence For Authorship

With the dawn of critical thinking in the Renaissance, biblical scholars once again grappled with the issue of authorship. The Reformation spurred a re-evaluation of traditional views. Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin all questioned Pauline authorship as they tried to deal with the concerns of Jerome (Borchert 1985 321). Luther did not like the theology of Hebrews 64ff. and the impossibility of repentance. He therefore placed Hebrews with James, Jude, and the Revelation at a later and less authoritative place in the canon (Borchert 1985 321). Luther appears to have been the first person to suggest Apollos (Guthrie 1982 2665), and later, Calvin, Melanchthon, and the Geneva school joined Luther in opposing Pauline authorship (Borchert 1985 321). Beza also held that it was not written by Paul, but rather by one of his disciples (Westcott 1892 75); and Grotius returned to the theory of Lukan authorship (Guthrie 2665). It is very apparent that the theory of Pauline author-ship suffered its worst blow during the Reformation. In response to the Reformation, the Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent, declared that Pauline authorship of He-brews was fixed (Borchert 1985 321).

The Internal Evidence of the Book of Hebrews

An examination of the internal evidence of Hebrews can be very helpful in determining authorship. One can draw many conclusions about the author from the book itself. The first piece of evidence which must be mentioned is that the writer did not appear to conceal his identity and personality. Westcott (1892 75) argues that the writer was intimately acquainted with those to whom he writes (69ff.; 87; 1034; 1319). Even though Christians cannot know for certain who wrote the Epistle, the first century Christians knew his identity without a doubt.

The second piece of evidence is that the writer is clearly a “Jew who is influenced by the Alexandrian tendency to interpret the Old Testament allegorically, a tendency which we associate with the name of Philo” (Henshaw 1952 343). Many writers of the New Testament were probably influenced by Philo’s writings and interpretations. For example, the word “Logos” is a term used by Philo which is heavily stressed in the Gospel of John (Henshaw 1952 343). No other Christian writer interprets the Old Testament allegorically quite like the writer of Hebrews. Guthrie (1982 2665) says:

He was probably a Hellenist, a Greek-speaking Jew. He was familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures and with the religious ideas of the Jews. He claims the inheritance of their sacred history, traditions, and institutions (11) and dwells on these with an intimate knowledge and enthusiasm that would have been improbably, though not impossible, in a proselyte, and even more so in a Christian convert from heathenism.

The third piece of evidence concerns the style of the Epistle. Metzger says, “Curiously enough this author, al-though he addresses an epistle to `Hebrews,’ is the least Hebraic writer in the New Testament . . . There is scarcely a trace of Semitic influence in his work. The author has a rich vocabulary at his command and uses it with great skill” (1951 46).3 Unlike Paul, the author of Hebrews knows at each moment what his next sentence will be, and he follows a meticulously elaborate outline (Metzger 1951 46). Paul has a great tendency to digress without any concern for Greek diction (Henshaw 1952 344), while this author demonstrated himself as being very skilled and careful.

The fourth piece of evidence suggests that the author was not an original apostle or disciple, since he speaks of the message as being handed down (Henshaw 1952 344; cf. 23). It is quite possible that the author nor the readers were personal disciples of Jesus (Guthrie 2666). In countering the notion that the Hebrews were far-removed from New Testament times, Moffatt (1924 21) says, “The words in 23-4 do not mean that they belonged to the second generation, of course, in a chronological sense, for such words would have applied to the converts of any mission during the first thirty years or so after the crucifixion . . .” Hill adds, “The author can address his readers with a pastoral authority superior to that of their own leaders and with a conscience clear of local involvement (1317ff.), and yet with no personal claim to apostolic aegis” (1979 145).

The fifth piece of evidence suggests that although the author was clearly a Jew who thinks in terms of the Old Testament, he definitely belongs to Gentile Christianity (Henshaw 1952 344). Paul and this writer treated the Jewish law as a preparation for the Christian era. Also, there is a strong emphasis on faith in the Epistle. This emphasis on faith is not found in any New Testament writer except Paul and the author of this Epistle (Henshaw 1952 344). Furthermore, the writer also vividly portrays the central position and high estimation of Christ, the saving significance of his death, the general trend of ethical teaching, and his esteem for the rulers of the Church. All these facets bear out the inference that the author belonged to a Christian circle dominated by a world view of Christianity which included the Gentiles (Guthrie 2666). A final fact which is indicative of a Gentile dominance is the use of the Septuagint through-out the Epistle. Hiebert (1977 77) points out that the author uses the Septuagint throughout the book of Hebrews, even when it is not in harmony with the Hebrew text. This is somewhat unusual because the both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint are used in other New Testament letters.

As one examines the above criteria of the author, it be-comes clear that there simply could not have been many individuals around at that time who could have conformed to the criteria and written the Epistle. Although the suggestions which will discussed later cover most of the popular theories, it is not impossible that the Epistle may be the work of some person totally unknown to us (Henshaw 1952 344).

Conclusion

The next article will look at all the possible authors for the book of Hebrews taking into consideration the external and internal evidence.

Endnotes

1. Henshaw (1952343) argues that the early church obviously would want to include a magnificent piece of writing like Hebrews into the canon. However, to do so would require apostolic authorship, hence, it was necessary to lean heavily toward Pauline authorship.

2. Moffatt (192420) states that “Once in the canon, however, it gradually acquired a Pauline prestige, and, as Greek scholarship faded, any scruples to the contrary became less and less intelligible.”

3. Lightfoot (197623), in reporting the findings made by Wikenhauser, points out that “168 words in Hebrews do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, and an additional 124 do not appear in Paul.” Although this type of argument is not entirely conclusive, it does show the difference in vocabulary between Hebrews and known Pauline writings.

4. An interesting point that must be added here is that the Vatican edition of the Septuagint is used in Hebrews, and Paul always used the Alexandrian edition of the Septuagint when he quoted from it (Farrar 1884435).

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 22-24
May 2, 1996

By Alexander Campbell

It is one of the distinguishing characteristics of our pleadings for reformation, that our press has always been open to our enemies. From the 4th day of July, 1823, till now, I have conducted a printing press which has issued a volume every year, and a number every month, without a single failure; and, sir, those volumes are filled with communications from our enemies, to speak in sectarian style, as from our friends. I believe, sir, mine is the only press in this nation that has systematically and undeviatingly given both sides on every question, and opened its pages to all sorts of opponents  Romanists, Protestants, infidel or sectarian, provided only he paid a decent regard to the laws of grammar and politeness.

I believe, sir, I may go farther and say, that my periodical was the first and the only religious periodical in the world which has pursued that course. They were, in those days, all pledged to some creed or party  all one sided. I have been shut out of all their pages. They dared not to admit my essays. They feared to let their readers hear from me on those subjects which they were inculcating. To those very persons that shut us out, we have tendered them page for page, line for line, word for word in our volumes. Some of them have accepted, some of them have declined.

We have then, sir, nothing secret, nothing clandestine. We have called for investigation, for documents, arguments, and evidence. On our pages all parties have been heard and responded to, so that our constant readers are the most intelligent persons in the religious world. They know both sides.

What, may I ask, is the augury of this? Does it omen the fear of light, or the love of darkness? Indicates it the fear of man, or the consciousness of truth and its eternal strength? Is this the way that conscious error or weakness intrude themselves upon the public ear? No, sir. No, fellow-citizens, you know it is not.

You cannot, with all your various and multifarious modes of thinking, imagine a course more creditable, more just, more candid, more honorable before heaven and earth than the course I have pursued, for the last twenty years, in con-ducting this great discussion of principles. We impute to no man, to no party, principles that they disavow. We fearlessly open and avow our own. We say to every man  hear, examine, judge, and decide for yourself.

Every distinguishing principle of this reformation has passed through an ordeal of the most fiery discrimination. And sir, as soon will the arm of mortal arrest the rising sun, or stop the planets in their course, as any mind stay the progress of truths that have been so clearly spoken by prophets and apostles, and that have passed through such a burning furnace unscathed and unimpaired. (Excerpt from speech by Alexander Campbell in his Debate on Human Creeds with N.L. Rice, contained in Campbell-Rice Debate [Lexington, KY: A.T. Skillman & Son, 1844], pp. 759-912, see p. 887.)

Guardian of Truth XL: 9 p. 21
May 2, 1996