Any assessment of the purpose of Hebrews is inextricably tied to one’s understanding of who the addressees were: one cannot discuss the purpose without presupposing some things about the addressees, and vice versa. In the earliest form of the text that has come down to us, p 46, this book had the title “To [the] Hebrews.” Apparently Clement of Alexandria, writing c. A.D. 180, knew the book under this title, since he speaks of it as having been written…“for Hebrews.” Most scholars assume that this is a later editorial label attached to the work for convenient reference and therefore should not influence our efforts to establish the identity of the addressees. This may be too skeptical (cf. comments in chap. 2 above on the Author of Matthew). In any case, it is the content of the book that must finally determine the direction of the discussion, not least because, even if the title was original, it has some ambiguity (e.g., it could refer to Jewish Christians whose mother tongue is Hebrew/Aramaic [Acts 6:1] or to Christians who are Jewish by birth, irrespective of their mother tongue [Phil. 3:5]).
All agree that the book is written for Christians, who are urged to maintain their confession (e.g., Heb. 3:6, 14; 4:14; 10:23). Their ethnic background is more disputed. Although the book is steeped in Old Testament allusions and Levitical ritual, it does not necessarily follow that either the author or the readers are Jewish Christians; doubtless some Gentile believers immersed themselves in the Greek Old Testament. It is often pointed out that the author’s knowledge of Jewish ritual, like the knowledge that he presupposes of his readers, is a literary knowledge: it is drawn from the Old Testament and perhaps other Jewish texts, not (so far as the epistle shows) from any close observation of or participation in the temple ritual in Jerusalem. A number of scholars take this line. 33 Some argue that the warnings against turning “away from the living God” (3:12) better suit former pagans in danger of apostasy than Jews who, if they relapsed into Judaism, would still be serving the living God of their fathers. Others suggest that these are Gentile Christians in danger of abandoning the exclusive claims of Christ and seeking a deeper way in Judaism, a variation on the “Judaizing” controversy. Some think Hebrews attempts to adapt Jewish apocalyptic to a Jewish environment, or tries to dissipate misplaced sacramental piety.
These lines of reasoning have not proved convincing to the majority of scholars. When the author warns against turning “away from the living God” (Heb. 3:12), he adduces the example of the Israelites under Moses’ leadership who turned away from God. If such language applies to ancient Israelites, it is hard to imagine a reason why it could not be applied to first-century Jews. The “elementary teachings” of 6:1 presuppose a background in Judaism, and the author’s driving insistence that the old covenant has been eclipsed by the new makes sense only if the readers are still trying to live under it, or if they imagine that, having passed beyond it, they may legitimately revert to it. Moreover, as Bruce points out, 34 nothing in this epistle suggests that the problem the author confronts is Judaizing propaganda. 35 In particular, the nonmention of circumcision makes sense if the epistle is directed to a Jewish-Christian community but would be quite surprising if the readers are Gentile believers in danger of being seduced by the so-called Judaizers.
Furthermore, the author cites the Greek Old Testament as if he assumes that his readers will recognize its authority. That would be true of Hellenistic Jews who had converted to Christianity. Even if they were tempted to modify some elements of their Christian belief and return in some measure to their erstwhile commitment to Judaism, their confidence in what we call the Old Testament would not be shaken. Pagans who had converted to Christianity, should they be tempted to return to their paganism, would surely also be tempted to abandon their submission to the Scriptures that had contributed to their becoming Christians. Moreover, not a few of the author’s arguments for the superiority of Jesus turn on challenging the assumption that the cultic regulations of the Sinai code were final (e.g., Heb. 7:11). Christians in danger of reverting to paganism would scarcely need that kind of argument; Christians in danger of reverting to Judaism certainly would.
Among those who believe the intended readers are Jewish Christians, many have attempted to identify a particular subset of Jews. Bornhaüser infers from Heb. 5:12 (the author’s insistence that by this point his readers should be teachers) that they were not ordinary Jewish-Christians but some of the “large number of priests” who “became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). Spicq at first defended this theory and then modified it by suggesting that they were “Esseno-Christians,” including former members of the Qumran community. Several scholars have urged variations on this theme. But the most that can reasonably be said is that the Jewish background of the readers was probably not so much in the conservative rabbinic traditions of Palestine as in Hellenistic Judaism influenced by various nonconformist Jewish sects, of which the Essenes are but one example.
Others think that the readers have been attracted, not to a form of Jewish faith and practice independent of Christianity, but to a form of Jewish Christianity more conservative than what the author himself approves. There is a sense in which this appears to be correct, and another in which it seems quite false. It is probably correct in that there is no conclusive evidence that the readers thought of themselves as apostates. They probably did not set out to abandon the Christian gospel and return to Judaism. In that sense the readers are turning to a form of “Jewish Christianity” more conservative than what the author himself approves. But the author’s point is that what the readers are in danger of adopting is in fact no Christianity at all. It is nothing less than apostasy: hence the strong paraenetic passages. The lengthy expositions intertwined with the paraenesis provide the grounds for this judgment. To return to reliance upon the cultic structures of the old covenant is not only to fail to appreciate the way in which they pointed to Christ across the years of redemptive history, it is implicitly to assign to them a redemptive effectiveness that they never possessed and simultaneously to depreciate the exclusive significance of Christ and his sacrifice.
The reasons the readers have for reverting to some form of Judaism (overlaid, perhaps, with continuing protestations of faithfulness to Christianity) are not spelled out in detail; they are simply hinted at. For instance, it appears they were tired of bearing the shame of living outside the mainstream of their cultural heritage (Heb. 13:13). They were in danger of focusing on novel teachings (13:9) at the expense of the apostolic gospel (13:7-8). It is also possible that fear was a contributing motivation. The religion of the Jews was recognized by the Romans; Christianity was not. To be seen to return to the fold of Judaism might alleviate the threat of persecution by the state authorities. In any case, the discipline of the Christians was apparently fading as they withdrew from regular meetings (10:25; this may signal that the readers belonged to a house church that was no longer meeting with the rest of the church). But whatever their reasons, it is not so much the reasons that interest the author as the outcome : Christ, his sacrifice, and his priestly work are so relativized that they are effectively denied, and apostasy is only a whisker away. It is to prevent just such a calamity that the author writes this epistle.
Much of the canonical contribution peculiar to Hebrews lies in the distinctive emphases of the book that also draw scholarly attention, just outlined. The epistle to the Hebrews greatly enriches New Testament Christology, especially with respect to Jesus’ priestly work, the finality of his sacrifice, the nature of his sonship, the importance of the incarnation (see esp. ch. 2), and his role as “pioneer.”
Similarly, because of its extensive use of Old Testament texts, this epistle enables us to explore the hermeneutical assumptions of first-century Christians, so as better to learn how to read the Old Testament. The nature of typology, the understanding of prophecy that goes far beyond merely verbal prediction, the interplay between exegesis of specific texts, and the constraints of redemptive history are all exemplified in Hebrews. It thus also provides many of the working elements for developing biblical theology.
The epistle joins other New Testament books (e.g., Acts and Galatians) in providing an independent slant on the difficult movement from an understanding of Israel as the locus of the people of God, constrained by the law-covenant of Sinai, to the church as the people of God, constrained by the covenant sealed by Jesus and his death and resurrection. Finally, Hebrews links with some other New Testament books (e.g., 1 John) that are vitally interested in the problem of the perseverance of Christians and the nature and danger of apostasy.