Grace
Theological Journal 7.2 (1986) 163-77
Copyright © 1986 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
THE PROBLEM OF THE
LITERARY STRUCTURE OF
HEBREWS: AN EVALUATION
AND A PROPOSAL
DAVID ALAN BLACK
The literary structure
of the Epistle to the Hebrews is uniquely
complex. In
a writing so multifaceted, where topics are foreshadowed
and repeated, differences
of opinion must inevitably arise regarding the
precise
divisions of the argument. This essay examines three specific
approaches to
the structure of Hebrews: the traditional view, which
divides the
epistle into doctrinal and practical parts; the detailed
literary
analysis of A. Vanhoye; and the "patchwork" approach, which
follows the
changing themes of the letter from chapter to chapter
without
submitting every detail to one overriding theory of structure.
Though each approach has its strengths,
Vanhoye's offers the clearest
analysis of
the epistle. Detecting an intricate theme woven in an
intricate
style, he sets his analysis on a firmer base as part of a broad
literary
approach to the epistle.
* *
*
INTRODUCTION
LITERARY structures, to use a scientific analogy,
are like those
mysterious
species of fish which live on the ocean floor. As soon as
they are
brought to the surface to be examined, the change in pressure
is too
great for them, and they explode, leaving their investigators in a
state of
frustration and bewilderment.
This analogy unquestionably applies more to the structure of
Hebrews than
to any other major NT writing.1 The common
reader
1C. Spicq has voiced a similar opinion: "One's first
contact with the Epistle to the
Hebrews is
forbidding. In fact, in all the collection of the NT writings, this letter is,
with
the Apocalypse, the
most distant from the literary point of view of our western
and
modern mentality" (my translation) (L
'Epitre aux Hebreux [EB;
164 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
may know
the picture-gallery of faithful men and women in chap. 11,
the
mysterious name Melchizedek, something of the priestly and
sacrificial
imagery, and possibly certain vivid passages, such as "looking .
unto Jesus,
the author and finisher of our faith, " but he may be
unaware of
the total nature of the author's thought. Indeed for many
Christians
the epistle has been reduced to a collection of proof-texts
and
memory-verses-a sort of biblical telephone directory, with chap-
ter and
verse instead of area code and number.
But if the common man has found it difficult to follow the
author's
movement of
thought in Hebrews, the NT specialist has not fared any
better. The
study of the structure of Hebrews has followed a course like
that of
the Meander itself. With the passing of time, a sufficient
amount of
silt has accumulated to discourage even the most ambitious
expositor. If
the author had a carefully planned structure before him in
writing, his
arrangement is not easily perceived by his more distant
successors, a
fact which no doubt is behind the multitude of proposed
outlines for
the epistle.
This situation is especially unfortunate in the modern era, which
is
marked by a
common recognition that literary insight and perception
of
structure and patterns are absolutely necessary if the NT documents
are to
be adequately understood. Phrases by themselves, or phrases
strung
together randomly, are of relatively little use, a fact known by
anyone who
has visited a foreign country armed only with a dictionary
and no
knowledge of the language. In biblical exegesis, as in general
linguistics,
language is not an accidental junk-pile consisting of a
haphazard
collection of different items. Instead it is more like a jigsaw
puzzle, where
each piece fits into those which surround it, and where
an
isolated piece simply cannot make any sense if it is removed from its
proper
place in the overall pattern. Concisely put, analysis must
include
synthesis if a text is to be fully appreciated. A thorough-going
structural
treatment is therefore essential if for no other reason than it
enables the
expositor to understand how a NT author has composed
his work
and how each part fits the whole.
The literary structure of Hebrews is uniquely complex. In a
writing so
multifaceted, where topics are naturally foreshadowed and
repeated,
differences of opinion must inevitably arise as to the precise
divisions of
the argument. Some very specific-and novel-suggestions
have been
put forward to explain the progress of thought in Hebrews,
and we
shall examine some of the more interesting of these in this essay
(without any risk of the pages exploding before us).
THE TRADITIONAL DIVISION
On the most basic level, Hebrews is understood to consist of two
main
parts of unequal length, 1:5-10:18 and
held together by a
brief but polished introduction (1:1-4) and a
BLACK: THE
LITERARY STRUCTURE OF HEBREWS 165
conclusion
containing final prayers and benedictions (
which is
appended a postscript containing further personalia and a
final
brief benediction (
dogmatic or
kerygmatic; the contents of
ethical,
parenetic, or didactic.
This idea was well stated
by John Brown over a century ago: "The
Epistle
divides itself into two parts-the first Doctrinal, and the second
Practical-though
the division is not so accurately observed that there
are no
duties enjoined or urged in the first part, and no doctrines stated
in the
second.”2 Brown goes on to speak of "the great doctrine"
and
"the great duty" of the epistle, referring to the
superiority of Chris-
tianity to
Judaism, and the believer's constancy of faith, respectively.
Shown first
is the superiority of Christianity to the angels, through
whom the
law of Moses was given (1:5-2:18); secondly, to Moses
himself
(3:1-4: 13); and thirdly, to the Jewish high priest Aaron and his
ministry (
infinitely
transcends them all. Thereafter follows the practical applica-
tion of
this truth, which consists first in a general exhortation to faith
and
endurance (
exhortations related to the Christian life (13:1-17).3
Granted that such a picture of Hebrews needs to be complemented
other
details, on the whole it is representative of much of conser-
vative
Protestant scholarship today. Homer Kent (1972),
Hiebert (1977), and Donald Guthrie (1983) understand the epistle in
much the
same way.
part of
the letter from the admonitions which begin in 10:19, writes:
"This
section of Hebrews consists of a series of exhortations based
upon the
great doctrinal truths set forth previously.4 Hiebert, despite
his
acknowledgment that the doctrinal interest of Hebrews goes hand
in hand
with the practical, divides the epistle into "doctrinal" and
"practical" parts.5 Guthrie, a recent
commentator on Hebrews, gives
the
following titles to the two parts. “I.
The Superiority of the
Christian
Faith. II.
Exhortations.”6 The latter's opinion on the subject
is most
apparent when he writes on
preceding
doctrinal discussion begins here.”7 For these writers the
2John
Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle
Paul to the Hebrews
(New York: Carter and Brothers, 1862) 1.8.
3Ibid., 8-9.
4HomerA.
Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1972) 197.
5 D.
Moody, 1977) 3. 92-100.
6Donald
Guthrie, The Letter to the Hebrews (TNTC;
1983) 58-59.
7Ibid., 210;
so also Charles R. Erdman, The Epistle to
the Hebrews (
166 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
proclamation of Christ's supremacy, made during the main doctrinal
section,
prepares the reader for the concluding chapters which focus
upon the
practical consequences of the theological arguments supplied
earlier.
Since the same sequence is also found in many of Paul's letters
(e.g.,
Galatians, Romans, Ephesians), even when doctrinal and parene-
tic
elements are intermingled (e.g., 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
Philippians,
Colossians), the bipartition of Hebrews appears to be a
balanced and
logical conclusion.
But some modification of this traditional view seems to be under-
way.
What was formerly assumed to be the epistle's kerygmatic first
part
(1:5-10:18) has been shown to be a highly systematic "inter-
weaving [of]
massive argument and earnest exhortation."8 Such basi-
cally
hortatory passages as 2:1-4; 3:7-4:11;
incline the
careful student of Hebrews to regard these passages as
integral to
the main purpose of the author. To label them "digressions"
or
"inserted warnings" is to beg the question of the author's purpose in
including them
in this part of his writing with such frequency. However
dogmatic and
doctrinal the teaching of 1:5-
related to
the exhortations which are interspersed throughout. What,
then,
happened to the kerygma of Hebrews? According to Nauck9 and
Kummel,lO kerygmatic and
parenetic elements are so intermingled that
it is
no longer possible to differentiate them. Kummel even concluded
that the
hortatory passages which supposedly "interrupt" the epistle
"are actually the real goal of the entire exposition."11
He suggests that
the
underlying structure of Hebrews is indicated by the parenetic
passages
alone, which stand in parallel form at the beginning and end
of each
of the three main sections of the epistle. This would result in
the
following outline:
I. Hear the word of God in the Son, Jesus Christ, who is higher
than the
angels
and Moses (1:1-4:13).
II. Let us approach the high priest of the heavenly sanctuary and
hold fast
our
confession (
III. Hold fast to Jesus Christ, who is the initiator and perfecter
of faith
(
8 Alexander Purdy, "Hebrews," IB (Nashville: Abingdon, 1955) 11. 580.
9W.
Nauck, "Zum Aufbau des Hebraerbriefes," Judentum, Urchristentum,
Kirche (1960) 199-206.
10Werner
Georg Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. H. C. Kee;
11Ibid.
Cf. the comment by Otto Michel: "The
thought lies
in the parenetic parts, which exhort the listeners to obedience and seek to
prepare the church
for suffering" (my translation) (Der Brief an die Hebraer
[KKNT 13;
12Kiimmel, Introduction, 390-92. Michel's outline is very similar (Hebraer, 6):
I. The
Speaking of God in the Son and the Superiority of the Son to the Old Covenant
BLACK: THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF
HEBREWS 167
Thus for
Kummel, the whole of Hebrews is nothing other than an
extended
epistolary parenesis, consisting of exhortations regarding the
privileges and
responsibilities of the Christian life.
Kummel's
judgment on the subject is not widely held, but it may
be the
most prudent. As Markus Barth astutely observed with refer-
ence to
the structure of Ephesians, the juxtaposition of indicative and
.imperative
(i.e., kerygma and parenesis) may have exhausted its use-
fulness.13 Their imposition upon a complicated document like Hebrews
is as
inappropriate as the attempt to measure the length of the Grand
Canyon with a barometer. Such a method cannot fail to overlook the
essential
nature of the epistle from beginning to end. Floyd Filson in
particular has
declared Heb
its
literary structure.14 In the phrase, "my word of
exhortation," the
author of
Hebrews gives us the most apt description possible to state
the
nature and purpose of his writing. Hebrews is a written message,
which sets
forth doctrine, not for its own sake, but only to show the
recipients how
great a privilege they have to be related to Christ and
what an
immense loss they would suffer if they should allow anything
to rob
them of their faith in him. With every pronouncement con-
taining
important theological content, the author urges his readers to
realize how
much is at stake in their response to the gospel. The
doctrinal
content of the first ten chapters is therefore not an end in
itself but
merely a means to an end: to exhort these Christians to hold
fast
their faith, confession, and obedience. Hence "we understand
Hebrews
rightly only if we keep the urgent note of exhortation clearly
before us
in all our discussion of the form and meaning of the
writing."15
If the traditional view of Hebrews sees in this epistle no more
than
a
correspondence of preaching and teaching, of God's activity for man
and
man's good works for God in response, it may miss what the
(1:1-4:13). II. Jesus the True High Priest (
People of
God in the Past and the Present (11:1-13:25) (my translation). Th.
Haering's
division of the letter is also much the same, though he holds to the partition
of Hebrews into two
(not three) Hauptteile: 1:1-4:13 and
4:14-13:25 ("Gedankengang
und Grundgedanken des Hebr," ZNTW 18 [1918] 145-64, esp. 156).
13Markus
Barth, Ephesians (AB; Garden City,
NY: Doubleday & Co., 1974),
1.54-55. The criticism of this juxtaposition with regard to Hebrews
is found as early
as the
early as the commentary of Hans Windisch (Der Hebraerbrief [HNT 14;
be
divided into a so-called theoretical and a practical part, but rather that the
parenesis
time and
again interrupts the flow of the witness to faith and Scripture" (my
translation).
14Floyd V. Filson, "Yesterday.” A
Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13
(SBT 4; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967)
16-26.
15Ibid., 21.
On the extensive sections of Hebrews given over to exhortation
he
writes: "The biblical exposition gives the background and basis for such
repeated
exhortations, but such exposition is not the author's basic interest and
purpose" (p. 19).
168 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
epistle
intends to say in particular. Scholars who push this juxtaposi-
tion so
far have been unable to avoid questionable methods or to
answer the
objection that this procedure is arbitrary and forced.
Moreover,
the method fails to take into consideration the letter's
obvious
stylistic and rhetorical devices, specifically the recurring use of
chiasm,
hook-words, announcements, etc.16 But at least one conces-
sion to
this approach is necessary. If the distinction between dogmatic
and
parenetic parts of the letter does not determine its external
structure, it
nevertheless contributes a great deal to the elucidation of
its
contents. For even if the author's main purpose all the way through
is a
supremely practical one, his method of dealing with the difficulties
facing his
readers is essentially doctrinal: to lay before them the
permanent
significance of Christianity and especially the absolute
superiority of
the person and office of Christ to Judaism. This is the
heart of
the author's subject and can be epitomized in the resounding
"we have" (indicative
mood) of the epistle's key verse: "We have such a
high
priest" (8: 1).
THE
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF A. VANHOYE
But the most recent research of Albert Vanhoye, the noted Jesuit
scholar and
editor of Biblica, leads us still
further. Building upon an
earlier
suggestion of Vaganay, Vanhoye claims to have found in
Hebrews a
carefully constructed chiastic structure, repeatedly inter-
woven by
key words which appear at the beginning of a section and
then
reappear at or very near to the close of the section.17 For example,
the
mention of "angels" in 1:4 leads into the section on the Son and the
angels
beginning in 1:5. "Angels" appears again in
to mark
off a literary unit by restating at the end what was said at the
beginning. The
structure of Hebrews also includes announcements and
anticipations on the author's part of subjects that are to be treated. In
1:4 he
announces that Christ has a better name than the angels and
then
explores this theme in 1:5-2:18. In 2:17-18 he states that Christ is
a
merciful and faithful high priest and then treats this topic in 3:1-5:10.
The subject
of 5:11-10:39--the sacerdotal work of Christ, a priest like
Melchizedek-is
announced in 5:9-10 in the pronouncement that
Christ was
"designated by God as a high priest according to the order
of
Melchizedek." Then, in
faith, and
well illustrates the character of such men in 11:1-12:13.
Finally, in
16 See
my discussion of style below.
17 Albert
Vanhoye, La structure litteraire de
l'Epitre aux Hebreux (
1963).
BLACK: THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF
HEBREWS 169
for your
feet," and follows in
which this
can be done.
Vanhoye's analysis has much in its favor and is due more attention
than it
has received. Perhaps the character and weight of his treatment
would make
a more decisive contribution to the identity of the literary
structure of
Hebrews if it were briefly summarized in English. What
follows are
excerpts from Vanhoye's findings occasionally augmented
by
further observations.18
The opening division of Hebrews (1:5-2:18) comprises two dog-
matic
sections (1:5-15 and 2:5-18) with a short parenetic section
between (2:
1-4). The first dogmatic section deals with the Son's
position as
God, the second shows his connection with mankind, the
author's
purpose being to show that Christ is both the Son of God and
the
brother of men. Each dogmatic section forms a unity, as indicated
by the
repetition of key expressions at both ends of each passage (cf.
1:5 and
is not
to angels"). With these statements the author has expressed his
main
thoughts. On the one hand, Jesus Christ is one with God (1:5-
14); on the
other hand, he is one with men (2:5-18). In either case he is
superior to
angels. It is necessary, therefore, to heed what he says
(2:1-4).
In 2:17-18 the second main division of the letter is announced.
For the
first time, the author speaks of the priesthood of Christ. Here
he
gives Jesus the title of "high priest" and adds to it two important
characteristics, "merciful" and "faithful."
In this new division, 3:1-5:10, the author focuses on both of
these
adjectives,
though in reverse order. Jesus is presented first as a faithful
high
priest in matters concerning God, his Father (3:1-4:14), then as a
high
priest who is full of compassion toward men, his brothers (
the
discussion and what was said in the first division of the letter, where
the
topic was Christ the Son of God (1:5-14) and the brother of men
(2:5-18).
In this first subsection, 3: 1-4: 14, the vocabulary is that of
faith:
"faithful" (3:2, 5); "assurance" (
and
"unbelief" (
l8The
literature which has been produced by Vanhoye on this subject is
enormous. it In addition to his seminal monograph cited in the
preceding note,
see esp.
the following: Situation du Christ
(Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1969);
"Discussions
sur la structure de Epitre aux Hebreux," Bib 55 (1974) 349-80; "La
question litteraire de Hebreux 13, 1-6," NTS 23 (1977)
121-39; and "Situation et
signification de Hebreux 5,1-10," NTS 23
(1977) 445-56. Our synopsis of
Vanhoye's
analysis of the structure of Hebrews is based on the author's own
summary:
"Literarische Struktur
und theologische Botschaft des Hebraerbriefes
(1. Teil)," SNTU
4 (1979) 119-47.
170 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
section. A
short explanation (3:2-6) is followed by a long exhortation
(3:7-4:14). In the explanation Christ is said to be faithful. The exhor-
tation
brings out the response: we must answer with our faith. In
4:15-5:10,
however, the discussion shifts to Christ as a merciful high
priest, a
theme which emphasizes how far this high priest went to share
our
condition (cf. 5:7-8). Heb 5:9-10 then functions as a transition to
the
third main division of the letter. Here three statements are made
concerning
Christ: (1) he achieved perfection; (2) he is the source of
eternal
salvation to all who obey him; and (3) he has been designated
by God
as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Such
are the
main themes of the longest division of Hebrews,
This third division is more complex than the others. The author
declares
openly that the explanation of his subject will not be easy
(
attention (
three
unique yet interrelated themes, those which he had already
mentioned in
5:9-10. Section A (7:1-18) considers the person and
status of
the priest. Christ is not a priest according to the order of
Aaron but
according to the new order which was fore viewed in the OT
in the
mysterious Melchizedek (Ps 110:4; Gen
(8: 1-9:28)
considers the process by which this priest can stand before
God.
Christ came to God on the basis of a new offering which brought
him
"perfection." Section C (10: 1-18) considers the use to which
people can
put Christ's perfect sacrifice. This offering is perfect in its
effect: it
results in the full forgiveness of sins and the sanctification of
the
believer. Thus in these three sections the author has discussed the
three
essential elements of priestly mediation: the status of the priest,
his
offering, and the application of his sacrifice to the people. This last
point
leads into yet another solemn warning passage (
The fourth main division of Hebrews is, announced in
where the
word "faith" functions as a hook-word connecting
("those who have faith") to 11: 1 ("now faith is
..."). What follows in
11 :2-40
is a very graphic picture of the great deeds of those under the
Old
Covenant, as well as a description of those times when their faith
was tested.
At the beginning of chap. 12, however, the emphasis
changes. The
readers are now invited to run with endurance the race
set
before them, following the example of Christ, "who endured the
cross"
(12:1-2). This exhortation to endurance continues to the final
injunction in
text the
close connection between this verse and 12:1 is made obvious
by the
author's use of two words which share the same root ("paths"
and
"run").
The fifth and final division is introduced to the reader in
The
preceding passage concluded with the words, "therefore,
strengthen
BLACK: THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF
HEBREWS 171
Chart 1
1: 1-4 Introduction
__________________________________
I 1:5-2:18 The Name of
Jesus
__________________________________
II A 3:1-4:14 Jesus, Trustworthy High Priest
B
__________________________________
A 7:1-28 According to the Order of Melchizedek
III B
8: 1-9:28
Perfection Achieved
C 10:1-18 Source of Eternal Salvation
__________________________________
IV A
11: 1-40 The Faith of the
Men of Old
B 12:1-13 The Necessity of
Endurance
__________________________________
V
13:20-21 Conclusion
the
hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble. ..." These
words are
taken from Isa 35:3 and fit well with the theme of endurance.
Then there
follows a statement taken not from Isaiah but from
Proverbs (
thus
introduced is not that of endurance but rather one of behavior;
hence what
follows is a series of directives for the Christian life. The
first
sentence of this new division gives the direction in which "the
paths"
should go: "pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification
without
which no one will see the Lord" (
just as
the first division of Hebrews (I :5-2: 18) included a short
interlude (2:
1-4), so also does this division. This short subsection
(13:1-6) is
located between two longer ones, the first emphasizing
"sanctification" (
("peace"; 13:7-18).
It is difficult to give a coherent picture of the structural com-
ponents in
Vanhoye's analysis because of the enormous amount of
details
which characterizes it. Vanhoye envisages a reconstruction
totally
unlike anything we have seen before, yet one which results in a
relatively
coherent and self-authenticating structure. His general out-
line of
Hebrews, with slight modification, is reproduced in Chart 1.19
19Vanhoye, "Literarische Struktur," 133.
172 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
According to this plan, Hebrews is comprised of
five concen-
trically
arranged parts with several subsections20 (see Chart 2). The first
and
fifth parts of Vanhoye's arrangement have only one section apiece,
while the
second and fourth parts have two subsections each. The third
part,
which has three subsections, clearly receives the emphasis. The
midpoint of
this concentric structure is 8:1-9:28, what the author
himself
terms "the point of what we are saying" (8:1).
Despite its complicated appearance, the fundamental principle of
Vanhoye's
reading of the text is simply that nothing in the discourse
results from
chance. The text is the product of unconscious stylistic
features as
well as those conscious factors of which the author is quite
cognizant. In
sum, Vanhoye's analysis of Hebrews presupposes that
everything in
the text is motivated.
One recognizes in this epistle the work of a true man of letters
whose
extraordinary talent is enhanced by excellent powers of
organization. In
these pages nothing seems left to chance; on the contrary, the choice
of
words, the rhythm and construction of phrases, the arrangement of
different themes, all appear to be controlled by
the pursuit of a har-
monious balance in which subtle variations
contribute to a wisely
calculated symmetry.21
The analyst
should therefore be attentive to significant elements within
the text
that will enable him to bring to light some of its underlying
structure and
symmetry. He should be particularly attentive to the
stylistic
devices in the author's language and composition. These
factors,
when accurately defined, supply important clues for an under-
standing of
the biblical author's purpose in writing.
Vanhoye's contribution to the study of the structure of Hebrews,
as
important and ground-breaking as it is, has unfortunately suffered
from
those twin enemies of new research-neglect and temerarious
opinion.
Philip Hughes criticizes Vanhoye's research but fails to
interact with
it, stating simply in a footnote: "Vanhoye in his detailed
study
seems to me to err on the side of overstatement and to tend to
find more
stylistic symmetries and literary subtleties than are really
present.”22
Kummel pronounces his view to be "contrived,”23 but
offers no
evidence to support his verdict. The tendency represented by
Hughes and
Kummel to ignore this new treatment is unfortunately
represented in
the majority of the latest commentators on the epistle.
20Ibid.
21Yanhoye, La structure,
11.
22
Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) n. 2.
23 Kummel, Introduction,
390.
BLACK: THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF
HEBREWS 173
Chart 2
I II III IV V
A
B e A B C e A B
Jewett
(1981), Brown (1982), Morris (1983), and Hagner (1983) all
register no
sign of Vanhoye's influence, though his work appeared in
1963.24
Occasionally it is alluded to, only to be passed over. This
rejection is
mainly on the grounds that it makes the study of Hebrews
more esoteric
than it need be, or that it procedes from the fertile
imagination of
the expositor rather than the text itself, both of which
are
highly subjective objections themselves.25
Neil Lightfoot in his commentary is a notable exception to the
prevailing attitude,
however.26 His reticence to accept in toto Vanhoye's
conclusions
cannot be equated with an attempt to ignore or dodge the
issue.
Like Vanhoye, Lightfoot pays the unknown author of Hebrews
high
tribute because of the originality of his thought and his art of
systematic
arrangement. The divisions suggested by Vanhoye offer
plausible
solutions to many questions that were often considered
unanswerable. But to Lightfoot the comprehensiveness of the theory is
not
sufficient to demonstrate its validity: "[Just] because the author
24Lyle
O.
Schierse, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New York:
Herder and Herder, 1969); George
Allen
Turner, The New and
Graham
Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics (SNTSMS 36;
Press,
1979); Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims
(New York: Pilgrim, 1981); Raymond
Brown, Christ Above All
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 1982); Leon Morris,
Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); and Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews (San
Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1983).
25Cf.
the objection of Otto Kuss that "the current evidence of a systematic
arrangement
speaks more of the determination and hypothetical sagacity of the exegete
in
question than of a genuinely intelligible methodicalness of an artificial
composition
of the
unknown author" (my translation) (Der
Brief an die Hebraer [
1966] 14).
Vanhoye's analysis is also open to the minor criticisms voiced by J. Bligh,
"The Structure of Hebrews," HeyJ 5 (1964) 170-77;
Michel, Hebraer, 31-34; and J.
Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews
1-6," Bib 53 (1972) 368-85.
26Neil
R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A
Commentary on the Book of
Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976).
174 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
makes
anticipations and announcements, it does not follow that his
outline must
strictly coincide with his announcements.”27 Although he
shares
Vanhoye's interest in the style of Hebrews, Lightfoot is never-
theless disposed
to follow a more conventional outline.
I would venture to suggest that expositors of Hebrews would
profit
immensely from the thoughtful contribution of Vanhoye. If it
does not
enjoy the status of absolute certainty (and what theory does?),
it
should nonetheless be studied as a viable alternative to the more
traditional
interpretation. Elements of careful structure are obvious in
the
epistle, but to recognize them the interpreter must be able to
identify the
formal criteria of literary analysis. The great merit of
Vanhoye's
treatment is that it shows concretely how an understanding
of
structural linguistics can serve the expositor. Lightfoot has pre-
sented an
exhaustive description of the special stylistic devices exhib-
ited in
Hebrews, including chiasm, inclusion, hook-words, and
announcements. He has shown that precisely the same style is char-
acteristic of
much of the teaching of Jesus, in which traces of inverted
word
order and repetition of thought can be detected. What Vanhoye
and
Lightfoot have done is to set this type of structural analysis on a
firmer base
as part of a broader approach to the NT documents and
especially to
Hebrews. Vanhoye in particular has innovatively drawn
our
attention to the fact that whoever wrote the epistle had been very
well
schooled in the art of composition. In Hebrews, unlike perhaps
any
other NT letter, the special topic treated, the peculiar issues
involved, and
the unique purpose in writing all find their reflection in
the
literary style chosen for addressing the readers. Thus, to ascribe to
the
author the skillful selection and ordering of material along the lines
of
Vanhoye's reconstruction does not seem unwarranted.
Vanhoye's chief contribution is his demonstration that the epistle
sets
forth an intricate theme by means of an intricate style. Hugh
Montefiore,
practically alone among modern commentators, has
accepted
Vanhoye's study on that basis: "His study carries conviction
because the
structure he proposes appears to have been worked out by
our
author as rigorously as the logic of his Epistle.”28 There is,
27Ibid., 50.
Bligh ("Structure," 175) also questions "whether a division
based on purely
literary
criteria will reveal the conceptual structure of the Epistle."
28Hugh Montefiore., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
(HNTC;
in
support of Vanhoye is George Wesley Buchanan in the Anchor Bible series (To
the
Hebrews [AB 36; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1972] x): "The outline
of this
commentary has been modified in several places to concur with the insights
on structure
published by Albert V anhoye." In his monograph on the structure of
Hebrews
Louis Dussaut has offered a structural synopsis of
Hebrews based essentially
on the
results of Vanhoye's analysis, whose conclusions he has wholeheartedly endorsed
with the exception
that the five divisions offered by Vanhoye (1 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1) are
modified to
three
BLACK: THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF
HEBREWS 175
however, one
outstanding difficulty in the scheme of Vanhoye. His
schematization of the letter exposes many stylistic traits, but his
method at
the same time makes several unwarranted deletions to
secure
perfect symmetry.29 In the light of the studies presented by
Tasker,30 Spicq,31 and Filson32
in defense of the authenticity of chap.
13,
Vanhoye's conjecture that
the
original work can scarcely be accepted. This minor disagreement
should not,
however, detract from Vanhoye's overall contribution to
the
study of Hebrews. His suggestion can only be considered as
tentative, but
the possibility that the epistle follows his reconstruction
has a
great deal to be said for it.
THE "PATCHWORK" APPROACH
Unwilling to accept the traditional model and in apparent opposi-
tion to
those engaged in refined literary analyses of Hebrews stand
authors like
F. F. Bruce and Leon Morris. The former treats the usual
problems of
introduction but surprisingly fails to consider the question
of
literary form and structure.33 The latter understands Hebrews to be
epistolary
rather than sermonic in form but fails to discuss the rami-
fications of
this for his outline of the letter .34 Both are content to follow
the
chapters and changing themes of the epistle from one aspect to
another
without submitting every detail to one overriding theory of
structure. For
example, Morris subdivides Hebrews into eleven units,
without
marking any main divisions (pp. 13-15).
In light of the variety of views on the subject of Hebrews's
structure, an
open verdict is perhaps a safe course to follow, and here
the
opinion of Origen on the question of authorship may well be
applicable. On
the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that an author
of such
skill should have failed to illuminate the structure in which his
epistle was
cast. It is, .of course, conceivable that he designed his letter
without any
clearly defined thread of thought running through it. But a
thing is
not true because it is conceivable, but because the facts require
it, and
this does not appear to be the case here. There are many
features of
language and style which cannot be passed over so lightly
(2 + 3 + 2).
See Louis Dussaut, Synopse structurelle
de l'Epitre aux Hebreux:
Approche d.analyse structurelle (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1981).
29Yanhoye, La structure,
219-21.
30R. Y.
G. Tasker, "The Integrity of the Epistle to the Hebrews," ExpT 47 (1935-6)
136-38.
31C.
Spicq, "L 'authenticite du chapitre XIII de l'Epitre
aux Hebreux,"
ConNT 11 (1947) 226-36.
32Filson,
"Yesterday," 15-16.
33F. F.
Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand
Rapids, 1964).
34Morris,
Hebrews, 12-13.
176
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
and
which imply a much closer liaison between the thought of the
author and
the structure of his writing. It can hardly be maintained,
therefore,
that the author had no design before him while writing
currente
calamo. A writer
who has an important message to proclaim
may be
expected to put it in a form more readily understood than this
approach
supposes. Consequently, whatever the merits of a "patch-
work"
outline, its considerable demerit is that it is achieved at the
expense of a
procedure which cannot commend itself as being in
accordance with
the principles of scientific criticism.
None of this is meant disparagingly. It simply underscores the
truism that
NT scholarship has been somewhat hesitant to take the
plunge when
it comes to epistolary literary criticism. Some commenta-
tors give
a brief treatment; others give the question of structure no
separate
consideration at all. Some writers would like to think (or give
the
impression) that the outlining of Hebrews is a rapid, simple
process. The
real problem is, of course, far more complex, bewildering,
and
time-consuming. Scholarship stands still in no field, least of all in
biblical
studies, and a facile approach to the structural complexities of
a
document like Hebrews can easily lead to a situation in which one
sees an
amazing number of trees or even tiny plants, but fails to see the
forest at
all. A letter should be viewed in the great sections that
constitute its
whole and not simply in detached portions.
CONCLUSION
Summing up this meager review of the structural criticism of
Hebrews,
attention may be drawn to three points. First, the point of
departure for
the discussion of this question today-at least in my
opinion-must be the thesis of Albert Vanhoye. At least at one point
his
analysis should achieve universal acceptance, namely the insight
into the
obvious stylistic devices employed by the author. Despite a
weak
attack against it, this aspect of his theory has proved its essential
correctness as
attested by Lightfoot, Montefiore, and Dussaut. There
remains, it
is true, a je ne sais quoi of
authorship which excludes
dogmatism or
pedantry of any kind. But the detailed literary and
stylistic
investigation attempted by Vanhoye has resulted in the
amassing of a
phalanx of objective literary facts which simply cannot
be
ignored. Even if his study should prove to be factually untenable in
the
present case, the modern exegete should not shrink from a dis-
creetly
handled structural analysis of the text.35
35Vanhoye's
analysis has already led to several helpful studies on the structure of
specific
pericopes in Hebrews. See e.g. P. Auffret, "Note sur la structure
litteraire d'Hb ii.
1-4," NTS
25 (1979) 166-79;
Kommentierungsprinzip," NTS 26 (1980) 242-52; and P.
Auffret, "Essai sur la structure
litteraire et I'interpretation
d'Hebreux
3,1-6," NTS 26 (1980)
380-96.
BLACK: THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF
HEBREWS 177
Second, in view of the questionable usefulness of the juxtaposition
of
kerygma and parenesis as a hermeneutical tool, and of the great
force of
the warnings and exhortations found in chaps. 1-10, it may be
inappropriate to divide the letter based on doctrinal and practical
distinctions. The epistle presents its dogmatic themes in the function
not of
intellectual instruction but of the encouragement which the
author
seeks to inspire in the face of a crisis. Addressed as it is to a
specific
situation which called for both compassion and correction,
Hebrews is
no mere doctrinal treatise or theoretical essay. To under-
stand it,
or sections of it, in this manner is to miss the spirit of urgency
which
pervades the letter from beginning to end and which motivated
the
author to take up his pen in the first place.
Finally, even though expositors may continue to disagree among
themselves as
to the exact structure of Hebrews, there is still virtually
unanimous
agreement that illuminating exegesis involves an openness
and
receptivity to the text which are characteristic of the grammatico-
historical
study of the Scripture. In allowing the text to speak for itself
and the
author to be his own interpreter, one observes in Hebrews the
literary
mastery of an author who composed his magnum
opus with
the care
of a Michelangelo working on the Sistine Chapel. This is
obvious from
the very first words (1:1-4), whose design is consistent
with the
language set forth throughout the epistle. Does not one get the
impression that
the magnificent prose in what Lightfoot has called "the
most beautifully
constructed and expressive sentence in the New
Testament”36
is intended to express not only the general theme of the
writing but
its compositional genre as well? Is it not possible that the
writer is
attempting to declare, at the very opening of his work, that the
momentous
theme which he is setting forth requires a literary style.
unparalleled in its beauty and form?37 Perhaps the opening words are
not an
exposition but an invitation, not the apex of the composition
but the
narthex of a great cathedral, whose grandeur and symmetry
become
apparent only to those of us who will enter and attentively
linger
within. Not in the forcing of the structure to the surface, but in
the
submersion of ourselves, is there hope for the future of investiga-
tion in
this fascinating area.
36Lightfoot, Jesus Christ
Today, 53.
37For a
thorough syntactical, semantical, and rhetorical analysis of Heb 1:1-4,
see D. A. Black,
"Hebrews 1:1-4: A Study in Discourse Analysis," forthcoming in WTJ.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu