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" (
l8