Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (April 1989) 185-97.

          Copyright © 1989 by Dallas Theological Seminary.  Cited with permission.




                             The Literary Structure

                             of the Book of Hebrews



                                              David J. MacLeod

                                    Dean of the Graduate Program

                               Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa



            The past 30 years have witnessed considerable discussion over

various aspects of the Epistle to the Hebrews.l This article and one

to be published in the following issue focus on two areas of the

discussion, namely, the literary structure of the epistle and the

doctrinal center of the epistle. The first of these topics, the epistle's

literary structure, is of importance in that it affects one's

understanding of how the book is to be dlivided and of the author's

development of his argument.2 This article summarizes the

traditional approach to the epistle's structure and then examines

contemporary contributions to the discussion.


1 A number of important bibliographical resources are available. Cf. Erich Grasser,

"Der Hebraerbrief 1938–1963," Theologische Rundschau 30 (1964): 138-236; M. R.

Hillmer, "Priesthood and Pilgrimage: Hebrews in Recent Research," Theological

Bulletin: MacMaster Divinity College 5 (May 1969): 66-89; F. F. Bruce, "Recent

Contributions to the Understanding of Hebrews," Expository Times 80 (1968–69): 260-

64; George W. Buchanan, "The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews," in

Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. Jacob Neusner, Studies in Ju-

daism in Late Antiquity 12:1 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), pp. 299-330; William G. Johns-

son, "Issues in the Interpretation of Hebrews," Andrews University Seminary Studies

15 (1977): 169-87; idem, "The Cultus of Hebrews in Twentieth-Century Scholarship,"

Expository Times 89 (1978): 104-8; John C. McCullough, "Some Recent Developments in

Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews," Irish Biblical Studies 2 (1980): 28-45.

2 For an exposition of the argument of Hebrews, see this writer's "The Theology of

the Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction, Prolegomena, and Doctrinal Center" (ThD

diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987), pp. 222-48.




186     Bibliotheca Sacra / April—June 1989


                                    Conceptual Analysis


            Traditionally most presentations3 of the argument of Hebrews

have divided the epistle in Pauline fashion into a section that is

mainly doctrinal (1:1-10:18) and one that is mainly paraenetic

(10:19-13:25).4   In some of the traditional presentations the doctrinal

section is subdivided into two or more parts. Also the proponents of

this traditional structure hold that there are paraenetic passages

within the doctrinal section5 and doctrinal contributions within the

paraenetic section.

            The traditional presentations of the argument divide the epis-

tle "into sections and subsections so as to reveal the development of

the argument."6 They attempt to map out the conceptual structure of

the epistle, highlighting the author's themes such as the sonship of

Christ, the deity and humanity of Christ, the "rest" of God, the

high priesthood of Christ, the New Covenant, the sacrifice of

Christ, and the need for faithfulness and perseverance in the Chris-

tian life. While most commentators have noted these basic themes,

they have failed to agree on all the details "for the simple reason

that the author [of Hebrews] composes like a musician intertwining

one theme with another."7



                                    Literary Patterns in the Book



            Dissatisfied with the ways most previous scholars have ana-

lyzed the epistle, Albert Vanhoye, a French Jesuit, has argued that


3 E.g., Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 vols. (reprint, Chicago: Moody Press,

1958), 4:76; Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2d ed. (London:

Macmillan & Co., 1892; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,

1965), pp. xlviii-l; Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings), s.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to," by

Alexander Balmain Bruce, 2:327; A. Nairne, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge:

University Press, 1917), pp. xi-xii; Theodore H. Robinson, The Epistle to the Hebrews,

Moffatt New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper, 1933), p. xi; Antony Snell,

New and Living Way (London: Faith Press, 1959), pp. 52-54; Jean Hering, The Epistle

to the Hebrews, trans. A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allsock (London: Epworth Press,

1970), p. xvi; Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), pp. 58-59. Also see A. Robert and

Andre Feuillet, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. P. W. Skehan et al. (New

York: Desclee, 1965), p. 537.

4 A paraenesis is an exhortation, a call for action.

5 "The writer is unwilling, even in the development of Truth, to allow the loftiest

conception of the Gospel to appear to be a theory only" (Westcott, The Epistle to the

Hebrews, p. li).

6 John Bligh, "The Structure of Hebrews," Heythrop Journal 5 (April 1964): 171.

7 Ibid.

            The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews                187


the key to the structure is to be found in six literary devices used by

the author.9 Vanhoye's thesis has been widely discussed10 and has

influenced a number of modern commentators.11

            The first of these devices he called annonces du sujet (announce-

ments of the subject) or "signpost passages."12 These are brief state-

ments before a section that indicate the main subject to be treated.

For example 1:4, "much better than the angels"; 2:17, "that He might

become a merciful and faithful high priest"; 5:9-10, "having been

made perfect . . . designated by God as a high priest according to the

order of Melchizedek"; 10:36-39, "you have need of endurance . . . we

are . . . those who have faith"; and 12:11, "discipline . . . yields the

peaceful fruit of righteousness."



            An inclusio marks off a literary unit by using the same word or

phrase at the end of a discussion that was used at the beginning. The

passage 1:5-13, for example, begins and ends with the phrase "to

which of the angels?" Other examples13 are 2:5-16 ("for . . . not .. .

angels"); 3:1–4:14 (which begins and ends with "heaven[ly]," "Jesus,"

"high priest," and "confession"); 5:1-10 ("high priest"); 5:11–6:12

("dull" or "sluggish," nwqroi<); 7:1-10 ("Melchizedek" and "met");

12:14–13:20 ("peace"). Shorter examples are "look" (ble<pw) and

"unbelief" (3:12, 19); "enter" and "rest" (4:1, 5); "word" (o[ lo<goj)

(4:12-13); "priest" (7:1, 3); "Abraham" (7:4, 9); "perfection" and

"law" (7:11, 19); "oath" (7:20, 28); "first" (8:7, 13); "regulations" (9:1,

10); "Christ" (9:11, 14); "covenant" (9:15, 17); "without blood" (9:18,


8 Structure may be defined as the arrangement of the several parts of a written text

according to criteria discernible on literary grounds" (James Swetnam, "Form and Con-

tent in Hebrews 1-6," Biblica 53 [1972]: 368, n. 1).

9 Albert Vanhoye, La Structure Litteraire de l'Epitre aux Hebreux (Paris: Desclee

De Brouwer, 1963). The main conclusions are presented in English in Albert Vanhoye,

A Structured Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. James Swetnam (Rome:

Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), pp. 3-7.

10 Cf., e.g., Bligh, "The Structure of Hebrews," pp. 170-77; T. C. G. Thornton,

"Reviews," Journal of Theological Studies, New Series 15 (1964): 137-41.

11 Hugh W. Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Black's New Testament Com-

mentaries (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1964), p. 31; George W. Buchanan, To the

Hebrews, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1972), p. ix; Neil R.

Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), pp. 46-50; Paul

Ellingworth and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook of the Letter to the He-

brews (New York: United Bible Societies, 1983), pp. 341-42; David A. Black, "The

Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal," Grace

Theological Journal 7 (Fall 1986): 163-77.

12 Cf. Bligh, "The Structure of Hebrews," p. 171.

13 Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today, p. 48.

188     Bibliotheca Sacra / April—June 1989


22); "Christ" (9:24, 28); "year by year" (10:1, 3); "offering" (10:11,

18); "terrifying" (10:27, 31); "not seen" (11:1, 7); "not . . . afraid" and

"king" (11:23, 27); "through faith" (11:33, 39); "sons" (12:5, 8); and

"leaders" (13:7, 17).



            A hook word is a word at the beginning of a paragraph repeated

from the end of the preceding paragraph which links or hooks the

two units together in a smooth transition. The main hook words in

Hebrews are as follows:15


1:4, a@ggeloi ("angels")

            1:5, a@ggeloi

2:13, paidi<a ("children")

          2:14, paidi<a

2:17, pisto<j ("faithful")

          3:2,  pisto<j

2:17, a]rxiereu<j

            ("high priest")

            3:1, a]rxiereu<j

3:19, e]ise<rxomai ("enter")

            4:1, e]ise<rxomai

4:5, e]ise<rxomai ("enter")

            4:6, e]ise<rxomai

4:14, e@xw ("have")

            4:15, e@xw

6:12, e]paggeli<ai ("promises")

            6:13, e]paggeli<ai


8:13, h[ prw<th ("the first")

            9:1,  h[ prw<th

9:23, ta> e]poura<nia

            ("the heavenly things")

            9:24, ou]rano<j

10:39, pisto<j ("faith")

            11:1, pisto<j

11:7, klhrono<moj ("heir")

            11:8, klhrono<moj

11:39, marture<w

            ("gain approval," i.e., having

            been witnessed to)

            12:1, martu<roi ("witnesses")

11:40, h[ma?j ("us")

            12:1, h[mei?j ("we")

12:24, lale<w ("speaking")

            12:25, lale<w




            These are terms that are repeated for emphasis within a

particular section. Vanhoye16 cited as examples the word a@ggeloj

in 1:5-2:18 and the word pi<stij in 11:1-40.



            The text of the epistle, Vanhoye noted, alternates between doc-

trinal exposition and exhortation. For example the two paragraphs

of exposition in the first part of Vanhoye's outline (1:5-14; 2:5-18)


14 Vanhoye's concept of mots-crochets or "hook words" was first suggested by L. Va-

ganay ("Le Plan de 1'Epitre aux Hebreux," in Memorial Lagrange [Paris, 1940], pp. 269-

77). Cf. Thornton, "Reviews," p. 138, n. 1.

15 Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today, p. 49.

16 Vanhoye, A Structured Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 4.

The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews    189


are separated by a paragraph of exhortation (2:1-4). In his overall

analysis of the epistle he saw the following pattern:

            1:1-4               Introduction

            1:5-14                        Exposition

            2:1-4               Paraenesis

            2:5-5:10         Exposition


            5:11-6:20       Paraenesis17

            7:1-10:18       Exposition

            10:19-39        Paraenesis

            11:1-40          Exposition

            12:1-13          Paraenesis

            12:14-13:19  Paraenesis


            13:20-25        Conclusion


In a more recent study Fenton has made the same observation and

has divided the epistle as follows:18


            1:1-4               Introduction

            1:5-14                        Exposition

            2:1-4               Exhortation

            2:5-18                        Exposition

            3:1-4:16         Exhortation


            5:1-10                        Exposition

            5:11-6:20       Exhortation

            7:1-10:18       Exposition

            10:19-39        Exhortation

            11:1-40          Exposition

            12:1-29          Exhortation


            13:1-25          Conclusion


            Fenton made three significant observations about this pattern of

alternation: (1) Verbs in the imperative are more common in the ex-

hortations than in the expositions. (2) The author used third person


17 According to Vanhoye's scheme Hebrews 5:11-6:20 introduces a new section. This

suggests, however, that paraenesis is presented before exposition, "surely a reversal of

the normal procedure" (Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6," p. 385).

18 J. C. Fenton, "The Argument in Hebrews," Studio Evangelica 7 (1982): 175-76. For an

outline similar to Fenton's see William G. Johnsson, Hebrews, Knox Preaching Guides

(Atlanta: John Knox, 1980), p. 2. Also see George E. Rice, "Apostasy as a Motif and Its

Effect on the Structure of Hebrews," Andrews University Seminary Studies 23 (Spring

1985): 29-35.


190     Bibliotheca Sacra / April–June 1989


expressions in the expositions (e.g., 1:14; 2:11; 5:9; 9:15, 28; 10:1, 14),

but he used the first and second persons in verbs in the hortatory

passages. (3) Four of the five exhortations are introduced by "there-

fore" (dia> tou?to, 2:1; o!qen, 3:1; ou#n, 10:19; toigarou?n, 12:1).19



            Vanhoye argued that the structure of the epistle, both as a whole

and in its parts, shows numerous chiastic patterns (symetries concen-

triques).20   By way of example he pointed to the central section of his

outline (8:1-9:28) where, he argued, the six subdivisions "mutually

correspond, two by two, according to a concentric order (the first with

the sixth, the second with the fifth, the third with the fourth)."

c. The old worship, earthly and figurative (8:1-6)

            b. The first covenant, imperfect and provisional: (8:7-13)

                        a . The old and powerless institutions of worship (9:1-10)

                        A. The new, efficacious institutions (9:11-14)

            B . The new covenant (9:15-23)

C. The entrance to heaven (9:24-28).21


            Other examples of chiastic structure are given by Lightfoot.22

First he cites 1:5-8:

            Son-------|      |---------------angels


            angels --------          ----------Son


He also mentions 4:16:

that we may receive   ---|       |----mercy


and grace  --------------------|           | --- we may find


19 In 5:11-14 the author shifted from the third person (5:9) to the first and second, so

Fenton included this paragraph in the third hortatory section (i.e., 5:11-6:20). He

noted that 6:1 begins with "therefore" (dio<), but conceded that this probably refers

back to 5:11-14 and not 5:1-10 (Fenton, "The Argument in Hebrews," p. 176). It might be

added here that the author used a number of additional "therefores,' "wherefores" or

"thens" to introduce shorter exhortations (dio<, 3:7; ou#n, 4:1; ou#n, 4:11; ou#n, 4:14; ou#n, 4:16;

dio<, 12:12; dio<, 12:28; toi<nun, 13:13; ou#n, 13:15). Cf. C. J. Sanford, "The Addressees of

Hebrews" (ThD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1962), pp. 68-69. Cf. also 'W. C.

Linss, "Logical Terminology in the Epistle to the Hebrews," Concordia Theological

Monthly 37 (June 1966): 365.

20 Vanhoye, A Structured Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 4; cf. Thornton,

"Reviews," p. 138.

21 Ibid., pp. 4, 20-23.

22 Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today, p. 47. For other examples see Philip E.. Hughes, A

Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdinans

Publishing Co., 1977), pp. 49, 90.


            The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews                191


Vanhoye's chiastic analysis of the entire epistle is as follows:23


a Introduction (1:1-4)

            1 The name above that of angels (1:5-2:18)

                        2 a       Jesus, the faithful one (3:1-4:14)

                                    2b Jesus, the compassionate high priest (4:15-5:10)

                                        —Preliminary exhortation (5:11-6:20)

                                                3a Jesus and Melchizedek (7:1-28)

                                                            3b Jesus attained fulfillment (8:19:28)

                                                3c Jesus, cause of salvation (10:1-18)

                                        —Final exhortation (10:19-39)

                                    4a The faith of men of old (11:1-40)

                        4b Endurance is necessary (12:1-13)

            5 The fruit of righteousness (12:14-13:19)

z Conclusion (13:20-25).


            Unquestionably Vanhoye rendered a valuable service to students

of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His emphasis on the alternation be-

tween exposition and paraenesis is a significant one, and his

observations concerning announcements and hook words demonstrate

the careful structure of the epistle. Much of his outline is correct. For

example, 1:1-2:14 and 7:1-28 are distinct units; 8:1 begins a new divi-

sion; 10:19 introduces an exhortation; and 11:1-40 is a distinct unit.24

            Nevertheless particular aspects of his study have been criti-

cized.25 The following observations may be made. (1) "Literary

principles alone are not a sufficient basis for analyzing structure."26

Such principles cannot be considered in isolation from content.27 To

cite just one example, it is unlikely that the phrase "peaceful fruit of

righteousness" (12:11) announces a major division in the argument.28

(2) The titles assigned to the sections do not reflect the development


23 Vanhoye, A Structured Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 7. The typo-

graphical arrangement given here is adapted from Ellingworth and Nida (A Transla-

tor's Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews, p. 342). It is designed to show Vanhoye's

concentric or chiastic view of the epistle.

24 James Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13," Biblica 55 (1974): 346.

25 Bligh, "The Structure of Hebrews," pp. 173-77; Thornton, "Reviews," pp. 138-41;

Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6," pp. 368-85; idem, "Form and Content in

Hebrews 7-13," pp. 333-48.

26 Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6," p. 385; cf. p. 369.

27 Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13," p. 347.

28 Bligh, "The Structure of Hebrews," p. 174.

192     Bibliotheca Sacra / April—June 1989


of the author's thought, that is, they do not indicate the direction

the argument is taking.29

            (3) While a number of small chiastic patterns are to be found,

the existence of a large-scale pattern embracing all sections of the

epistle is to be questioned for several reasons. First, Vanhoye con-

cluded that 13:19 and 13:22-25 were not originally a part of Hebrews

in that they do not fit his chiastic structure.30 Any proposal, how-

ever, that eliminates part of the original document must be consid-

ered a failure.31 Second, Vanhoye's concentric structure led him to

see correspondences between sections I and V and between II and IV

according to the scheme Eschatology-Eschatology and Ecclesiology-

Ecclesiology with the central section (III) being devoted to sacri-


            I.                      1:5-2:18                     Eschatology

            II.                     3:1-5:10                     Ecclesiology

            III.                   5:11-10:39                Sacrifice

            IV.                   11:1-12:13                Ecclesiology

            V .                   12:14-13:18              Eschatology


            These categories are somewhat forced, however. One might ask

for example, how 13:1-6 can be included under eschatology when

11:1-40 is omitted (cf. especially vv. 1, 9-10, 16, 40). Further there is

no clear parallel between section 1 (entitled "A name so different

from the name of the angels") and section 5 (entitled "The peaceful

fruit of righteousness").33 Third, Vanhoye's work seemed to assume

that the epistle was composed by using modern literary conventions

(chapter headings, clearly marked paragraphs, punctuation, and

modern typographical layout). The epistle, however, was written

without any breaks, subdivisions, punctuation, or other modern

writing aids. It was written to be read aloud, not silently. None of

the first listeners would be able to appreciate the elaborate sym-

metrical patterns Vanhoye envisioned.34


29 Ibid., p. 175.

30 Vanhoye, La Structure Litteraire, pp. 219-21, cited by Floyd V. Filson, Yesterday:

A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (Naperville, IL: Alex. R. Allenson,

1966), pp. 15-16, n. 8.

31 Buchanan felt that Vanhoye's outline would be improved if Hebrews 13 were

eliminated. Buchanan believed that Hebrews originally had only 12 chapters ("The

Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews," p. 316).

32 Vanhoye, La Structure Litteraire, pp. 238-47, cited by Swetnam, "Form and Content

in Hebrews 7-13," p. 345.

33 Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13," p. 345.

34 Thornton, "Reviews," pp. 139-40.


            The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews                193


            (4) Not all of Vanhoye's literary devices, therefore, are of equal

value. Swetnam, for example, singled out announcements, genres of

exposition and exhortation, and length as primary criteria and cited

inclusios, hook words, and characteristic terms as subsidiary.35 (5)

The complexity posed by the convergence of all the criteria

(inclusios, hook words, announcements, characteristic words, and

chiastic patterns) is a problem to even the most alert minds.36



            In addition to the six literary devices noted by Vanhoye, six

others have a bearing on the author's argument. It has been ob-

served, for example, that the author used a large number of

comparatives to support his argument (which runs through the entire

epistle) that the new revelation in Christ is superior to the old. The

following comparatives are used:37 diaforw<terwj ("more excellent,"

1:4; 8:6); e@llatwn ("lesser," 7:7; cf. e]latto<w, 2:7, 9); krei?ttwn/

krei?sswn ("better," 1:4; 6:9; 7:7, 19, 22; 8:6 [twice]; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16,

35, 40; 12:24); ma?llon ("more," 9:14; 10:25; 12:9, 13, 25); mei<zwn

("greater," 6:13, 16; 9:11; 11:26); perisso<teron) ("even more," 6:17;

7:15); perissote<rwj ("all the more," 2:1; 13:19); plei<wn ("more," 3:3

[twice]; 7:23; 11:4); teleiote<roj ("more perfect," 9:11); tomw<teroj

("sharper," 4:12); u[yhlo<teroj ("exalted, above," 7:26); and xei<rwn

("severer," 10:29).38



            It has also been observed39 that a number of terms (viz., "new,"

"once," "eternal/forever," "perfect") in Hebrews suggest that the

author is arguing the superiority or finality of the new revelation as

compared with the old. Christ has established a New (kainh<) Cov-

enant which has made the first obsolete (pepalai<wken, 8:13; cf.

9:15). He has inaugurated (e]gkaini<zw) a new (pro<sfatoj) way into

God's presence (10:20).


35 Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 7–13," p. 333. Swetnam's

"announcements" are 1:4; 2:3-4; 2:17-18; 4:13; 6:20; 7:29; 10:18, 39; 12:1-2; 12:28-29 (p.

347) .

36 Ibid., p. 346.

37 Fenton, "The Argument in Hebrews," pp. 176-77.

38 Other comparative terms occur:  w[j (22 times), ou$twj (9 times), kaqw<j (8 times),

tosou?toj (5 times), w!sper (3 times), o[moio<w (3 times), w[sei<, kaqa<per, kaqw<sper,

 w!ste (once each). Cf. Linss, "Logical Terminology in the Epistle to the Hebrews," p. 368.

39 Donald Medford Stine, "The Finality of the Christian Faith: A Study of the Un-

folding Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapters 1-7" (ThD diss., Princeton

Theological Seminary, 1964), pp. 29-44.


194     Bibliotheca Sacra   /  April-June 1989


            Besides this revelation through Christ being "new" it is also

unique, as the author illustrates by his use of e]fa<pac and a!pac.

Christ has been once (a!pac) manifested to put away sin (9:26). In

sharp contrast to the daily sacrifices and unending service of the Old

Testament priests (9:6; 10:11), Jesus has offered Himself once for all

(e]fa<pac, 7:27) and has once for all (e]fa<pac, 9:12) entered the

heavenly sanctuary.40

            The new order is also eternal. Under the Old Covenant the priests

died, but under the new there is a Priest who abides forever (ei]j to>n

ai]w?na, 7:23-24). The new order, in contrast with the old (cf. 7:19;

10:1), "perfects" (teleio<w) the worshipers of God (10:12-.14; cf. 7:11).



            Building on the accepted assumptions of his readers (i.e., on the

authority of the Law, the efficacy of the Old Testament sacrifices,

and reverence for one's father) the author used a series of a fortiori

arguments to demonstrate the supremacy of the new revelation in

Christ:41 2:1-3; 9:13-14; 10:28-29; 12:9, 25. The more serious perils

and more effective promises of the new revelation were presented a

fortiori with the clear implication that the new revelation is better.



            The author also used adversative particles to delineate the

contrast between the old and new revelations.42 He contrasted the an-

gels and the Son of God in 1:7-8 (me<n . . . de<), angels and man in 2:5-6

(ou] ga>r . . . de<), fallen man and messianic man in 2:8-9 (ou@pw . . .

de<), the Son and Moses in 3:5-6 (me<n . . . de<), Jesus and the Levitical

high priest in 4:15 (ou] . . . de<), the sons of Levi and Melchizedek in

7:5-6 (me<n . . . de<) and 7:8 (w$de me>n . . . e]kei? de>), the physical re-

quirement of the Law and Christ's indestructible life in 7:16 (ou] . . .

a]lla<), the weak commandment and the better hope in 7:18-19 (me<n . . .

de<), the authority in back of the Levitical priests and the Son in

7:20-21 (me<n . . . de<), the transitoriness of the Old Testament priest-

hood and the permanence of that of Christ in 7:23-24 (me<n . . . de<),

the earthly ministry of the Levitical priesthood and the heavenly

one of Christ in 8:4-6 (me<n . . . nuni> de>), the earthly tabernacle of

the Old Testament and the perfect tabernacle of Christ in 9:1-5, 11

(me>n . . . Xristo>j de<), and the Old Testament sacrifices and the sac-

rifice of Christ in 9:23-24 (de< . . . a]ll ] ), 9:25-26 (nuni> de a!pac) and

10:11-13 (ou]de<pote . . . de<).


40 Cf. Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time, trans. F. V. Filson (Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1964), p. 121.

41 Stine, "The Finality of the Christian Faith," pp. 44-47.

42 Ibid., pp. 61-82.

            The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews    195



            In discussing Vanhoye's work, Buchanan noted that certain

themes echo throughout the epistle: (1) the origin of the ages (1:2;

11:3), (2) exaltation (1:3; 4:14; 7:26; 8:1), (3) high priest (2:17; 3:1-2;

4:14-15; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11), (4) holding fast (3:6; 3:14; 10:23), and (5)

the promises (4:1; 6:11-12, 15, 17; 8:6; 9:15; 10:36; 11:9, 13, 17, 39). The

author of Hebrews, Buchanan said, was a literary artist who did not

say all that he had to say on a subject in one place, even though his

units were well structured. Instead he "composed his document as in-

tricately and as carefully as a musical composer might, with many

themes woven throughout."43



            Stine has argued that the epistle falls into three sections: 1:1-

7:28; 8:1-10:18; and 10:19-13:25. He noted that each is introduced by

a topic sentence: 1:1-4; 8:1-2; and 10:19-25.44


                             Scripture Citations in the Book


            A number of North American scholars, approaching the Epistle

to the Hebrews from another angle, have contended that the au-

thor's argument is structured around several Old Testament citations.

These interpreters disagree, however, on which Old Testament pas-

sages are key: Caird suggested Psalms 8, 95, 110, and Jeremiah 31;

Kistemaker had Psalms 8, 95, 110, 40; Longenecker mentioned the

catena of citations in Hebrews 1, Psalms 8, 95, 110, and Jeremiah 31;

and Johnson offered Psalms 2 and 110, Jeremiah 31, and Psalm 40.45 In


43 Buchanan, "The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews" p. 316.

44 Stine, “The Finality of the Christian Faith,” p. 106, nn. 2 and 3. Other scholars

have divided the epistle in the same way as Stine (e.g., Gleason L. Archer, The Epistle

to the Hebrews, Shield Bible Study Series [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957],

pp. 9-14; Carter, "Hebrews," in The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, 6 vol., ed. Charles

W. Carter [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964769], 6:5-7). Otto O.

Michel also divided the epistle into three sections: 1:1-4:13; 4:14-10:39; and 11:1-

13:25 (Der Brief an die Hebraer, 12th ed. [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,

1966], pp. 92, 204, 368). Others have followed a similar threefold division, including

Paul Feine and Johannes Behm, Introduction to the New Testament, ed. W. G. Kummel,

trans. A. J. Mattill (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), pp. 274-75; Snell, New and Liv-

ing Way, pp. 52-54. Swetnam based his threefold division on the occurrence of

o[mologi<a ("confession") in 3:1; 4:14; and 10:23 ("Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13," p.

347). Franz Delitzsch in an earlier time had also divided the epistle into three sec-

tions: 1:1–6:20; 7:1–10:18; and 10:19–13:25 (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,

2 vols., trans. T. L. Kingbury [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871; reprint, Minneapolis:

Klock & Klock, 1978], 1:v-vii; 2:v-vii).

45 George B. Caird, "The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,"

Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959): 44-51; Simon Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations


196     Bibliotheca Sacra / April-June 1989


spite of this minor disagreement, however, these writers agree that

the major sections of the epistle all have at their core an Old Testa-

ment passage that controls the drift of the argument.46 Adopting a

composite list, including the suggestions of all four scholars, one

might outline the epistle as follows:


Section in Hebrews                           Old Testament Passage

1:1-2:4                                               Psalms 2 and 110 (cf. 2 Sam. 7)

2:5-18                                                            Psalm 8:4-6

3:1-4:13                                             Psalm 95:7-11

4:14-7:28                                           Psalm 110:4

8:1-9:28                                             Jeremiah 31:31-34

10:1-18                                              Psalm 40:6-8

10:19-13:25                                      Psalm 95:7-11

                                                            (Habakkuk 2:3-4?).47





            Interpreters of Hebrews have differed widely in their analyses

of the overall structure of the epistle. Mackay's observation that

exegetes of Hebrews have "always been happier with the trees than

the wood"48 is well taken.49 Nevertheless each interpreter must


in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van Soest N. V., 1961), pp. 95-131;

Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids:

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 174-85; S. Lewis Johnson, The Old Testa-

ment in the New (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), pp. 53-54. Cf.

also H. J. B. Combrink, "Some Thoughts on the Old Testament Citations in the Epistle

to the Hebrews," Neotestamentica 5 (1971): 31. Combrink said the Old Testament

quotations "constitute the framework of this letter." Buchanan asserted that Psalm

110 "is the main text of the entire book" (Hebrews, pp. 8, 132).

46 Caird, "The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews," p. 47. Caird said

of other Old Testament passages in Hebrews: "All other scriptural references [in He-

brews] are ancillary to these" Old Testament passages.

47 Kistemaker classified 10:19-13:25 under faithfulness (The Psalm Citations in the

Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 131, n. 1). The present writer suggests Habakkuk 2:3-4 (cf.

Heb. 10:37-38) in that it strikes both an eschatological note (cf. Heb. 11:9, 10, 16, 40;

12:22-28; 13:14) and a note of exhortation to faithfulness and perseverance (cf. Heb. 11;

12:1-13; 13:7-17), themes that dominate the final section of the epistle.

48 Cameron Mackay, "The Argument of Hebrews," Church Quarterly Review 168

(1967): 325-38.

49 James Moffatt (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the He-

brews, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924], pp. xxiii-

xxiv) implied that it was artificial to divide the epistle into formal divisions and

subdivisions, yet he went ahead and gave a general plan:

A. The personality of the Son (1:1-4:13)

B. The Son as high priest (4:14-7:28)

C. The sacrifice of this high priest (8:1-10:18)

D. Appeals for constancy (10:1.9-13:25).

            The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews                197


study the epistle for himself, carefully evaluate the observations of

others, and then set forth a structure that helps the reader make the

most sense out of Hebrews.50

            The present writer suggests the following conclusions: (1) The lit-

erary devices suggested by Vanhoye provide the interpreter with a

measure of certainty in determining the "joints" of the epistle's struc-

ture. (2) Of the literary devices Vanhoye suggested, announcements,

hook words, and the alternation of literary genres are primary, yet

the others, though subsidiary, help the interpreter see how the au-

thor constructed his units of thought. (3) Any presentation of the au-

thor's argument must make clear that his expositions lead to exhor-

tations in five major sections (2:1-4; 3:1–4:16; 5:11–6:20; 10:19-39; 12:1-

29).51 (4) Content—that is, the basic themes or concepts of the author

as recognized in the history of the exegesis of the epistle—as well as

literary devices must be taken into account when presenting the ar-

gument. If literary principles and content are divorced, then the

content will be distorted.52 (5) The author's use of comparatives,

terms denoting finality, a fortiori arguments, and adversative par-

ticles make clear the overall thrust of his argument, namely, that

the priesthood, covenant, and sacrifice of Christ are superior to the

priesthood, covenant, and sacrifices of the Old Testament. (6) It is

evident that the entire argument is built around several key Old

Testament passages (viz., Pss. 2; 8; 95; 110; Jer. 31; Ps. 40; Hab. 2).


50 Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13," p. 348.

51 On the basis of the threefold occurrence of o[mologi<a ("confession," 3:1; 4:14; 10:23)

Swetnam argued for three paraenetic sections (3:1-4:13; 4:14-6:20; and 10:19-39) ("Form

and Content in Hebrews 7-13," p. 347).

52 Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6," p. 369. The two articles by Swetnam

are helpful in achieving a balance between form and content. He warned, however,

that though a measure of certainty is possible in structuring and tracing the argument,

absolute certainty is not. He wrote, "Scientific 'certitude' as this term is applied to

literary interpretation ... can be positively misleading; any attempt to achieve a

quasi-mathematical certitude by isolating 'objective' factors which can then be pre-

sumed reliable for determining meaning is to try to impose on words an alien

methodology" ("Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13," p. 348).



This material is cited with gracious permission from:       y

Dallas Theological Seminary

            3909 Swiss Ave.

            Dallas, TX   75204  

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: