I now return to my long “Nutshell” thread, explaining each book of the New Testament in brief terms, with one post laying out its major themes and emphases; another discussing what we can know about who wrote it, when, and why; another that provides suggestions for further reading; and at least one (and sometimes more) on other aspects of the book that are very much worth bearing in mind.
Eventually we will collect all these and issue them together (in some format or other – to be decided). For now, if you want to check out earlier posts in the series, simply do a word search on the blog for “Nutshell.”
We have finished the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline epistles, and now move on to the “Catholic” or “General” epistles. In this context “catholic” does not refer to the Roman Catholic church (or any other “Catholic” church), but means simply “universal.” The idea, rightly or wrongly, is that rather than being addressed to a specific congregation, these books were written to be read by all followers of Jesus. Actually, that is “wrong,” as you’ll see over the next series of posts, since many of these books were clearly meant for one particular community. But we still call them “catholic” or “general” to differentiate them from the ones that claim to be written by Paul to specific churches.
I begin with the largest of them and one of the most intriguing, even if it is widely under-read and under-studied, the letter to the Hebrews. As we will see, even though the book was traditionally ascribed to Paul, it does not claim to be written by him and almost certainly was not.
I begin by providing a one-sentence, 50-word summary of the book.
The anonymous letter to the Hebrews urges followers of Jesus not to abandon their faith by turning, or returning, to Judaism, because God has made a new covenant through Christ that is superior in every respect to the Jewish religion, and anyone who abandons their faith will lose their salvation.
I can now provide a fuller summary of the major themes and the book, some of it drawn from my fuller discussion in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press).
******************************
As I will be explaining in the next post, even though this book has traditionally been called the Letter to the Hebrews, there are compelling reasons for thinking the audience was principally (or entirely) made up of gentile believers in Jesus, rather than Jewish Christians (or non-Christians). What is clear is that it is a group of Jesus’s followers who have experienced some persecution for their Christian faith, possibly (although not certainly) for reasons similar to those I’ve talked before on the blog, that is, for refusing to worship state gods without having the Jewish roots that would make this refusal acceptable to local state officials. The author is urging his readers/hearers to remain true to their Christian commitments: God will reward them in the end, when Jesus returns in judgment, and if they apostasize they will face his wrath. That would not be a good thing: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31).

In order to show that turning to Judaism actually (and somewhat ironically) means turning away from the Jewish God, the author insists that the God of the Old Testament gave Jews only a provisional religion that he has now, according to plan, superseded in with the coming of Christ. The old covenant (with the Jews) is now obsolete, and the new covenant, provided through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus is the only way to be right with God, enjoy his eternal blessings, and avoid his coming wrath (Hebrews 8:13).
To make this point, the author argues that Jewish law, as found in Scripture, was partial and imperfect, unable to accomplish the task of putting people into a right standing before God. The inadequacy of the old covenant, he claims, was recognized even by the Old Testament prophets themselves, who predicted that God would establish a new covenant to do what the old one could not. This new covenant was foreshadowed in the legislation of Moses and came to reality only in the work of Jesus. The old has now passed away, and believers must cling to the new (Hebrews 8).
The author explicitly refers to the persecutions of the followers of Jesus, and urges them to stay in the faith (Heb 10:26-39); their sufferings are a kind of “discipline” sent from God (just as parents discipline their children), and if they stay faithful, they will be rewarded in the end (Heb 12:3-13). Since the author is afraid they may “fall away,” and since the great bulk of the book is devoted to show the superiority of the Christian faith to the now by-passed and “obsolete” Jewish tradition, it appears that he is urging them not to convert away from Christianity to non-Christian Judaism to escape persecution (as opposed to returning to paganism).
To abandon Christ for Judaism, in his judgment, would be a serious mistake. To do so would be to prefer the foreshadowing of God’s salvation to salvation itself and to opt for the imperfect and flawed religion of the Jewish Scriptures rather than its perfect and complete fulfillment in Christ. For this author, Christ does indeed stand in continuity with the religion of the Jews as set forth in their sacred writings; but he is superior to that religion in every way, and those who reject the salvation that he alone can provide are in danger of falling under the wrath of God.
Thus the superiority of Christ and of the salvation he brings to everything found in Judaism is the constant refrain sounded throughout this homily. Here are some of the major points that the author stresses to that end:
Christ Is Superior to the Old Testament Prophets (Heb 1:1–3). The Jewish prophets were God’s spokespersons in former times, but now he has spoken through his own Son, the perfect image of God himself.
Christ Is Superior to the Angels (Heb 1:4–11; 2:5–18). The angels mentioned in the Old Testament are God’s messengers par excellence, but Christ is his very Son, exalted to a position of power next to God’s heavenly throne. Angels are ministers for those destined for salvation, but Christ is the Son of God whose suffering actually brought this salvation.
Christ Is Superior to Moses (Heb 3:1–6). Moses was a servant in “God’s house,” but Jesus is the Son of the house.
Christ Is Superior to Joshua (Heb 4:1–11). Joshua gave the people of Israel peace (or “rest”) after the Promised Land had been conquered; but as the Scriptures themselves indicate, the people of Israel could not fully enjoy that peace (or “enter into their rest”) because they were disobedient. Christ brings a more perfect peace.
Christ Is Superior to the Jewish Priesthood (Heb 4:14–5:10; Heb 7:1–29). Like the Jewish high priests, Jesus was personally acquainted with human weaknesses that require a mediator before God; but unlike them, he was without sin and did not need to offer a sacrifice for himself before representing the people. He is superior to the priests descended from Levi because he is the one promised in the Scriptures as the priest from the line of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4), the mysterious figure whom Abraham, the ancestor of Levi, honored by paying one-tenth of his goods (Gen 14:17–20). For this reason, Levi himself, as represented by his ancestor, was inferior and subservient to Melchizedek and the descendants from his line. If the Levitical priests had been able to make the people of God perfect, God would not have had to promise to send a priest from the line of Melchizedek into the world. Moreover, Christ is superior to these other priests because they are many, but he is one—and unlike them, he needed to offer his sacrifice only once, not repeatedly.
Christ Is Minister of a Superior Covenant (Heb 8:1–13). God promised in the Scriptures to bring a new covenant (Jer 31:31–34), thereby showing that the old covenant with the Jews was outmoded and imperfect. Christ is the minister of this new covenant.
Christ Is Minister in a Superior Tabernacle (Heb 9:1–28). The earthly tabernacle, where Jewish sacrifices were originally performed, was constructed according to a heavenly model. Unlike the Jewish priests, Christ did not minister in the earthly replica; he brought his sacrifice to heaven, to the real sanctuary, into the presence of God himself.
Christ Provides a Superior Sacrifice (Heb 10:1–18). Christ’s sacrifice was perfect, unlike those that had to be offered year after year by the Jewish priests. His death brought complete forgiveness of sins; there is therefore no longer any need for sacrifice.
And so, the bottom line for this author: He does not claim that Judaism was ever a false religion; it was what God provided to the Jews from antiquity. But it was imperfect and was (intentionally) pointing forward to a new covenant, a new set of terms between God and his people, fulfilled in the coming of Jesus. Judaism is a kind of foreshadowing of the greater reality to come. Anyone who turns from the reality back to the shadow is rejecting God and Scripture itself, and they will lose their salvation and face the wrath of God that is soon to come (6:1-6; 10:26-31).
In future posts I will talk more about some of these topics, including who the author was, whom he was addressing, whether the book really teaches that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation, and where the author is getting his ideas about “shadows” and “realities.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
20 Comments
Leave A Comment

Hi Dr. Ehrman, I have learned a great deal from your writings and am grateful to you for sharing your knowledge and perspective. Can you tell me a few of the books that have influenced you the most?
Ah, it depends on what topic. If you have one in mind, let me know!
First, which books written by your fellow biblical scholars have impacted you the most, preferably ones written for the layperson? Second, which novels made a lasting impression and most influenced how you see the world? Thank you and go Heels, UNC-CH ’82
For a layperson, you might start with the books on Jesus by A.J. Levine, Paula Fredriksen, and Dale Allison.
Among the most impactful novels for me have been, as a classic, David Copperfield, and as a modern novel, Prayer for Owen Meaning.
Thank you!
Dear Professor,
Does Hebrews imply a Trinitarian viewpoint?
I’ve been reading Hanson’s book on Arius and Nicaea, and struggling with the Alexander/Athanasius view that Christ must have been God in order for the sacrifice to be efficacious.
This conclusion seems to limit the omnipotence of God and I struggle to find text to support it. The closest I find is Hebrews saying Christ’s sacrifice is greater than that provided in the temple.
But if the author of Hebrews thinks he is God, why bother to say he is greater than Moses and Joshua, surely that need not be said?
Ray
I don’t think any of the authors of the NT, that of Hebrews included, had a trinitarian view of the god head. In Hebrews Christ is superior to everything in the Jewish religion (angels, Moses, Joshua, priests, sacrifice, temple, etc etc.), but he is not talked about as a member of a Trinity, “of the same substance as the Father” Christian theologians USE the books of the NT to argue for the trinity, of course; others use them to argue against it.
“But it was imperfect and was (intentionally) pointing forward to a new covenant, a new set of terms between God and his people, fulfilled in the coming of Jesus.”
One wonders why God didn’t just start with the New Covenant in the first place rather than an imperfect, flawed and temporary one that he knew would certainly be misunderstood over the ages and result in wrath taken out on so many.
Yup! As with most theological claims, it creates a lot of wonder…
What a mess!
Hebrews. Almost a “perfect” argument for the superiority of Christianity (at least in some “orthodox” form) over not just Judaism, but that it supersedes all other religions. Should be a manual for Christian Nationalists?
Hebrews treats Jesus as the “one perfect sacrifice, offered once and for all” (Heb. 9:26), unlike the atoning sacrifices that had to be offered annually by the High Priest under the Old Covenant on Yom Kippur. His sacrifice was thought of as essential by Christians because they, unlike Jews, and later Muslims, believed in original sin. Remove that doctrine, however, and Christian soteriology is like a house of cards – it collapses. No original sin – no need for an atonement, therefore no need for an incarnation, or a Trinity, or a resurrection of Jesus, for that matter, because death is not “the wages of sin” (Rom. 6:23), but the result of entropy. I’ve set this out in my paper, which I sent you. I don’t ask you to comment on its merits, merely to say whether you think it conforms to the standards of scholarly communication. If you do, you’ll be agreeing with me, and disagreeing with the moderator of the SocArXiv.
Sorry, I’m not able to read books/papers/essays/articles I get sent. Wish I could! But you might try others.
In your email reply to me, you did say you’d read my paper, Professor Ehrman. I’m sorry you are unable to fulfil that promise. I only started subscribing to this blog in the hope that you would. I will do as you suggest, however.
I’m sorry I said that I would read your paper; I don’t recall writing that, since I virtually never can read papers sent to me. I wish I could, but I get books and papers in the mail all the time (just yesterday, a book-length manuscript) and I simply can’t do it.
I hope you can stay on the blog, though. I do answer every question I get here (dozens every week) and try to post on issues that are important to anyone interested in the NT and early Christianity.
THANKS for this & more to come.
Utterly explaining why NT is so flawed!
I have a radical question that in the light of Hebrews sounds less so. What if Advent isn’t an event that’s prophesied to happen, but a scientific problem to be solved? Then scripture isn’t pointing to the ‘End of Days.’ Instead, it’s pointing to the end of Christendom. And just as Christianity supersedes Judaism, Science supersedes it.
Your podcast ‘How Many Jesuses Are in the New Testament’ introduces an intriguing topic, but I find something else interesting on a different level. The events that the Gospels refer to do not align chronologically in the historical record, but each one links to Passover using the same reconciled lifespan. Furthermore, it aligns to the day. Hence, while the timeline appears to present a contradiction, it’s possible that it represents a quantum state instead. The nativity stories go on to identify a unifying point which is the Immaculate Conception. Whether it’s perceived or factual isn’t a factor in this case.
This would mean that the Gospels, among other things, are the first historical recording of a superposition in a quantum state. I’m happy to show the work, it’s just difficult to do in a posting.
I suppose the problem is that ancient authors had no idea of modern understandings of physics.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m reading “How Jesus Became God.” I was reflecting on the part when you said in reference to the divine realm in ancient context, “It was widely thought that gods could take on a human guise” (p22). Immediately I remembered the verse Hebrews 13:2, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” I am wondering now, whether you think the author of Hebrews could be drawing from Greek and Roman mythology, or if this idea was also common among Jews? Maybe the author of Hebrews had pagan roots, and this was some thought pattern that he/she carried over?
Good question. I thinik that this notion was simply widespread almost everywhere in antiquity, so that the author of Hebrews wsan’t dependent on just one source or another.