|
While there is some historical and internal evidence that Paul
could have written Hebrews, the many examples of dissimilarity,
coupled with the historical testimony that does not strongly
support Pauline authorship, leads us to conclude that Paul
probably did not write Hebrews. [74]
How are we to account for the lexical similarities that clearly
exist among Luke, Paul, and Hebrews; the stylistic similarity
between Luke and Hebrews; and the stylistic dissimilarity
between Paul and Hebrews? The best reading of the evidence is
that these factors point to Luke as the author of Hebrews—or at
the very least as coauthor with Paul. The same evidence that
distances Paul from Hebrews actually links Luke with it. [174]
There is a common Christological substratum undergirding
Luke-Acts and Hebrews. In both we find an emphasis on Christ’s
humanity, His completed work, and His present glorified state.
The concept of Jesus as the great High Priest, which is so
prominent in Hebrews, is more prominent in Luke-Acts than in any
other New Testament book. [217]
“Israel,” as the term is used by Luke, refers to God’s people
consisting not of Jews and Gentiles, but of the repentant
portion of national Israel. According to him, the church did not
separate itself from Israel; rather, the unrepentant portion of
national Israel forfeited its elect position as God’s people,
and the Church (both Jew and Gentile) continued as the true
people of God. [292]
It is not that the Christian story is written and the Old
Testament is thus “updated” by the New Testament writers, least
of all Luke. It is rather that the story of Jesus and the early
church is told in light of the Old Testament Scriptures. One
might say that for Luke, the Old Testament Scripture is
necessary to interpret God’s new work of salvation through
Jesus. [310]
TOP
|
