The Structure of the Book of Hebrews

Searching for the literary structure of a biblical book is well worth the effort because the structure is usually linked to the flow of meaning. This will highlight the central teachings and purpose of the document, and the flow of reasoning used to support them.

Methodology

The method adopted is as follows:

1. Start with what is clearly evident—structural markers that are nearly universally accepted.
2. Examine the evidence for more sophisticated structures, but only accept features that do not contradict the clearer markers.
3. Favour structures that support the clear emphasis of the text, and do not appear to be highlighing details that are clearly peripheral.

Clear Structural Markers in Hebrews

Note that A. is not quite as clear as the others, but is also less critical in being used to judge the validity of overall structures, since it fits in with virtually all systems.

1. 2:1,3 Initial motivation to pay attention
   Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we will not drift away…
   how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

• B. 3:1 Focus on Jesus
  • Therefore brothers and sisters…
  • fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,

• B. 12:1,2 Focus on Jesus
  • Therefore… let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
  • fixing our eyes on Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

1. 12:25 Closing motivation to pay attention
   Take care not to refuse him who is speaking.
   For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we turn away from him who warns from heaven.

Any structure of Hebrews should reflect these structural markers, so let us move on to consider proposed structures.

A Brief History of the Research

An older view of the structure divided the book along the lines of a Pauline epistle: doctrine (1:1–10:18) / application (10:19–13:25) which clearly does not work well. In the last 100 years, there has been a lot of success in identifying literary features in the book which help us determine the structure. Here are a few key

In 1963 a French scholar, Albert Vanhoye, made a breakthrough. His proposal divided the book into five parts that are roughly symmetrical:

In 1985, Dr. Amar Djaballah developed this in a lot more detail: Djaballah-1985 but did not change Vanhoye’s basic structure.

In 1991 George Guthrie did his Ph.D. on the structure of Hebrews, but his outline makes such a sharp distinction between teaching and exhortation that it obscures most of the structural markers listed above. It is not without value, but does not significantly advance the progress of the research.

In 2010 John Heil was published Hebrews: Chiastic Structure and Audience Response which is described: “J.P. Heil proposes that the letter to the Hebrews was heard by its audience as a cohesive series of 33 microchiastic units coherently arranges in three macrochiastic levels of 11 units each.” As with his work on other N.T. books, such as Ephesians, many of his connections seem very forced in order to make his system work. However, there is still some value in his insights and contribution.

In this writer’s opinion, the best work to date has come in 2011 from the Theological College of Northern Nigeria, where David Heath did his Ph.D. on the structure of Ephesians. Like Heil, he tries to fit the book into a single chiastic structure, but is less ambitious (10 levels) and gives a lot of space in his writing to self-reflection and questioning the evidence behind each proposed connection. There is virtually no correspondence between Heath and Heil, even though they are both looking for a chiastic structure. One of the main weaknesses is that the clear marker in 5:1–10 does not accurately fit his model so he has to label it a foreshadow.

Suggested Literary Structure

The following structure has the advantages that it:

• perfectly fits the clear structural markers listed above
• makes the central point (the New Covenant) fit very coherently with the theme of the book
• corresponds well to both Heath and Vanhoye (see columns DMH and AV) while avoiding their problems.

The only significant place where there is a lack of symetry is that the warning section in 5:11–6:12 does not have an equivalent in 9:16–28 but this may be explained by suggesting that the function of this warning is to motivate to “pay attention” to the information about to be disclosed.

Key:

Divides into Three Main Sections:

1. Motivation based on the new status of Jesus, and negative O.T. examples
2. The central point: the New Covenant, and how it has transformed everything
3. Application based on positive O.T.examples, and our new status in Jesus

• (note that lines in red indicate strong warnings against falling away)

References

Djaballah, Amar 1985, Lectures in the Book of Hebrews (Toronto Baptist Seminary)

Filson, Floyd 1967, Yesterday: Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter Thirteen (SCM Press)

Guthrie, G. H. 1991, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-linguistic Analysis. (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary: Ph.D. Dissertation)

Heath, David Mark 2011, Chiastic Structures in Hebrews (University of Stellenbosch, Nigeria)

Heil, John Paul 2010, Hebrews Chiastic Structures and Audience Response (Catholic Biblical Association of America)

Lane, William L. 1991, Word Biblical Commentary Volume 47A Hebrews 1–8 (Thomas Nelson)

Vanhoye, Albert 1963, La structure littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux. (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico)