Main Menu PFRS Home Doctrinal Studies Hebrew Roots & Sabbath Issues Introduction The Feasts of Israel Christians & the Feasts Sabbath or Sunday Sunday & Early Church Jesus' Example The 10 Commandments The Law of Christ Hebrew New Testament? Jesus or Zeus? Author of Hebrews Perversion of Repentance |
PFRS Home
>
Doctrinal Studies > Hebrew Roots &
Sabbath Issues Copyright © Tim Warner
The authorship of Hebrews is important to several contemporary issues of theology, particularly regarding the "eternal security" debate, as well as the "Law/Grace" debate instigated by the modern Hebrew Roots movement. The early Church considered this Epistle to be Paul's. But, modern Evangelical scholarship often denies this, usually because of theological reservations. Primary Arguments
Against Pauline Authorship Heb 2:3 The objection to Pauline authorship is that the writer seems to speak as though his knowledge is second-hand. Paul would not have spoken in this way, since He was also sent by Jesus, when He appeared to him on the Damascus road. And Paul was given special revelation by the Spirit. However, Paul did not sit under the teaching of Jesus Christ in person, as the other 11 Apostles had. According to Acts 15 and Gal. 2:1-9, Paul's mission was to the Gentiles, and Peter retained the title of "Apostle of the circumcision" (Jews). It was the other Apostles in Jerusalem who were seen as the spiritual authority for the Jewish believers, since they had been taught personally by Jesus. Paul carried no authority over the Jewish believers. When he went up to Jerusalem, Paul always submitted himself to the leadership of the Apostles and elders regarding the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:18-26). Even when Paul confronted the Judaizers who threatened his ministry among the Gentiles, Paul appealed to the Apostles and elders in the Jerusalem church to rein in the Messianic "Judaizers" who were creating the problem (Acts 15). Paul always respected the other Apostles, and let them handle the Jewish believers as they saw fit. He did not interfere or assert himself while on their turf. However, when Peter came to Antioch and did not act according to the truth of the Gospel, Paul confronted him publicly, because Peter was on Paul's turf (Gal. 2:11-15). It is not that difficult to see that Paul was merely acting in character here, and acknowledging the fact that the Jewish believers, to whom he was writing, owed their allegiance to the 11 Apostles. These men were the conduit for the proclamation of the Gospel to them, not Paul. When it came to the Jews hearing the Gospel, and thousands of them being saved, Paul really had no part in that aspect of the development of the early Church, nor in their being discipled in the Faith. It would simply not have been proper for Paul to include himself in those who confirmed the message of Christ to the Jewish believers. Paul wrote, "how shall we (the Jewish believers) escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him." The second objection is based on the writing style of the book of Hebrews, which differs from Paul's other Epistles. While it is true that Paul's other Epistles display a more crude form of Greek, and Hebrews is very polished and eloquent Greek, Paul rarely wrote his own Epistles. In fact, the only one he actually wrote himself was Galatians. Paul had an eyesight problem, which was most likely his "thorn in the flesh" that he referred to in 2 Corinthians. Paul almost always had a companion with him. Paul usually dictated his Epistles, which were transcribed by a companion. You can see this in many of the closing remarks of his Epistles. For example: Rom 16:22 However, for some reason, Paul wrote the entire book of Galatians himself, perhaps so that the Galatians would understand that he was very serious, and that the Epistle was not a forgery. Gal 6:11 The original manuscript of Galatians was written in very large print, because of Paul's extremely poor eyesight. Gal 4:13-16 That different people wrote the different Epistles of Paul for him, explains the differences in writing style. Luke was Paul's companion on his journeys according to Acts. And the Greek style of Hebrews is indistinguishable from Luke's other works, his Gospel and Acts. Internal Evidence of
Pauline Authorship II Thess 2:2 Because of Paul's infirmity, and because it was not difficult for someone to claim a forgery was genuine because he used a variety of scribes, Paul's Epistles were "password protected." Paul let it be known that in EVERY epistle that was genuinely from him, he would write in his own handwriting (using the large letters) something along these lines, "grace to you." Paul's Gospel was all about grace. And he signed each letter with a note to the readers, about the grace of God to them. In the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote the last two verses in his own unique handwriting: II Thess 3:17-18 Every Epistle of Paul's contains this closing blessing, written in his own handwriting. Here are all fourteen: Rom 16:20 1 Cor 16:23 2 Cor 13:14 Gal 6:18 Eph 6:24 Phil 4:23 Col 4:18 1 Thess 5:28 II Thess 3:18 1 Tim 6:21 2 Tim 4:22 Titus 3:15 Philemon 1:25 Heb 13:25 With this well know signature of Paul's, I can assure you, no other orthodox writer in the early Church would have infringed on Paul's signature statement. If you look at the other epistles by James, Peter, John, and Jude, none of them have this statement. During Paul's lifetime, he oversaw the care of the churches from Italy to Asia Minor. However, after Paul's death, and prior to his being imprisoned on the Isle of Patmos, John was handed over the care of the churches of Asia Minor, that were the result of Paul's missionary activity. It is no surprise then, that long after Paul's death, when John delivered the seven letters and the book of Revelation to these seven churches, that he ended with a salute to Paul. Rev 22:20-21 John really took up Paul's mission after his death in Rome, and became the "Apostle to the Gentiles." There are other indications of Pauline authorship in Hebrews as well. The theology is most definitely "Pauline," as Hebrews is the companion book to Galatians, only written to the Messianic believers rather than to Gentiles. It is beyond the scope of this article to do an extensive comparison. However, one example regarding the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant should suffice. Gal 4:19-5:4 Heb 8:6-13 Many of the churches Paul started contained some Jewish believers too. Some people have the idea that Paul started exclusively Gentile churches. But, if you follow Luke's account in Acts, some of them actually had a core group of charter members who were Jews of the Diaspora. For example, the church in Ephesus was started as a split from the synagogue (Acts 18:19-21 & Acts 19:1-20). The original members of the Ephesian church were Jews and Jewish proselytes (Gentiles who had formerly converted to Judaism). Likewise, the church in Antioch was mixed also. Those mixed churches had already been followers of Paul's Gospel teaching. Hebrews was written primarily to the Jews who had lived in Judea, many of whom were on the run because of the persecution from the unbelieving Jewish leadership. Heb 10:32-35 This is a reference to Paul's arrest in Jerusalem, and imprisonment in Caesarea (a few miles west of Jerusalem) prior to his appealing to Caesar, and being sent to Rome (where he was when he wrote this Epistle). Paul had Messianic friends in Ceasarea, whom he visited on his way to Jerusalem. Acts 21:8-15 After arriving in Jerusalem, Paul was arrested at the instigation of the unbelieving Jews, put in prison, and eventually shipped back to Caesarea to be held in prison (Acts 23:23ff). Paul spent two years in the Roman jail at Caesarea, while the Jewish believers ministered to his needs. Acts 24:23-27 This is what Paul referenced when writing to the Jewish brethren in Hebrews. The unbelieving Jews in Judea were at that time persecuting the Messianic believers. Yet, they ministered to Paul from their own means, while he was in the Roman prison. Thus he writes to them, "for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven." Also, note that Paul mentioned his companion, Timothy. Heb 13:23-25 Paul was writing from "Italy" (Paul was in prison in Rome for 2 years at this time, having been sent there from Caesarea because of his appealing to Caesar {Acts 28}). External Evidence of
Pauline Authorship Here is an example, written in the second century by Clement of Alexandria, commenting on the "style" of writing. Luke was Paul's companion on his missionary journeys. Clement argues that Luke's style of Greek writing (from Acts) is evident in Hebrews, which he attributes to Paul. "As Luke also may be recognized by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have translated Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews." [Clement, Fragments from the Latin of Cassiodorus, I] Eusebius, the fourth century Christian historian, had quite a bit to say about the authorship of Hebrews which he gleaned from earlier writers. "But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul’s Epistles."{Eusebius, Book II, ch. XVII]. "Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place." [Eusebius, Book III, ch. III] Referring to Clement of Rome, Paul's acquaintance (Phil. 4:3) who wrote one of his own epistles (I Clement), Eusebius wrote the following: "In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production. Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle." [Eusebius, Book III, ch. XXXVIII] Clement was in Rome at the time of Paul's imprisonment. He also wrote his Epistle to the Corinthains (I Clement) after Paul's death, and quoted from Hebrews. Eusebius' conclusion is that Hebrews was known to Clement in the mid-first century, so it can be traced back to Rome about Paul's time. He concludes that it is not a more recent epistle, as the detractors claimed. Speaking of Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius wrote; "He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name. Farther on he says: “But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance.”" [Eusebius, book VI, ch. XIV] "In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: “That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech,’ that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.” Farther on he adds: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But let this suffice on these matters." [Eusebius, Book VI, ch. XXVI] In summary, it is clear that the orthodox Christians of the early Church recognized the Epistle to the Hebrews as Paul's genuine work. The most common tradition was that Luke, Paul's companion, transcribed the book for Him into Greek. Some thought Clement of Rome did the transcription. Some claimed that Paul wrote the original in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke translated it into Greek. As Eusebius says, only God knows who the scribe was. Regardless, the consensus of the earliest testimonies is definitely that the Epistle is genuinely Paul's. |