Paul is the author of Hebrews

SI members,

I have always felt the author of Hebrews is Paul. Here is some evidence, I believe.

"For ye had compassion of ME in MY bonds," Hebrews 10:34 KJV

"You sympathized with those in prison" Hebrews 10:34 NIV

The NIV version implies the audience of the letter had sympathy for others in prison.

The KJ version states the audience of the letter had compassion for the writer of the letter because of HIS bonds. And who was imprisoned more for their faith in Christ then Paul.

Murray

God is the author of Hebrews...

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets...

God...

Other epistles start with Paul a bondservant...
or Peter an apostle...
but this one starts with God..

That is all we need to know. Amen!?

ForeEvidence,

I knew somebody was going to say that. I think we all know that every book in the bible is written by the Holy Spirit. I am just speaking of the vessel the Spirit came through. This is intended as a conversation piece, not an attempt to take the glory away from the godhead.

Murray

Hi murdog,

The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. (II Thessalonians 3:17)

Not having a salutation at the beginning and end, how are we to wreckon with this passage if Paul wrote Hebrews? I have to agree with Foreevidence and just say that God wrote it. To me, the way in which it begins reminds me of the flow of Luke and Acts. But I think it impossible to say definitively. ;-)

Robert,

I also agree with forevidence that God wrote it. I have heard Hebrews attributed to Luke also. In my post I said this is just my opinion. I can't say definitively who wrote it. I just think it is Paul. I was only trying to create discussion.

Take Care,

Murray

This is intended as a conversation piece, not an attempt to take the glory away from the godhead.

I know. It was just wanted to share an observation I learned when I studied the book and asked the same question.

No other book starts with God...
other then Genesis, in the beginning God...

But check this out, just for the sake of speculation and to throw a monkey wrench into some of our thoughts. Some people say that Barnabas the companion of Paul wrote this epistle. It would be interesting, although there is lack of evidence. But he was a Levite and knew the temple services, and he also was an apostle according to the book of acts. So could it be?

Also some have supposed it ot be Clemente of Rome, the disciple that took over right after Peter. But I don't know about that. Anyways just throwing stuff out there. Have fun... :-)

Forevidence,

Sorry for sounding too sensitive. I appreciate your input.

Murray

No it's all good, don't worry about it.
Peace, not as the world gives!

I also agree with forevidence that God wrote it. I have heard Hebrews attributed to Luke also. In my post I said this is just my opinion. I can't say definitively who wrote it. I just think it is Paul. I was only trying to create discussion.

No problem at all. I took no offense. I just wondered if you had a theory on why Hebrews would not have the salutations that we find in the other epistles.

God Bless,

-Robert

First we'll go for my rather unspiritual answer:

I dont think it was Paul because Pauls epistles are very personal and Hebrews is not,

Barnabas being a levite might shed some light on it but i think, and this is very speculative as i dont know the arguments for and against each candidate, that it could have been Appolus, after all he was 'man mighty in the scriptures' Acts 18:24, but this could be brought down by a factual bit of knowledge if anyone cares to take a swing at the root of this idea.

now for the more spiritual answer, not from me from my bro Steve,

whoever wrote Hebrews doesn't matter, we have 26 books of the NT that we know who the authors were but this one book God, for reasons unknown to us, has chosen to not tell us who the author is.

but it's still a fun kind of around the coffee table discussion.

The fact is we don't know. The writting style is slightly different from Paul and at the same time has some similarities. It could be agrues that Timothy was never in prison while Paul was still alive-(that is if you check in this history)--Heb 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
-----That is of course as long as this Timothy is the same Timothy Paul discipled.

Personally though I believe the book is shrouded in mystery by intention from God. I believe it gives it almost a more timeless authority, don't you think?
8-)

The KJ version states the audience of the letter had compassion for the writer of the letter because of HIS bonds. And who was imprisoned more for their faith in Christ then Paul.

When one reads the NT, we see lots of Christians in prison. One might say being in prison and being a Christian tended to go hand in hand.

saved_matt wrote:

that it could have been Appolus, after all he was 'man mighty in the scriptures' Acts 18:24,

This verse proves that it isn't an apostle:

[b]Hebrews 2:3[/b] [color=990000]How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us [b]by them that heard Him;[/b][/color]

The term "them" is the ones who actualy heard Jesus.
The term "us" are the regular folk like, us.

This verse proves that it isn't an apostle:

[b]Hebrews 2:3[/b] [color=990000]How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us [b]by them that heard Him;[/b][/color]

The term "them" is the ones who actualy heard Jesus.
The term "us" are the regular folk like, us.

That could be unless, the writer was trying to hide indentity because of percesution which is very much a possibility seeing he wanted to be compassionate to those in prison. But it can also be that the writer just witheld his name for the sake of humility.

But I like this observation, thanks for pointing it out.

Robert,

I actually don't have a theory, I may require a few moments to conjure one up.

Hebrews is unlike all the other letters in the New Testament. The other letters were written to specific churches like Corinth or Phillipi. Then there were the three pastoral epistles written to Timothy and Titus.

It says the intended recipients of Hebrews is simply his brethren Heb 13:22.

The letter mentions he wishes to be restored to his brethren, which I take to mean he is imprisoned. I realize Paul wasn't the only one ever thrown in jail. Timothy is regarded in this letter as his brother as opposed to his son. Not sure what to make of that?

Murray

That could be unless, the writer was trying to hide indentity because of percesution which is very much a possibility seeing he wanted to be compassionate to those in prison.

This would make sense also because a name would be an invitation to persecution. I do believe that the one God used to pen the epistle had benefitted from Paul's teachings. That would tend to date the writing towards the end of the first century CE. I am not so sure that would fit, as it would seem that the early church could have used the information contained in the book to relieve the Jews of their focus on the Temple before 70 CE. Then again, maybe it having been destroyed, they could have understood how a 'better' Priesthood had supplanted it, etc.

2 Thessalonians was written in AD 54. Hebrews was written around AD 67. 13 years later.

Perhaps because of its intended audience, not a church, but to the Jewish believers, and because of it's emphasis upon the Divine authorship of the scriptures, Paul did not see fit to give his usual salutation.

I like the preface in the RcV:

Author: apparently the apostle Paul, who alone was qualified to write the deep, high, and rich content of the book. The mention of Timothy and the tone of the fellowship also point to Paul as the author.

The footnote on vs 1:1 reads:

The emphasis of this book is that God, not man has spoken. Therefore, it does not identify its writer, nor in any of its quotations from the Old Testament does it mention the speaker's name. According to the concept of the book, the entire Scripture is the speaking of God. Hence, in referring to the Old Testament, this book always says that it is the Holy Spirit's speaking (3:7; 9:8; 10:15-17)

This I believe gives support to those who suggest, "the author is God" and leave it at that.

Graftedbranch

Amen.

Hebrews is unlike all the other letters in the New Testament. The other letters were written to specific churches like Corinth or Phillipi. Then there were the three pastoral epistles written to Timothy and Titus.

I wonder why we call these "pastoral epistles'. Neither Timothy or Titus were "pastors' in the modern sense of it. They were co-workers with the Apostles and were never identified even as elders in any church. Rather the apostle exorted Timothy to appoint elders in the churches "in every place" and that was the content practically of the books.

It is interesting how we take modern traditional concepts and impose them on the scriptures. How many actually believe that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were written to "pastors" of a church? IN the New Testament church there was no such thing.

Graftedbranch

murdog wrote:

Hebrews is unlike all the other letters in the New Testament. The other letters were written to specific churches like Corinth or Phillipi. Then there were the three pastoral epistles written to Timothy and Titus.

It says the intended recipients of Hebrews is simply his brethren Heb 13:22.

[b]James 1:1[/b] [color=990000]From James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ: Greetings [b]to all God's people scattered over the whole world.[/b][/color]

Graftedbranch,

Pastor means spiritual overseer. If Timothy was appointing elders in the churches in every place, I would say that qualifies as a spiritual overseer(pastor).

The Timothy letters are meant to teach against false teachers, instructions on worship, and qualifications for overseers and deacons. I think to call these letters pastoral epistles is absolutely correct.

Of course there were pastors in the church. Why else did Paul tell Timothy the qualifications for an overseer?

Murray

Logic,

To clarify what I meant by Hebrews being unlike all the other letters in the New Testament. I should have said Hebrews is unlike all the other letters that were attributed to Paul. I wasn't referring to anything written by Peter, James, or John,etc.

Sorry about that.

Murray

Also some have supposed it ot be Clemente of Rome, the disciple that took over right after Peter.

Pastor means spiritual overseer. If Timothy was appointing elders in the churches in every place, I would say that qualifies as a spiritual overseer(pastor).

I like the preface in the RcV:

Author: apparently the apostle Paul, who alone was qualified to write the deep, high, and rich content of the book. The mention of Timothy and the tone of the fellowship also point to Paul as the author.

There is another aspect of Heb 2:3 which may be significant. Paul was usually keen to remind his listeners that he received 'his gospel' first hand from the Lord Himself and not through the intermediary of others.

My 'hunch'? Apollos, but it is only a hunch. This kind of allegorical exposition of the scriptures was a known feature of Alexandria which Apollos' birthplace; Acts 18:24. Apollos was an 'eloquent man mighty in the scriptures', as was the author of Hebrews. The writer is certainly well acquainted with Paul's travelling companions; this would fit Apollos too.

I don't think the idea of Paul remaining anonimous works either. He specifically states that his own letters will have his personal greeting; Hebrews does not. However Paul doesn't always speak of Timothy as his 'son'. In Rom 16 he refers to him as his fellow-worker and in 2 Cor 1:1 and Col 1:1, Philem 1:1, 1 The 3:2, Paul calls him 'brother'. So the reference to 'brother Timothy' does not exclude Paul in itself. It is interesting, see the addition to the last verse, that the translators thought it was written by Timothy. I don't think Luke works either. Luke seems to have been thoroughly Greek in origin and the writer of Hebrews is saturated in the OT.

But it remains... a hunch.

Pastor means spiritual overseer. If Timothy was appointing elders in the churches in every place, I would say that qualifies as a spiritual overseer(pastor).

This is really a side issue and not related to the thread. I don't believe I should have introduced it. Nevertheless:

"Overseer" in the context of 1 And 2 Timothy is refering to elders in the churches which Timothy was instructed to appoint. Timothy was not a "pastor" of any church. Rather Timothy was a colaborer with the Apostles and served all the churches.

Paul gives Timothy the qualifications of an elder or overseer. And these are plural. There was never a single "overseer" appointed to rule over the flock of God. Rather it was always leading elders.

James tells us if there is any sick among you, let him call the elders of the church. He does not say, "let him call the pastor of the church".

And in none of the "pastoral episltes" is the qualification a theological degree or ordination. Rather it is spiritual qualifications and charecter.

Our concept of the protestant pastoral system is a carry over from Roman Catholicism. That is a special 'ordained minister" who alone is qualified to do the spiritual work, who presides over all meetings, who baptises, who does all the speaking. And he must go to the appropriate theological school, earn his degree and be ordained. As such he enters into a special class of believer. He is ordained and different from the rest. He is more than a 'brother". He is ordained. He is a member of the clergy and the common believer is "laity". And many even in protestantism wear robes and collars and such which signify this distinction.

Yet Peter tells us, "you are all living stones being built up into a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ..."

And Paul tells us in Ephesians that the gifted ones are gifts to the church for the equipping of the saints unto the work of the ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ. It is the saints who do the work of the ministry and though which directly the body of Christ is built up.

This system is a modern concept read into the scriptures but not dirived from the scriptures. There is no question regarding this. IT is both internally evident in the Bible and historically accurate. It was the emergence of the RC hierarchial system which led to this concept. There is no mention in any epistle to a presiding pastor in any church. No admonition, no address. Philemon was an elder at Colossia but the epistle to him was not written to him as an elder or overseer but rather regarding Onisamus his run away slave.

Does it matter? Is this just a "legal matter" of what is the right system?

It matters because of it's organic implications. IN other words the clergy/laity system suppresses the body of Christ, keeps it from functioning, and therby the body of Christ cannot be built up. It cannot grow up in all things into Christ who is the head because only the ordained clergy function. It is a matter of Life and growth, not of legalism.

The recovery of proper theology in the reformation alone did not suffice to produce the built up body of Christ. We have had revivals from time to time but these never last. The system cannot contain the Wine of the Spirit. The wineskin of the clergy/laiity system allows only so much growth then it surpresses it because it is threatened. The Spirit is grieved and eventually the system takes over and perpetuates itself. The Life is gone and only a little of the shell remains. What began in Life becomes ritual and proceedure.

Pastors call for and pray for revival. But if it came they would not recognize it. Thier lofty position would be nulified as the members lay hold of Christ the Head and the Spirit becomes their inward Teacher.

Graftedbranch

Pastors call for and pray for revival. But if it came they would not recognize it. Thier lofty position would be nulified as the members lay hold of Christ the Head and the Spirit becomes their inward Teacher.

There are many who men call 'pastors' who are faithful servants of the flock. Don't stumble over the title it is the function that matters.

Yes, amen. This is not an indictment of pastors as persons, but of the religious systems they operate in. Many excellent servents of Christ have been and are pastors. It is just the system we are accustomed to by tradition. And in fact, in the religious system there is no other way to "minister" except to go with the program.

And Christians are like the Isrealites who wanted a king to rule over them like the other nations. God gave them the desire of their heart but sent leaness to their soul. IT is easier to have a man responsible for the spiritual work. It is easier to just go to "church" on sunday, listen to a good sermon, and try to live a little better.

Remove the man and then what do you have? All the believers now must contact the Lord themselves daily. They don't have a hired professional to do it for them. They must exercise their spirit to function, to be a minister of Christ, to know the Word and to be able to handle it. They must now, as Paul says, "when you come together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, etc. Now they must have something for the building up of the body of Christ.

Now the condition of the church is in their hands as members of the body of Christ. Now they must be in fellowship with Christ, must be filled with the Spirit, must be abiding in the Vine, must bear fruit.

Now if the meeting goes well it is because they were in their spirit, because they were exercised and in contact with the Lord. Because they were praying, because they were speaking. Now they must grow, now they must go on with the Lord because as they are, so the church is.

Graftedbranch

Graftedbranch

Graftedbranch and Philogos,

You both make good points. That Apollus theory may have some merit. Especially that the author calls Timothy his brother as opposed to his son. That stuck out to me before when I was reading Hebrews. It does seem as though we got sidetracked on the whole spiritual overseer issue.

I am really not sure who wrote Hebrews now. And I am O.K. with that. Good discussion though.

Murray

Good hunch :-) Its good to see you back Bro.! Missed your posts :-(