Who Wrote Hebrews?

[DiscipleOfIAm]

I say Luke wrote it. Some think it was Paul, but the writing style and terminology is more Lukish in my opinion. What say you?

God Bless!

[arunma]

I say Luke wrote it. Some think it was Paul, but the writing style and terminology is more Lukish in my opinion. What say you?

God Bless!

I'm fairly certain that Paul didn't write Hebrews, since this Apostle was pretty good about signing his writings. I think that it may very well have been written by Barnabas. There's also a theory that it was written by Prisca (the wife of Aquilla), but that one sounds iffy.

[Matthan]

I have always considered Apolos to be the most likely author - similar style to Paul, extensive knowledge, and full of the Holy Ghost. Everything we know about him hints at his authorship. For instance:

24. And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28. For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

JMHo

Matthan

[daveleau]

Luke was a gentile, rather than a Hebrew. If he wrote it, not only would he have to overcome the issue of not knowing the culture of the Jews, but also would have to overcome the barrier his audience would have with reading religious overtures from a gentile.

It could have been Paul (unlikely, but not impossible), Barnabas, Matthew, Apollos, or others. I would doubt that a woman wrote it for the same social barriers that would preclude Luke from being the author.

This is likely something that we will only know when we get to Heaven. All I know is that the author imparted great words from the Holy Spirit.

[JimfromOhio]

No one know specifically but I do know it is written by a Christian whose background was a hebrew priest. The Holy Spirit is the author.

[edb19]

I have always considered Apolos to be the most likely author - similar style to Paul, extensive knowledge, and full of the Holy Ghost. Everything we know about him hints at his authorship. For instance:

24. And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28. For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

JMHo

Matthan

We just started Hebrews as the Scripture reading during our Lord's day service.

I've never given the authorship (other than God that is) of Hebrews much thought (it really doesn't matter to me one way or another) but I know from things he's said in the past that my pastor leans towards Apollos being the author.

edie

[DiscipleOfIAm]

I cannot find a link to that article, but Dr Towns basically says that the terminology used matches that of Luke's used in Luke and Acts. The writing styles are the same and so on. I'll try and find more later!

[BereanTodd]

I believe very strongly that it was Paul. There are many reasons, both from Church history, and from the text. It obviously is not a nail in the coffin but there is one OT verse that is quoted 3 times in the NT. 2 of them are in letters clearly from Paul, the third is in Hebrews.

Why would Paul not sign his name to this one as was his habbit? Well, he is writting to the Hebrew believers who often shunned him for being the "apostle to the gentiles". I think that plays into why it wasn't signed by him, but I do believe that it is rather clear (to me at least) that Paul wrote it.

[DeaconDean]

If one reads the Greek text of Hebrews, it very well matches both Paul's style, and that of Luke's. Both writting styles of these men are so different than that of the other disciples that it would unlikely that any but one of these two wrote this letter. Paul was a highly educated man. But by the same regards, so was Luke, being a physican, he had former education. However, when one considers that the letter is written to Jewish Christians, it would seem to rule out Luke. Paul is more than likely the one, but without any difinitive proof either way, it's better to say that whomever the writter was, God guided him in their writting.

You say Luke, ok.

You say Paul, ok.

It is not worth arguing over.

God Bless

Till all are ohne.

[daveleau]

I believe very strongly that it was Paul. There are many reasons, both from Church history, and from the text. It obviously is not a nail in the coffin but there is one OT verse that is quoted 3 times in the NT. 2 of them are in letters clearly from Paul, the third is in Hebrews.

Why would Paul not sign his name to this one as was his habbit? Well, he is writting to the Hebrew believers who often shunned him for being the "apostle to the gentiles". I think that plays into why it wasn't signed by him, but I do believe that it is rather clear (to me at least) that Paul wrote it.


I don't disagree or discount that Paul could be the author, but I do believe his status as a Pharisaic Jew would lend him great credit among the Hebrew people. He began his ministry in each city by first going to the synagogues where the Jewish people met, and he taught there. So, I do not believe the absense of the salutation has to do with the audience.

So many saints taught after being taught by Paul. It could easily be any of his students (or Paul himself) and show a similar style.

This is an interesting issue, but I agree with those above that it is not worth arguing over.

In Him,
Dave

[FallingWaters]

I say Luke wrote it. Some think it was Paul, but the writing style and terminology is more Lukish in my opinion. What say you?

God Bless!Hmm. That's an interesting thought.

I studied the life and letters of Paul for a whole year, and I definitely don't think it was Paul that wrote it, like some say.

I have always thought it might have been Barnabas.

[FallingWaters]

I have always considered Apolos to be the most likely author - similar style to Paul, extensive knowledge, and full of the Holy Ghost. Everything we know about him hints at his authorship. For instance:

24. And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28. For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

JMHo

MatthanExcellent points!

[Pepperoni]

I know that Paul is the generally accepted writer, but like many others here, I too think that the style seems too different. Plus the fact that it is anonymous and none of his other letters were.

According to my King James Study Bible with Scofield Reference, it seems that Paul is the writer according to II Peter 3:15 and Hebrews 13:23.

But I agree with the poster who said we may not find out until we get to Heaven.

[mysterychristian]

I say Luke wrote it. Some think it was Paul, but the writing style and terminology is more Lukish in my opinion. What say you?

God Bless!
Many ideas are thrown around, it was Paul, the only reason he did not put his name on it any where is because of his reputation with them.

Before he was converted he was a hebrew of hebrews, a Pharasie of Pharasies (spelled wrong) he was an up and coming star trained at the feet of gamailel, looked up to by many, but when converted they though he was nuts and lost all respect for him even to the point that they wanted him dead, so when writing to them, he did not put his name on the letter so that it would be received by them, if they had known it was from him they would have scoffed at it and completely rejected it.

[arunma]

Many ideas are thrown around, it was Paul, the only reason he did not put his name on it any where is because of his reputation with them.

Before he was converted he was a hebrew of hebrews, a Pharasie of Pharasies (spelled wrong) he was an up and coming star trained at the feet of gamailel, looked up to by many, but when converted they though he was nuts and lost all respect for him even to the point that they wanted him dead, so when writing to them, he did not put his name on the letter so that it would be received by them, if they had known it was from him they would have scoffed at it and completely rejected it.

To the credit of this theory, this is more or less what the church historian Eusebius said. Eusebius suggested that Paul wrote the epistle anonymously because he knew that the Jewish Christians didn't like him. However, I've always had a problem with this theory, since it suggests that a holy Apostle would conceal the truth in order to please men. Indeed, the Bible condemns people-pleasing (in the very portions of Scripture that Paul authored!). I'm no one to disagree with a distinguished church historian, but the theory doesn't seem to add up.

[mysterychristian]

To the credit of this theory, this is more or less what the church historian Eusebius said. Eusebius suggested that Paul wrote the epistle anonymously because he knew that the Jewish Christians didn't like him. However, I've always had a problem with this theory, since it suggests that a holy Apostle would conceal the truth in order to please men. Indeed, the Bible condemns people-pleasing (in the very portions of Scripture that Paul authored!). I'm no one to disagree with a distinguished church historian, but the theory doesn't seem to add up.
I have become all things to all men so that I might win some. That's the answer, just like when he had timothy circumcised, which is according to law , Paul preached not under the law but it was for the benifit of those whom Timothy would be ministering to. To reconcile them to God. So that they wouldn't have amental hang up because he wasn't circumcised.

You are loved of God

[FallingWaters]

I know that Paul is the generally accepted writer, but like many others here, I too think that the style seems too different. Plus the fact that it is anonymous and none of his other letters were.

According to my King James Study Bible with Scofield Reference, it seems that Paul is the writer according to II Peter 3:15 and Hebrews 13:23.

But I agree with the poster who said we may not find out until we get to Heaven.Thank you for those references.

2 Peter 3:15
"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him"

That begs the question, "Who was 2 Peter written to?"
2Pe 1:1
"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"
It is thought that 2 Peter was written to those who were not born Jews - Gentiles.

Heb 13:23
"You should know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom I shall see you if he comes soon."
Who was Hebrews written to?
Jewish Christians.

Since 2 Peter was written to Gentiles, and Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, I think Scofield was mistaken.


My favorite commentator Adam Clarke goes through extensive effort to describe why he believes the letter to the Hebrews was written by Paul.
I am too tired to read it all, but if you have his Introduction to the Book of Hebrews, that's where he covers it.

It's believed to have been written around 61-62 AD, before the destruction of the Temple.

Why does Hebrews refer to Timothy as our "brother" instead of "my son".

[Matthan]

Another reason why I personally do not believe Paul was the author of Hebrews is because he was appointed apostle to the Gentiles, not the Hebrews. Sure he always tried to reach Jews wherever he spread the Godpel, but I do not believe he would have written such a letter to Jews because that was not his God-apointed mission.

Again, just MHo,

Matthan

[Pepperoni]

This is an interesting observation:
Why does Hebrews refer to Timothy as our "brother" instead of "my son".
Excellent point. I had never considered that before.

A lot of people maintain that the style of Hebrews is consistent with Paul's other letters. I personally think the style is different but the themes are similar. There is a difference.

[arunma]

Another reason why I personally do not believe Paul was the author of Hebrews is because he was appointed apostle to the Gentiles, not the Hebrews. Sure he always tried to reach Jews wherever he spread the Godpel, but I do not believe he would have written such a letter to Jews because that was not his God-apointed mission.

Again, just MHo,

Matthan

In defense of those who believe in the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, Paul's commission by the Lord said,
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." (Acts 9:15)
Of course I agree with you that Paul likely did not write Hebrews. However, his appointment as an Apostle to the Gentiles would not necessarily preclude him from preaching to the Jews. Indeed, most of the Gentile churches included a large number of Jews as well.

[mysterychristian]

In defense of those who believe in the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, Paul's commission by the Lord said,
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." (Acts 9:15)
Of course I agree with you that Paul likely did not write Hebrews. However, his appointment as an Apostle to the Gentiles would not necessarily preclude him from preaching to the Jews. Indeed, most of the Gentile churches included a large number of Jews as well.
Very correct, great observation, the letter to the Hebrews was to the hebrews, Jews which were Christians but still were stuck in legalism they were mentally under the law and put under the law by the brother of Jesus Christ, James, who usurped the authority of the chuch in jerusalem from peter, peter was actually to be head of the church in jerusalem appointed by Jesus Christ

Loved of God

[mysterychristian]

This is an interesting observation:

Excellent point. I had never considered that before.

A lot of people maintain that the style of Hebrews is consistent with Paul's other letters. I personally think the style is different but the themes are similar. There is a difference.
the letter to the Hebrews was to the hebrews, Jews which were Christians but still were stuck in legalism they were mentally under the law and put under the law by the brother of Jesus Christ, James, who usurped the authority of the chuch in jerusalem from peter, peter was actually to be head of the church in jerusalem appointed by Jesus Christ

Loved of God

[mysterychristian]

This is an interesting observation:

Excellent point. I had never considered that before.

A lot of people maintain that the style of Hebrews is consistent with Paul's other letters. I personally think the style is different but the themes are similar. There is a difference.
Hebrews was to the hebrews, Jews which were Christians but still were stuck in legalism they were mentally under the law and put under the law by the brother of Jesus Christ, James, who usurped the authority of the chuch in jerusalem from peter, peter was actually to be head of the church in jerusalem appointed by Jesus Christ

Loved of God

[Matthan]

the letter to the Hebrews was to the hebrews, Jews which were Christians but still were stuck in legalism they were mentally under the law and put under the law by the brother of Jesus Christ, James, who usurped the authority of the chuch in jerusalem from peter, peter was actually to be head of the church in jerusalem appointed by Jesus Christ

Loved of God
Whoa there, Pard. Not to hijack this thread, but your statement sure caught my attention. First, Peter was not appointed to head the church -- in fact he was (along with all of the other apostles) forbidden from holding such an office. (See Matthew 20:25-28) Does anyone think that, if Jesus had appointed him or anyone else to any position of any kind, that it would not have been so? Jesus, as God representing God, would have whatever He ordained become factual, and regardless of anything else.

You might take notice that none of the Twelve (plus Paul) ever became the bishop of any particular church, at least according to Scripture. And what other "history" are you going to believe? Traditions of men might say otherwise, so you can believe what you will.

Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and that meant he from among the Twelve was permitted to preach the first sermon that "unlocked" Heaven for all who believe in Jesus for the very first time. I believe this apostle might have also "unlocked" Heaven for the Gentiles, too (Cornelius), but I'm not sure about that because Philip was active in Samaria (semi-Jews?) and with the eunuch.

Matthan

[Selznak]

I have always considered Apolos to be the most likely author - similar style to Paul, extensive knowledge, and full of the Holy Ghost. Everything we know about him hints at his authorship. For instance:

24. And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28. For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

JMHo

Matthan

I'm with Matthan. I've always believed Apollos to be the best candidate.

[yeshuasavedme]

In defense of those who believe in the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, Paul's commission by the Lord said,
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." (Acts 9:15)
Of course I agree with you that Paul likely did not write Hebrews. However, his appointment as an Apostle to the Gentiles would not necessarily preclude him from preaching to the Jews. Indeed, most of the Gentile churches included a large number of Jews as well.
I agree: but because there are some of a doctrine called Mid Acts Dispensation -ism which claims [falsely] that only what Paul wrote is to them [and therefore the only parts of the Word of God that applies to you and to me] and nothing else of Scripture is to them -though Paul wrote absolutely nothing to them, having named the recipients of all his epistles, in the same epistles, and they are none of those people named as recipients [what they call "target audiences] and they are not of that time when Paul wrote to those he knew, by name-; as I said in the opening, because they of that doctrine deny the book of Hebrews as valid, in explaining the sense and meaning of Scripture which was formerly written [as scribes of the LORD do], and to show their error, I wrote this on the forum called "Dispensationalism -which can be read here- but the OP I paste for you to read my thoughts on the matter; http://www.christianforums.com/t4360671-the-book-of-hebrews-is-a-fatal-blow-to-mad-doctrine.html

The Book of Hebrews is a Fatal Blow to MAD Doctrine

The Book of Hebrews has long been a mystery book as to it's authorship: personally, taking a clue on Apollos being mighty in the Scriptures, I have thought the author was Apollos -but that is my thought and not a revelation.
Many have thought it was Paul for good reasons -not the least of which is Timothy's connection to it, who was the "son of Paul in the faith".

Hebrews delivers a fatal blow to the doctrine of MAD with a connection to Paul through Timothy, for the author of Hebrews is mighty in the Scriptures and shows the Truth of Jesus the Messiah as the True Goal of the Law by expounding on the Law and it's tutoring about the Person of Christ -the Messiah.

By this below, Paul could very well be the author of Hebrews; and as Timothy was imprisoned with Paul in Italy where this was written by Timothy -taken by dictation which was a habit of Paul's because of his eyesight-then Paul was no alien to this lettrer and it's contents and as Timothy is Paul's "son" in the faith and close companion; then the doctrine contained in the book of Hebrews is Paul's doctrine, also; [but of course anyway -no matter what others believe, as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and Paul is a Hebrew, Himself]; and just as we can learn from all Paul wrote -though he wrote not one thing to any person of us, according to the doctrine of MAD, called "right dividing or division"; we can learn much better about the Person and work of Christ as He is taught to us in the Living Oracles by the commentary of the author of the book of Hebrews which Timothy wrote.

Hbr 13:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&verse=20&version=kjv#20)¶Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Hbr 13:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&verse=21&version=kjv#21)
Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ [the Anointed One, the Messiah]; to whom glory for ever and ever. Amen.[B]
Hbr 13:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&verse=22&version=kjv#22)
And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.
Hbr 13:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&verse=23&version=kjv#23)
Know ye that [our] brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
Hbr 13:24 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&verse=24&version=kjv#24)
Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.
Hbr 13:25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&verse=25&version=kjv#25)
Grace with you all. Amen. [B][[[Written to the Hebrews from Italy, by Timothy.]]]

[yeshuasavedme]

Whoa there, Pard. Not to hijack this thread, but your statement sure caught my attention. First, Peter was not appointed to head the church -- in fact he was (along with all of the other apostles) forbidden from holding such an office. (See Matthew 20:25-28) Does anyone think that, if Jesus had appointed him or anyone else to any position of any kind, that it would not have been so? Jesus, as God representing God, would have whatever He ordained become factual, and regardless of anything else.

You might take notice that none of the Twelve (plus Paul) ever became the bishop of any particular church, at least according to Scripture. And what other "history" are you going to believe? Traditions of men might say otherwise, so you can believe what you will.

Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and that meant he from among the Twelve was permitted to preach the first sermon that "unlocked" Heaven for all who believe in Jesus for the very first time. I believe this apostle might have also "unlocked" Heaven for the Gentiles, too (Cornelius), but I'm not sure about that because Philip was active in Samaria (semi-Jews?) and with the eunuch.

Matthan
Peter confessed Christ as the True One who was to come: the Christ, the Son of God, and upon that Rock [Christ the second created and now Firstborn, only Living human being] the Human Being of the Second Creation, the Son of God; the Church of God which is Zion above, the New Jerusalem, is being built up; and that by one born again adopted son at a time, added as they are saved and joined to the Living Spirit -which makes each person born again a living stone in the Temple called the House of God for His glory, not made with hands: which temple is New Jerusalem; Zion above, the Church of God.

[PrincetonGuy]

Luke was a gentile, rather than a Hebrew. If he wrote it, not only would he have to overcome the issue of not knowing the culture of the Jews, but also would have to overcome the barrier his audience would have with reading religious overtures from a gentile.

Two points:


The ethnic background of Luke is unknown. For an excellent, scholarly discussion of the ethnicity of Luke see, Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, The Anchor Bible series, vol. 28. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Pp. 41-47.

If Luke was a Gentile, he would have to overcome the barrier of being the only Gentile contributor to the New Testament. This is especially striking when one considers that Luke contributed more words (49,869) to the New Testament than any other N.T. writer! (Paul contributed only 43,293 unless you credit him with Hebrews for 6,897 more for a total of 50,190) *These counts are taken from the 1769 edition of the KJV.

[PrincetonGuy]

If one reads the Greek text of Hebrews, it very well matches both Paul's style, and that of Luke's.

This is incorrect. The writing styles of Luke and Paul are markedly different from each other. The writing style of Luke is very literary and not too very different from that of the author of Hebrews; Paul’s writing style is very different from that of the author of Hebrews and is the primary reason why very few scholars today believe that Paul wrote Hebrews.

[JacobHall86]

I dont remember the Passage, but its in Hebrews and talks about the authors conversion, which contradicts Pauls conversion.

Most scholars agree with was Barnabas.

And the thing about it being Priscilla is another Feminazi idea made to give women stature in the Bible because paul is a "sexist". Its got as much basis as the Gospel of Judas.

[PrincetonGuy]

I'm fairly certain that Paul didn't write Hebrews, since this Apostle was pretty good about signing his writings. I think that it may very well have been written by Barnabas. There's also a theory that it was written by Prisca (the wife of Aquilla), but that one sounds iffy.

“Iffy” at the very best. The view that Prisca, otherwise known as Pricilla, wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews can be confidently ruled out (despite Harnack’s argument to the contrary) by the Greek text of 11:32,

Heb. 11:32. Καὶ τί ἔτιλέγω;ἐπιλείψειγὰρμεδιηγούμενονὁ χρόνοςπερὶ Γεδεών, Βαράκτεκαὶ Σαμψώνκαὶ ᾿Ιεφθάε, Δαυΐδτεκαὶ Σαμουὴλκαὶ τῶνπροφητῶν,

Heb. 11:32. And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, (NASB, 1995)

where the pronoun με (me) is qualified by the word διηγούμενον (tell) which is a masculine participle. Therefore the writer was a man, not a woman.

[FallingWaters]

I have always thought it rather small-minded of people to assume that the author was somebody we know, or someone we know enough of to discern that it was they who wrote the letter to the Hebrews.

Sometimes there are things in the Bible that are a mystery, and we can't figure them out with 100% accuracy.

If it does sound a little like Paul, perhaps it was written by someone who spent a lot of time with Paul.

[FallingWaters]

“Iffy” at the very best. The view that Prisca, otherwise known as Pricilla, wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews can be confidently ruled out (despite Harnack’s argument to the contrary) by the Greek text of 11:32,

Heb. 11:32. Καὶ τί ἔτιλέγω;ἐπιλείψειγὰρμεδιηγούμενονὁ χρόνοςπερὶ Γεδεών, Βαράκτεκαὶ Σαμψώνκαὶ ᾿Ιεφθάε, Δαυΐδτεκαὶ Σαμουὴλκαὶ τῶνπροφητῶν,

Heb. 11:32. And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, (NASB, 1995)

where the pronoun με (me) is qualified by the word διηγούμενον (tell) which is a masculine participle. Therefore the writer was a man, not a woman.I'm curious.
Based on your study so far,
do you have an opinion on who might have written the letter to the Hebrews?
Feel free to elaborate on why.

[PrincetonGuy]

I'm curious.
Based on your study so far,
do you have an opinion on who might have written the letter to the Hebrews?
Feel free to elaborate on why.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is written in a style and language so very different from that of the Apostle Paul that there is very little probability, in my mind, that Paul wrote the epistle in Greek. Clement of Alexandria believed that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew and that it was subsequently translated by Luke into Greek. This theory explains why the style of Hebrews as we have it today in Greek is very different from Paul’s and similar to Luke’s. The most important argument against this theory is probably the supposed theological difference between the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apostle Paul, most notably the difference regarding the possibility of total apostasy from the Christian faith resulting in eternal damnation—the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews strongly arguing for that possibility (Heb. 3:12; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31) and Paul emphasizing the power of God to keep the believer secure. However, Paul certainly did not write that total apostasy was impossible, and, in my mind, believed that it was possible (1 Cor. 9:27, 10:1-12; Col. 1:23; 2 Thes. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:1-2; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). The argument that the Epistle to the Hebrews, unlike the Paul’s epistles, is anonymous is of little consequence when we consider that the Hebrew Christians would be much more inclined to accept as true the contents of an anonymous letter than a letter from the Apostle to the Gentiles whom they tended to view as a traitor, giving Paul a very good reason for not identifying himself as the author.

Clement of Rome can be ruled out with near certainty as the author because of the differences between his writing style and theological views and those of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Apollos can be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty because the Alexandrian church thought much more highly of the Epistle to the Hebrews than did the Western Church, and if Apollos, one of their own, had written it, it seems highly likely that we would find mention of it. What we do find, however, is Clement of Alexandria writing that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and Luke translated it into Greek. And if Apollos had written the Epistle to the Hebrews, would we not expect to find mention of him in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the Christian community in which Apollos was an important figure. James Moffatt, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, dismisses any possibility of Apollos being the author with these words, “It is superfluous here to discuss hypotheses which are in the main due to an irrepressible desire to construct NT romances.” Pricilla can be ruled out with near certainty because the author identifies himself as being a man (the Greek text of Heb. 11:32).

Luke and Barnabas are reasonable possibilities, with Barnabas much more strongly so because we know that he was a Jew, and Luke was likely a Gentile. Could the epistle have been written by someone else, by someone who has not been named as a possibility? Yes.

[macrohard]

hmmmm.......definetly for sure a mystery.......

The only clue that I see that could point to Paul is the reference to Timothy in Chapter 13.

Some say the style is different (compared to Paul's other writings to the Church) I just sense if he did write it, he was reaching a different audience, his own kin, the Jewish people to convince them that Jesus is the one they are looking for.

[BereanTodd]

Luke and Barnabas are reasonable possibilities, with Barnabas much more strongly so because we know that he was a Jew, and Luke was likely a Gentile. Could the epistle have been written by someone else, by someone who has not been named as a possibility? Yes.

I've seen some interesting recent scholarship/arguments that seems to indicate Luke was actually a Jew. I know that hasn't been the general thought throughout church history, but it was some rather convincing stuff. I'll look for it and try to post some links when I find it.

I'm not saying that I am entirely there believing it ... but I'm also not far off. I've been mulling it over a bit recently.

[arunma]

“Iffy” at the very best. The view that Prisca, otherwise known as Pricilla, wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews can be confidently ruled out (despite Harnack’s argument to the contrary) by the Greek text of 11:32,

Heb. 11:32. Καὶ τί ἔτιλέγω;ἐπιλείψειγὰρμεδιηγούμενονὁ χρόνοςπερὶ Γεδεών, Βαράκτεκαὶ Σαμψώνκαὶ ᾿Ιεφθάε, Δαυΐδτεκαὶ Σαμουὴλκαὶ τῶνπροφητῶν,

Heb. 11:32. And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, (NASB, 1995)

where the pronoun με (me) is qualified by the word διηγούμενον (tell) which is a masculine participle. Therefore the writer was a man, not a woman.

I didn't know that. Thank you PrincetonGuy.

[JPPT1974]

Maybe we should look it up in Wikipedia
Who the writer is as they maybe trying
Indeed to reach their own Jewish kin
Hebrews is in the New Testament which
IMHO is wierd.

[BereanTodd]

Maybe we should look it up in Wikipedia
Who the writer is as they maybe trying
Indeed to reach their own Jewish kin
Hebrews is in the New Testament which
IMHO is wierd.

Why is it weird? Jesus was a Jew. He kept the OT feasts, He followed the OT law. The early church was Jewish. Even Paul, when he first went to a city, where did he go to spread the Gospel? To the synagogue. Our faith is a Hebrew faith.

[IisJustMe]

I say Luke wrote it. Some think it was Paul, but the writing style and terminology is more Lukish in my opinion. What say you?

God Bless!The style doesn't fit either gentleman. It is very Levitical in origin, the type of learning that Paul and Barnabas (who was a Levite) certainly had, and Dr. Luke (a Greek) certainly did not. But Paul identified his epistles right up front, in the first sentence, using his name in the salutation. Though it is slightly possible that, for some reason, he did not do so with Hebrews, it is more likely that the writer of Hebrews simply did not feel the need to be identified, considering the message more important than the messenger.

That is not to say Paul was an egomaniac, but rather to say that the epistle seems to have been written urgently, the literary equivalent of a sledge hammer, driving home the point that faith in Christ was the only logical outcome of studying and knowing the Law, and that Jews had no excuse for not recognizing the Person of Jesus as God the Son. When treatises of this nature get written, it is usually less important to receive acknowledgment for the work than to get the work out to those who need to see it. That would certainly match with Barnabas' gifts of compassion and encouragement as well.

[FallingWaters]

The Epistle to the Hebrews is written in a style and language so very different from that of the Apostle Paul that there is very little probability, in my mind, that Paul wrote the epistle in Greek. Clement of Alexandria believed that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew and that it was subsequently translated by Luke into Greek. This theory explains why the style of Hebrews as we have it today in Greek is very different from Paul’s and similar to Luke’s. The most important argument against this theory is probably the supposed theological difference between the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apostle Paul, most notably the difference regarding the possibility of total apostasy from the Christian faith resulting in eternal damnation—the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews strongly arguing for that possibility (Heb. 3:12; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31) and Paul emphasizing the power of God to keep the believer secure. However, Paul certainly did not write that total apostasy was impossible, and, in my mind, believed that it was possible (1 Cor. 9:27, 10:1-12; Col. 1:23; 2 Thes. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:1-2; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). The argument that the Epistle to the Hebrews, unlike the Paul’s epistles, is anonymous is of little consequence when we consider that the Hebrew Christians would be much more inclined to accept as true the contents of an anonymous letter than a letter from the Apostle to the Gentiles whom they tended to view as a traitor, giving Paul a very good reason for not identifying himself as the author.

Clement of Rome can be ruled out with near certainty as the author because of the differences between his writing style and theological views and those of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Apollos can be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty because the Alexandrian church thought much more highly of the Epistle to the Hebrews than did the Western Church, and if Apollos, one of their own, had written it, it seems highly likely that we would find mention of it. What we do find, however, is Clement of Alexandria writing that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and Luke translated it into Greek. And if Apollos had written the Epistle to the Hebrews, would we not expect to find mention of him in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the Christian community in which Apollos was an important figure. James Moffatt, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, dismisses any possibility of Apollos being the author with these words, “It is superfluous here to discuss hypotheses which are in the main due to an irrepressible desire to construct NT romances.” Pricilla can be ruled out with near certainty because the author identifies himself as being a man (the Greek text of Heb. 11:32).

Luke and Barnabas are reasonable possibilities, with Barnabas much more strongly so because we know that he was a Jew, and Luke was likely a Gentile. Could the epistle have been written by someone else, by someone who has not been named as a possibility? Yes.Thank you. That is excellent information.
When did Clement of Rome live?
How accurate or trustworthy would you say is Clement's opinion?
Do you know him to be a careful student?
Or was he the type to just parrot what other people said without substantiating it?

[jsimms615]

I don't know that it matters who wrote it. But, possibly one of the companions of the disciples. If they haven't written anything else then I don't know how you prove it though. Maybe Barnabas or Silas. I don't think it was Paul.

[PrincetonGuy]

Thank you. That is excellent information.
When did Clement of Rome live?
How accurate or trustworthy would you say is Clement's opinion?
Do you know him to be a careful student?
Or was he the type to just parrot what other people said without substantiating it?

Clement of Rome lived in the latter part of the 1st century and probably into the beginning of the second. Clement of Alexandria lived approximately 100 years later. I don’t know where Clement of Alexandria got the information that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek or how reliable his view of the matter was. The history of that period is very sketchy and often unreliable. I suggest that you read the information to which I have provided the links below.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm)

[FallingWaters]

Clement of Rome lived in the latter part of the 1st century and probably into the beginning of the second. Clement of Alexandria lived approximately 100 years later. I don’t know where Clement of Alexandria got the information that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek or how reliable his view of the matter was. The history of that period is very sketchy and often unreliable. I suggest that you read the information to which I have provided the links below.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm)Thank you for providing complete information even though I didn't ask my question properly
(in my mind there was only one Clement- not two!)
You must have the heart of a teacher as well as that of a student.

I will have time to read later tonight.

[FallingWaters]

I don't know that it matters who wrote it. But, possibly one of the companions of the disciples. If they haven't written anything else then I don't know how you prove it though. Maybe Barnabas or Silas. I don't think it was Paul.At THIS point in time, maybe it doesn't matter very much at all, but I still think it's an interesting discussion.

[psalm511013]

The most important argument against this theory is probably the supposed theological difference between the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apostle Paul, most notably the difference regarding the possibility of total apostasy from the Christian faith resulting in eternal damnation—the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews strongly arguing for that possibility (Heb. 3:12; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31) and Paul emphasizing the power of God to keep the believer secure. Although these passage most often surface as arguments against eternal security ("once saved always saved" as some like to so lightly toss off the concept), the passages don't teach "lost salvation" any more than the rest of the Bible does.

In Hebrews 3:12, the term "fall away" is translated from the Greek aphestemi which literally means "to incite to revolt." We all at one point or another live in rebellion against God, saved or not. The warning is not against lost salvation, but against rebelling against that which we know in our hearts is right.

Hebrews 6:4-6, aside from being an incomplete citing of the passage, is still nothing more than an argument against being able to lose one's salvation, using a tactic known as reductio ad absurdum, Latin for "reduction to an absurdity." In other words, if one has discovered the truth of Christ and received the Holy Spirit, and seen into the future for a glimpse of the glory, grace and power of God and then fallen away (unlike Hebrew 3:12, this Greek word is parapipto, i.e., fallen aside or dropped behind) then it would be impossible to restore that person to salvation. This proves the fallacy of lost salvation, because there are those who experience apparent loss of faith who are undeniably restored through grace. Then there are those who remain aloof and "fallen aside," an indicator that they did not lose their salvation, but never had it in the first place.

I said this is an incomplete citing also, meaning it leaves out vv. 7, 8:

"For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

In other words, soil that receives the rain and produces a crop is fertile -- i.e., the truly saved person produces good fruit. But soil that yields thorns and thistles is infertile and useless -- i.e., the emotional or intellectual experience of "knowing God" is insufficient for God to acknowledge with saving power. These two verses confirm the fact stated in the previous three that salvation cannot be lost, but it can be faked.

As to Hebrews 10:26-31, I cannot say it better than Matthew Henry:

"The exhortations against apostacy and to perseverance, are urged by many strong reasons. The sin here mentioned is a total and final falling away, when men, with a full and fixed will and resolution, despise and reject Christ, the only Saviour; despise and resist the Spirit, the only Sanctifier; and despise and renounce the gospel, the only way of salvation, and the words of eternal life. Of this destruction God gives some notorious sinners, while on earth, a fearful foreboding in their consciences, with despair of being able to endure or to escape it. But what punishment can be sorer than to die without mercy? We answer, to die by mercy, by the mercy and grace which they have despised. How dreadful is the case, when not only the justice of God, but His abused grace and mercy call for vengeance! All this does not in the least mean that any souls who sorrow for sin will be shut out from mercy, or that any will be refused the benefit of Christ's sacrifice, who are willing to accept these blessings. Him that cometh unto Christ, He will in no wise cast out."

There is no such thing as "losing one's salvation." There is a great deal of "counterfeit faith" running amok in the world, and even some of its adherents think they are "saved" in that they've had an emotional experience they try to recreate every day, to no avail. That is because they stopped short of salvation and settled for the mere "experience" that felt like saving faith, but is not.

A simple rule of thumb, but by no means true insight (because only God, not man, knows the heart) is that, if there is no life-change, there is no salvation. If the evidence is merely emotional and/or intellectual, and there is no conviction of sin, no effort to "do the next right thing" it is quite likely -- though again, not definite, as I am no judge -- there has been no saving act of faith.

[jasper123]

I say Luke wrote it. Some think it was Paul, but the writing style and terminology is more Lukish in my opinion. What say you?

God Bless!
Tradition says it was Paul
Ron

[JacobHall86]

Tradition says it was Paul
Ron

Actually Tradition doesnt.

The Epistles of Paul were placed in a simple order. Longest to Shortest. If Paul wrote Hebrews and the Early church (Which most tradition is based off of) believed it that would put Hebrews after Corinthians and before Galatians. Not after Philemon.

[mysterychristian]

The style doesn't fit either gentleman. It is very Levitical in origin, the type of learning that Paul and Barnabas (who was a Levite) certainly had, and Dr. Luke (a Greek) certainly did not. But Paul identified his epistles right up front, in the first sentence, using his name in the salutation. Though it is slightly possible that, for some reason, he did not do so with Hebrews, it is more likely that the writer of Hebrews simply did not feel the need to be identified, considering the message more important than the messenger.

That is not to say Paul was an egomaniac, but rather to say that the epistle seems to have been written urgently, the literary equivalent of a sledge hammer, driving home the point that faith in Christ was the only logical outcome of studying and knowing the Law, and that Jews had no excuse for not recognizing the Person of Jesus as God the Son. When treatises of this nature get written, it is usually less important to receive acknowledgment for the work than to get the work out to those who need to see it. That would certainly match with Barnabas' gifts of compassion and encouragement as well.

read my posts and youll see why paul didn't put his name on it.

You are loved of God

[mysterychristian]

Maybe we should look it up in Wikipedia
Who the writer is as they maybe trying
Indeed to reach their own Jewish kin
Hebrews is in the New Testament which
IMHO is wierd.
It's to the Christian jews who refused to leave the old test law of moses, they were zealous for the law

[mysterychristian]

hmmmm.......definetly for sure a mystery.......

The only clue that I see that could point to Paul is the reference to Timothy in Chapter 13.

Some say the style is different (compared to Paul's other writings to the Church) I just sense if he did write it, he was reaching a different audience, his own kin, the Jewish people to convince them that Jesus is the one they are looking for.
They were the jewish Christians that refused to leave the law, and paul always became all things to all men that he might save some, even though they were saved he still wanted them to walk in the grace of God more fully instead of legalism, to get rid of their old ways of doing things namely the law, that christ came to fullfill it and he did, and it no longer existed any more but they wanted it still.

[IisJustMe]

read my posts and youll see why paul didn't put his name on it. ... I have read them. I posted my views knowing what you had said. That is to say, I respectfully disagree, and I don't think you can claim to speak for Paul. Again, no offense.
You are loved of GodThank you. I know this even when I forget it.

[IisJustMe]

Although these passage most often surface as arguments against eternal security ("once saved always saved" as some like to so lightly toss off the concept), the passages don't teach "lost salvation" any more than the rest of the Bible does.

In Hebrews 3:12, the term "fall away" is translated from the Greek aphestemi which literally means "to incite to revolt." We all at one point or another live in rebellion against God, saved or not. The warning is not against lost salvation, but against rebelling against that which we know in our hearts is right.

Hebrews 6:4-6, aside from being an incomplete citing of the passage, is still nothing more than an argument against being able to lose one's salvation, using a tactic known as reductio ad absurdum, Latin for "reduction to an absurdity." In other words, if one has discovered the truth of Christ and received the Holy Spirit, and seen into the future for a glimpse of the glory, grace and power of God and then fallen away (unlike Hebrew 3:12, this Greek word is parapipto, i.e., fallen aside or dropped behind) then it would be impossible to restore that person to salvation. This proves the fallacy of lost salvation, because there are those who experience apparent loss of faith who are undeniably restored through grace. Then there are those who remain aloof and "fallen aside," an indicator that they did not lose their salvation, but never had it in the first place.

I said this is an incomplete citing also, meaning it leaves out vv. 7, 8:

"For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

In other words, soil that receives the rain and produces a crop is fertile -- i.e., the truly saved person produces good fruit. But soil that yields thorns and thistles is infertile and useless -- i.e., the emotional or intellectual experience of "knowing God" is insufficient for God to acknowledge with saving power. These two verses confirm the fact stated in the previous three that salvation cannot be lost, but it can be faked.

As to Hebrews 10:26-31, I cannot say it better than Matthew Henry:

"The exhortations against apostacy and to perseverance, are urged by many strong reasons. The sin here mentioned is a total and final falling away, when men, with a full and fixed will and resolution, despise and reject Christ, the only Saviour; despise and resist the Spirit, the only Sanctifier; and despise and renounce the gospel, the only way of salvation, and the words of eternal life. Of this destruction God gives some notorious sinners, while on earth, a fearful foreboding in their consciences, with despair of being able to endure or to escape it. But what punishment can be sorer than to die without mercy? We answer, to die by mercy, by the mercy and grace which they have despised. How dreadful is the case, when not only the justice of God, but His abused grace and mercy call for vengeance! All this does not in the least mean that any souls who sorrow for sin will be shut out from mercy, or that any will be refused the benefit of Christ's sacrifice, who are willing to accept these blessings. Him that cometh unto Christ, He will in no wise cast out."

There is no such thing as "losing one's salvation." There is a great deal of "counterfeit faith" running amok in the world, and even some of its adherents think they are "saved" in that they've had an emotional experience they try to recreate every day, to no avail. That is because they stopped short of salvation and settled for the mere "experience" that felt like saving faith, but is not.

A simple rule of thumb, but by no means true insight (because only God, not man, knows the heart) is that, if there is no life-change, there is no salvation. If the evidence is merely emotional and/or intellectual, and there is no conviction of sin, no effort to "do the next right thing" it is quite likely -- though again, not definite, as I am no judge -- there has been no saving act of faith.Although not an OSAS thread, this certainly blows away the opposing viewpoint. Way to go.

[mysterychristian]

Paul was in bonds often, timothy was at his side most of the time, and the administration of Grace was given to paul to preach.

In hebrews you will see that grace is mentioned only eight times but closely look at the eight times and you will see that he is trying to get them to walk in the grace of God for they did not because they were zealous for the law, but they were of the body they were Christians

Heb 10:34 my bonds
Heb 13:3 in the body
Heb 13:23 timothy set free (at least we know it wasn't him)

Look at Grace for your self in hebrews and read the surrounding context also, he doesn't come right out and say much about them being in it until late in His letter after he has their attention, he also ends it with Grace.

Hbr 2:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr002.html#9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Hbr 4:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr004.html#16) Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Hbr 10:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr010.html#29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hbr 12:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr012.html#15) Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble [you], and thereby many be defiled;

Hbr 12:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr012.html#28) Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

Hbr 13:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr013.html#9) Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

Hbr 13:25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr013.html#25) Grace [be] with you all. Amen.

You are loved of God

[mysterychristian]

... I have read them. I posted my views knowing what you had said. That is to say, I respectfully disagree, and I don't think you can claim to speak for Paul. Again, no offense.
Thank you. I know this even when I forget it.
The people to whom this letter was written to, were of the body, according to Heb13:3, the reference is to the body of Christ, even though it doesn't say of Christ but he is reminding them that should remember the others in bonds and suffereing adversity, as being yourselves in the body, they were apart of it and should pray for them, the body was seperate from them only because one was walking in the grace and the other wasn't therefore there was a slight division between the body of Christ at that time, just like in this present day there are those who would keep us in baondage to the law, or laws of men, traditons, and those who refuse to accept that and walk in the freedom wherewith Christ has set us free.

You are Loved again of God, you can never here that enough most people are constanly saying that God is mad at you for your sins or wrong doings , you are going to hell ect... so I choose to end my post with this truth so that people are reminded of the reality of it over and over again. Love in Christ

[Selznak]

hmmmm.......definetly for sure a mystery.......

The only clue that I see that could point to Paul is the reference to Timothy in Chapter 13.

Some say the style is different (compared to Paul's other writings to the Church) I just sense if he did write it, he was reaching a different audience, his own kin, the Jewish people to convince them that Jesus is the one they are looking for.

I've always found it to be a fascinating mystery. Although it would not conclusively disprove Pauline authorship, the differences in style, vocabulary, rhetoric, and the absence of an opening salutation have convinced many that Paul was not the author of the Hebrew epistle. I also find it very difficult to believe that Paul would consider himself as one of those who heard the gospel not from the Lord but from "those who heard him." (Hebrews 2:3)

[PrincetonGuy]

In Hebrews 3:12, the term "fall away" is translated from the Greek aphestemi which literally means "to incite to revolt." We all at one point or another live in rebellion against God, saved or not. The warning is not against lost salvation, but against rebelling against that which we know in our hearts is right.

You have confused the intransitive use of the verb (that we find in Heb. 3:12) with the transitive use of the verb. When used intransitively, the verb means to “go away, withdraw,” or “fall away, become apostate” (BAGD), and according to this lexicon the intransitive use of the verb in Heb. 3:12 means to “fall away, become apostate.”

Hebrews 6:4-6, aside from being an incomplete citing of the passage, is still nothing more than an argument against being able to lose one's salvation, using a tactic known as reductio ad absurdum, Latin for "reduction to an absurdity." In other words, if one has discovered the truth of Christ and received the Holy Spirit, and seen into the future for a glimpse of the glory, grace and power of God and then fallen away (unlike Hebrew 3:12, this Greek word is parapipto, i.e., fallen aside or dropped behind) then it would be impossible to restore that person to salvation. This proves the fallacy of lost salvation, because there are those who experience apparent loss of faith who are undeniably restored through grace. Then there are those who remain aloof and "fallen aside," an indicator that they did not lose their salvation, but never had it in the first place.

I said this is an incomplete citing also, meaning it leaves out vv. 7, 8:

"For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

In other words, soil that receives the rain and produces a crop is fertile -- i.e., the truly saved person produces good fruit. But soil that yields thorns and thistles is infertile and useless -- i.e., the emotional or intellectual experience of "knowing God" is insufficient for God to acknowledge with saving power. These two verses confirm the fact stated in the previous three that salvation cannot be lost, but it can be faked.

Heb. 6:4. For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5. and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6. and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
7. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8. but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
9. But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. (NASB, 1995)

Up until the 16th century this passage was universally interpreted as teaching that a Christian could lose his salvation, and the large majority of Bible scholars today still hold to that position. Indeed, this passage of Scripture gives us the most detailed description of what it means to be saved that we find anywhere in the Bible, and the end of these saved persons who subsequently fall away from the Christian faith is eternal damnation in the fires of hell. However, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote his Epistle using the terminology and phraseology of the very early Church. Therefore, in order to accurately interpret the Epistle to the Hebrews it is essential to have a solid background in the writings of the very early Church and the terminology and phraseology that they used.

The phrase in verse 4, “those who have once been enlightened,” is a reference to water baptism. Indeed, Justin Martyr (died in 165 A.D.) wrote that the term “enlightenment” was used as a synonym for water baptism of converts to Christianity and he uses the term “the enlightened one” for a person who has been baptized. And the ancient Peshita Syriac translation of the Greek New Testament renders the phrase in verse 4, “who have gone down into baptism.”

The phrase in verse 4, “have tasted of the heavenly gift,” was variously interpreted during the first 1500 years, but it was ALWAYS interpreted as describing a born-again Christian. Some, for example, saw it to be a reference to the Eucharist; others saw it to be a reference to the teaching of Christ in John 6:31-58. Still others saw it to be a reference to the forgiveness of sins; others saw it to be a reference to the blessings conferred upon the Christian believer.

The phrase in verse 4, “and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,” is an obvious reference to receiving the Holy Spirit, something that, in the New Testament, happens EXCLUSIVELY to those who have been saved.

The phrase in verse 5, “and have tasted the good word of God,” is a clear reference to the Christian’s experience of hearing the word of God preached and taught and the consequential experience of it in his life as a believer.

The phrase in verse 5, “and the powers of the age to come,” is a reference to the miracles that were performed by the Apostles and other Christians as a foreshadowing of the kingdom to come, and to the other blessings that Christians experience now in part but shall experience in their fullness in the future kingdom.

The phrase in verse 6, “and then have fallen away,” can be properly interpreted only to be speaking of falling from grace and the Christian faith, something that can NOT happen until AFTER a person is saved.

The phrases in verse 6, “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame,” tell us of the absolutely horrendous consequence of a Christian falling from grace, making the death of Christ on the cross for his sins to be of no effect. This passage expressly speaks of a person who has heard the Gospel, believed it, was saved and baptized, repented of his sins, and enjoyed the blessing of being a born-again Christian—but who subsequently chose to reject Christ and return to his sins. And the fate of such a person could not possibly be any worse—it is “impossible to renew them again to repentance.” Most obviously it is not impossible to renew an unsaved person to repentance if they have repented but not been born again and then fall back into sin. But the born-again Christian who, of his own free will, chooses to reject the Christ who redeemed him, this man or woman is beyond redemption and damned to the fires of hell for eternity.

Verses 7 & 8 are an analogy used to support the author’s statements. Just as the ground which once brought forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled received a blessing from God, and the ground that yields thorns and thistles is worthless and ends up being burned, so the Christian which once brought forth good fruit unto God but who now brings forth bad fruit ends up being burned in the fires of hell.

In verse 9 we find words of encouragement for those who have been so very severely warned of the possibility of losing their salvation, “we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation.” These words would be absolutely meaningless if the loss of one’s salvation was not a very real possibility.


We know from early Church documents that candidates for water baptism were not carelessly selected and this passage therefore presupposes both a genuine faith and a genuine conversion. And, of course, it is impossible to apostatize from a faith that one never had, and all of the phrases used in this passage describing these individuals are applicable exclusively to those who have been save by grace through faith and who lived as Christians before they fell away.


As to Hebrews 10:26-31, I cannot say it better than Matthew Henry:



But the author himself could:

26. For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27. but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
28. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on {the testimony of} two or three witnesses.
29. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30. For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."
31. It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (NASB, 1995)

[IisJustMe]

You provide a huge body of pseudoscholarly "evidence" here that I suspect is not your own, but has been provided to you by those who have taught you. Additionally, you respond to my admittedly incomplete exegesis of the passages in question by merely requoting the passages you misinterpret! Sorry, friend, but that's not scholarship, that is stubbornness. As I've often taken the time to dissect diatribes like this to point out the fallacies inherent therein, to no avail -- no one changes their mind -- I'll decline to do so this time.

The errant teaching that salvation can be lost can only be "supported" biblically by self-serving and deliberately bad or misleading investigation of the Scriptures. You choose to believe you can lose your salvation, so be it. What you are choosing to do is believe you have a say in your salvation, and that is patently unbiblical and untrue. I don't know about you, but I have no merit before God. Without grace, I would remain condemned. It is His gift by which I am saved, His acceptance of my heartfelt true confession that I am a worthless sinner in need of a Savior.

If I can do nothing to save myself, how can I do anything to maintain a salvation that is outside of my power to provide? Yours is a works-based faith, and I am sad for you that you think you must labor to "earn" unconditional love. My labor in ministry is not to remain saved, but because I am saved. I sin, even in my salvation. I will continue to do so, because my imperfections in the flesh abide until I am redeemed at death or the Rapture. But my salvation is not an excuse to sin. Rather it is the comfort I have against fearing continuing sin that I do not plot deliberately, but most certainly will commit, as will everyone reading this post. How much sin is "too much" so as to merit removal of our mantle? It is a ridiculous question, one with no biblical evidence requiring it to be asked.

[mysterychristian]

You provide a huge body of pseudoscholarly "evidence" here that I suspect is not your own, but has been provided to you by those who have taught you. Additionally, you respond to my admittedly incomplete exegesis of the passages in question by merely requoting the passages you misinterpret! Sorry, friend, but that's not scholarship, that is stubbornness. As I've often taken the time to dissect diatribes like this to point out the fallacies inherent therein, to no avail -- no one changes their mind -- I'll decline to do so this time.

The errant teaching that salvation can be lost can only be "supported" biblically by self-serving and deliberately bad or misleading investigation of the Scriptures. You choose to believe you can lose your salvation, so be it. What you are choosing to do is believe you have a say in your salvation, and that is patently unbiblical and untrue. I don't know about you, but I have no merit before God. Without grace, I would remain condemned. It is His gift by which I am saved, His acceptance of my heartfelt true confession that I am a worthless sinner in need of a Savior.

If I can do nothing to save myself, how can I do anything to maintain a salvation that is outside of my power to provide? Yours is a works-based faith, and I am sad for you that you think you must labor to "earn" unconditional love. My labor in ministry is not to remain saved, but because I am saved. I sin, even in my salvation. I will continue to do so, because my imperfections in the flesh abide until I am redeemed at death or the Rapture. But my salvation is not an excuse to sin. Rather it is the comfort I have against fearing continuing sin that I do not plot deliberately, but most certainly will commit, as will everyone reading this post. How much sin is "too much" so as to merit removal of our mantle? It is a ridiculous question, one with no biblical evidence requiring it to be asked.

You are loved of God, and I'm thankful that you know you are saved and can't lose it, many christians spend a life time trying to stay saved, in bondage and fear with no true pure motivaion to love any one else but to save them ownselves. Like our God, our father would be so cruel and unloving to His children to do that to them.

Thankful for you, you are Loved of God.

[IisJustMe]

You are loved of God, and I'm thankful that you know you are saved and can't lose it, many christians spend a life time trying to stay saved, in bondage and fear with no true pure motivaion to love any one else but to save them ownselves. Like our God, our father would be so cruel and unloving to His children to do that to them.

Thankful for you, you are Loved of God.You also are loved of God, and I thank you for your response here. There is a freedom in knowing that we have no say in it, but are able to depend on His strength alone.

[JacobHall86]

I wrote Hebrews.

Case Closed.

[mysterychristian]

I wrote Hebrews.

Case Closed.
A little humor is great.

[mysterychristian]

You also are loved of God, and I thank you for your response here. There is a freedom in knowing that we have no say in it, but are able to depend on His strength alone.
If you were always occupied in sin consiousness, you'd never have the mental time to truly love yourself or another with the word, because all that you would be doing is saving self all the time. Bless

[PrincetonGuy]

You provide a huge body of pseudoscholarly "evidence" here that I suspect is not your own, but has been provided to you by those who have taught you. Additionally, you respond to my admittedly incomplete exegesis of the passages in question by merely requoting the passages you misinterpret! Sorry, friend, but that's not scholarship, that is stubbornness. As I've often taken the time to dissect diatribes like this to point out the fallacies inherent therein, to no avail -- no one changes their mind -- I'll decline to do so this time.

The errant teaching that salvation can be lost can only be "supported" biblically by self-serving and deliberately bad or misleading investigation of the Scriptures. You choose to believe you can lose your salvation, so be it. What you are choosing to do is believe you have a say in your salvation, and that is patently unbiblical and untrue. I don't know about you, but I have no merit before God. Without grace, I would remain condemned. It is His gift by which I am saved, His acceptance of my heartfelt true confession that I am a worthless sinner in need of a Savior.

If I can do nothing to save myself, how can I do anything to maintain a salvation that is outside of my power to provide? Yours is a works-based faith, and I am sad for you that you think you must labor to "earn" unconditional love. My labor in ministry is not to remain saved, but because I am saved. I sin, even in my salvation. I will continue to do so, because my imperfections in the flesh abide until I am redeemed at death or the Rapture. But my salvation is not an excuse to sin. Rather it is the comfort I have against fearing continuing sin that I do not plot deliberately, but most certainly will commit, as will everyone reading this post. How much sin is "too much" so as to merit removal of our mantle? It is a ridiculous question, one with no biblical evidence requiring it to be asked.


All of the numerous doctrines that are today commonly lumped together as the doctrine of “once saved always saved” were first conceived in the 16th century or later (several were first conceived in the 19th century or later). The first to be conceived theory of once saved always saved is known at the doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints” and originated as a consequence of a faulty view of the sovereignty of God rather than as a consequence of careful exegesis of the applicable texts. That the doctrine of once saved always saved is a false and unbiblical doctrine can be easily proved through the careful exegesis of the New Testament and all attempts to refute this careful exegesis and the necessary conclusion that the Bible teaches conditional security require the theory to be true that the Apostle John, in the Gospel According to John, when speaking of everlasting life, used the Greek present tense and the Greek present participle in a very different manner that he did throughout the rest of his writings. This theory has given rise to numerous Greek grammars written by Baptists whose belief in the doctrine of once saved always saved has forced them to imagine that in their “proof texts” we have anomalous uses of the Greek present tense and the Greek present participle. The very large majority of scholars of the Gospel According to John and the very large majority of New Testament scholars totally reject the notion that the New Testament teaches any form of once saved always saved.

Putting that aside for the moment, I must comment that posting ad hominem personal attacks against one's opponents, falsely accusing them of being “self-serving” and insultingly dismissing their many years of New Testament scholarship as being “pseudoscholarly” in no way lessens the truth of their words. I must further comment that by so broadly casting such malicious insults at those who believe and teach the doctrine of conditional security he who casts these insults is casting these very same malicious insults at the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers whom it pleased God to use to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity and to establish the New Testament Canon, and he is casting these very same malicious insults at every man of God who lived and taught prior to the 16th century and at the very large majority of New Testament scholars who lived and taught for the past 500 years and down to the present day.

Those who espouse the doctrine of once saved always saved are faced with the question, “If the Bible really teaches that doctrine, why is it that in all of the hundreds of thousands of volumes of Biblical studies prior to the 16th century we find absolutely no one teaching or advocating for the doctrine of once saved always saved, and we find tens of thousands of scholars and ministers of the word teaching and advocating for the doctrine of conditional security?” Most certainly if the doctrine of once saved always saved is in the Bible, someone, somewhere, would have noticed that it is there. The only reasonable conclusion is that it is NOT there but that it is an error that crept into the church through faulty systematic theologies, a conclusion that is not only reasonable, but a conclusion that is well documented in the history of New Testament interpretation.

The fact that the Early Church believed in and taught the doctrine of conditional security is fundamental to evaluating the evidence for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The mistaken notion that Paul believed in and taught once saved always has caused many to dismiss the possibility of Paul being the author based upon that mistaken notion. That is the relevance of these doctrines to this thread and with these last comments I shall take leave of this thread. If you would like to start a new thread to debate this issue based exclusively upon the Greek text of the New Testament I would be pleased to oblige you.

[FallingWaters]

whoa.
bummer.
so we can't be sure we're going to heaven.
that stinks.

[mysterychristian]

All of the numerous doctrines that are today commonly lumped together as the doctrine of “once saved always saved” were first conceived in the 16th century or later (several were first conceived in the 19th century or later). The first to be conceived theory of once saved always saved is known at the doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints” and originated as a consequence of a faulty view of the sovereignty of God rather than as a consequence of careful exegesis of the applicable texts. That the doctrine of once saved always saved is a false and unbiblical doctrine can be easily proved through the careful exegesis of the New Testament and all attempts to refute this careful exegesis and the necessary conclusion that the Bible teaches conditional security require the theory to be true that the Apostle John, in the Gospel According to John, when speaking of everlasting life, used the Greek present tense and the Greek present participle in a very different manner that he did throughout the rest of his writings. This theory has given rise to numerous Greek grammars written by Baptists whose belief in the doctrine of once saved always saved has forced them to imagine that in their “proof texts” we have anomalous uses of the Greek present tense and the Greek present participle. The very large majority of scholars of the Gospel According to John and the very large majority of New Testament scholars totally reject the notion that the New Testament teaches any form of once saved always saved.

Putting that aside for the moment, I must comment that posting ad hominem personal attacks against one's opponents, falsely accusing them of being “self-serving” and insultingly dismissing their many years of New Testament scholarship as being “pseudoscholarly” in no way lessens the truth of their words. I must further comment that by so broadly casting such malicious insults at those who believe and teach the doctrine of conditional security he who casts these insults is casting these very same malicious insults at the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers whom it pleased God to use to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity and to establish the New Testament Canon, and he is casting these very same malicious insults at every man of God who lived and taught prior to the 16th century and at the very large majority of New Testament scholars who lived and taught for the past 500 years and down to the present day.

Those who espouse the doctrine of once saved always saved are faced with the question, “If the Bible really teaches that doctrine, why is it that in all of the hundreds of thousands of volumes of Biblical studies prior to the 16th century we find absolutely no one teaching or advocating for the doctrine of once saved always saved, and we find tens of thousands of scholars and ministers of the word teaching and advocating for the doctrine of conditional security?” Most certainly if the doctrine of once saved always saved is in the Bible, someone, somewhere, would have noticed that it is there. The only reasonable conclusion is that it is NOT there but that it is an error that crept into the church through faulty systematic theologies, a conclusion that is not only reasonable, but a conclusion that is well documented in the history of New Testament interpretation.

The fact that the Early Church believed in and taught the doctrine of conditional security is fundamental to evaluating the evidence for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The mistaken notion that Paul believed in and taught once saved always has caused many to dismiss the possibility of Paul being the author based upon that mistaken notion. That is the relevance of these doctrines to this thread and with these last comments I shall take leave of this thread. If you would like to start a new thread to debate this issue based exclusively upon the Greek text of the New Testament I would be pleased to oblige you.

Hello I feel for ya dude it must suck to wonder if you are going to make it or not, I'm thankful I know I am, because I believe what the word says about salvation and eternal life. It's only those very religous people who wrestle with the scriptures to their own demise, that are trying to save them selves, Honestly it would suck to go through life thinking that way, you'd constantly be in fear and bondage, what kind of God do you think we have, one that tortures his children mentally like that?

Ephesians 2:8,9 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: (it is) the gift of God.

not by works, lest any man should boast,

Romans 4:4,5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith (believing) is counte for righteousness.

Righteousness comes at the new birth, look in......

Romans 10:9,10 Read this and you'll see

Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith (believing), that it might be by grace; to the end the Promise (of Eternal life) might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law (works), but to that also which is of the faith (believing) of Abraham, who is the Father of us all,

Not by genetics but by the spiritual law of "believing".

Romans 6:23 For the wages (fruit, outcome) of sin (sin relates to adam's fall it's in the blood) is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:12-21 Great verses to read in light of our subject.

Romans 5:15 Look that one up!

Galatians 3:2

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the spirit (of God, the gift, eternal life) by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:3

Are ye so foolish having begun (the new birth) in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Your actions in the flesh)

Hebrews 10:14 For by ONE offering he (Jesus Christ) hath PERFECTED FOREVER them that are sanctified.

Galatians 4:6 and because ye are sons, God hath (past tense) sent forth the Spirit of his son into your hearts, crying Abba Father.

After reading these verses how can you still believe what you do, does it not even raise a iota of a inkling of a curiosity of a doubt that it might just be possible you are wrong?

I'm trying to show you that there are verses that contradict what you believe what are you to do with them? Throw them out and ignore them, any verse you come back at me with I can logically prove from the word is wrong if what you are trying to prove is opposite of what I'm saying.

You are loved of the Father who has given us Eternal life and does not repent(Change his mind)

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance

P.S. Did you know that most if not all theologians are not Christians, they study the bible, know the bible, memorize it but can't put it together correctly. And they are the ones at major universities teaching religion and many head up the biggest denominations in the world, handing down their wrong doctrine to others who really want to know God.

Men respect them because they have their degrees and name on a paper, Jesus Christ didn't get a degree in theology He was in the University of Life, with His Father God teaching him and His own private study of the Word, A degree in theology from a university or a denomination makes no one more credible in God's eyes, he says to rightly divide his word to stand approved before him. The majority of Christians are spell bound by the names and degrees of men therefore they fall prey to their Doctrine, not knowing how to study the word themselves they are spoon fed instead of cutting the steak themselves.

Men of God are not graduated from Universities they are appointed by God, learning from a university is good as long as you can keep what you learn in harmony and subject to God's word, which the majority do not, most come out believing less about God before they go in.

And believing in God doesn't make anyone a Christian, it's confessing Jesus Christ as your Lord, and believing from your heart thatGod raised him from the dead that gets a man saved, born again....

Just thought that would be something interesting for people to Read. It's true.

Bless