Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
We unequivocally know who did not write Hebrews.
Derf
Well-known member
Contradictions often stem from false presuppositions, as you well know. Since Hebrews was written by someone who knew Timothy, that person also must have known Paul and his teachings. So it is very likely that he wrote from Pauls doctrinal position. Therefore making it out to be non-Pauline is purely based on a desire to maintain a crumbling theological system.
Right Divider
Body part
Talk about false presupposition
If so, then they aren't actually contradictions.
Okay.
This conclusion does not follow from its premise.
And it ignores the fact that Paul's ministry wasn't to Hebrews and that the doctrines taught in Hebrews are at odds with "Paul's doctrinal position", as you put it.
Further, it isn't merely "Paul's doctrinal position". Paul's gospel was not taught to Paul nor did he get it from any regular person. He received his gospel by direct divine revelation from the risen Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which is yet another point that conflicts with what the author of Hebrews states in chapter 2 verse 3.
I think you knew this was false when you stated it. I don't understand what profit you get from saying such things but it has the opposite effect you intend. It is you that looks ridiculous when you make such blatantly idiotic statements.
Hebrews and the Pauline epistles contradict each other in important ways. If Paul wrote both then he is a liar and a con artist and all of his writings would be trash and, as a result, practically everything you can think of that distinguishes Christianity from Judaism would vanish into dust.
Last edited:
So I wrote what was going to be a post that establishes the fact that Paul is not the author of Hebrews but it sort bounced all over the place and was difficult even for me to follow - and I wrote it! I'm short on time and so I just fed what I had written into Chat GPT and after discussing it back a forth for a few minutes, I had it just edit what I had written into a more cohesive presentation. I liked the result so much that I've just decided to post it as is. It still reads a lot like something I'd write and it saves me the time it would take to write a whole new draft.
Hebrews, on the other hand, addresses a nation still related to the prophetic program—Israel under covenant. The writer of Hebrews explicitly identifies himself as one who received the message from those who heard the Lord, not by direct revelation:
Paul’s epistles, by contrast, are addressed to the Body of Christ—a new creation neither Jew nor Gentile. His message is not about enduring to the end for salvation but about the believer’s present position in Christ, complete and secure (Colossians 2:10; Ephesians 1:13–14). Paul preached justification apart from law, apart from covenants, apart from Israel’s prophetic hope. Hebrews emphasizes the “better covenant” and Christ’s priesthood after the order of Melchizedek—realities that still assume Israel’s covenantal framework, not the mystery program revealed to Paul.
If Paul had written Hebrews, he would have to abandon the very truths he received by revelation. The epistle’s entire system of worship, endurance, and priestly mediation belongs to Israel’s earthly calling, not to the heavenly calling of the Body of Christ.
Hebrews speaks of “the world to come” (Hebrews 2:5), the millennial kingdom promised to Israel. Paul speaks of our “heavenly places” and our position in the Body of Christ, which transcends Israel’s earthly hope. The two messages operate on different planes of revelation.
To assign Hebrews to Paul is to erase the very distinction between Israel and the Body of Christ, between prophecy and mystery, between law and grace. It confuses the hope of the earthly kingdom with the calling of the heavenly Body and destroys the integrity of both programs.
To make Paul the author of Hebrews is to force him to deny everything he said about his unique apostleship and to undo the revelation of the mystery. The integrity of Scripture demands that we recognize Hebrews as inspired, yes, but not Pauline. It belongs to the Hebrew epistles, written for Israel’s prophetic hope, while Paul’s letters belong to the Body of Christ in this present dispensation of grace.
Paul Could Not Have Written Hebrews
The question of Hebrews’ authorship is not merely an academic curiosity; it touches the very heart of right division. If we take Scripture seriously in its own context, the internal evidence of both Hebrews and Paul’s epistles makes it impossible for Paul to have written the book.1. Paul’s Distinct Apostleship
Paul was not one of the Twelve, nor was his message derived from them. He writes:Paul’s gospel was a direct revelation from the risen, glorified Christ concerning the formation of the Body of Christ and the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:1–9). He ministered as the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13), sent to proclaim the unprophesied mystery that had been “kept secret since the world began” (Romans 16:25). His sphere was heavenly, his calling distinct, and his message entirely new.
Hebrews, on the other hand, addresses a nation still related to the prophetic program—Israel under covenant. The writer of Hebrews explicitly identifies himself as one who received the message from those who heard the Lord, not by direct revelation:
That statement alone disqualifies Paul. He did not receive his message from those who heard the Lord on earth, but directly from Christ in glory. To say Paul wrote Hebrews is to make Paul contradict his own testimony.
2. The Audience and Message Differ Entirely
Hebrews is written to the Hebrews—Jews who believed in Jesus as Messiah and were enduring persecution for their profession of faith. The book urges them not to fall away, not to neglect “so great salvation,” and to persevere to the end in order to receive the promised kingdom. It is full of priestly and covenantal language rooted in Israel’s prophetic program.Paul’s epistles, by contrast, are addressed to the Body of Christ—a new creation neither Jew nor Gentile. His message is not about enduring to the end for salvation but about the believer’s present position in Christ, complete and secure (Colossians 2:10; Ephesians 1:13–14). Paul preached justification apart from law, apart from covenants, apart from Israel’s prophetic hope. Hebrews emphasizes the “better covenant” and Christ’s priesthood after the order of Melchizedek—realities that still assume Israel’s covenantal framework, not the mystery program revealed to Paul.
3. The Priesthood of Christ in Hebrews Is for Israel
Hebrews presents Christ as High Priest for the people of Israel, ministering in the true tabernacle. Paul never once refers to Christ as our High Priest in his letters. For the Body of Christ, there is no priestly caste and no covenant mediator standing between believers and God; we are seated with Christ in heavenly places and enjoy direct access to the Father through Him (Ephesians 2:6, 18).If Paul had written Hebrews, he would have to abandon the very truths he received by revelation. The epistle’s entire system of worship, endurance, and priestly mediation belongs to Israel’s earthly calling, not to the heavenly calling of the Body of Christ.
4. The Conditional Warnings in Hebrews Contradict Paul’s Gospel
Hebrews contains numerous warnings that make salvation appear conditional upon continued faithfulness:Paul’s gospel proclaims a salvation that is already secured by grace through faith alone, without works, and irrevocable because it depends entirely on Christ’s finished work. Hebrews warns of forfeiting salvation; Paul declares eternal security in Christ (Romans 8:1, 38–39). Both cannot be simultaneously true for the same audience under the same dispensation.
5. Paul’s Epistles Are Addressed to Gentiles Under Grace, Not Jews Under Covenant
Paul consistently addresses Gentiles and mixed assemblies within the Body of Christ (Romans 1:5–6; Ephesians 3:1–6). His tone, terminology, and theology are all foreign to the national focus of Hebrews. Hebrews assumes the readers are part of a nation awaiting a promised kingdom and calls them to endure discipline as “sons” of that nation. Paul’s doctrine teaches individual justification and union with Christ apart from any national identity.Hebrews speaks of “the world to come” (Hebrews 2:5), the millennial kingdom promised to Israel. Paul speaks of our “heavenly places” and our position in the Body of Christ, which transcends Israel’s earthly hope. The two messages operate on different planes of revelation.
6. The Closing Greetings Do Not Prove Pauline Authorship
It is true that Hebrews mentions Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), which some take as evidence of Paul’s authorship. Yet Timothy was known by many outside Paul’s immediate circle, and the mere mention of him proves nothing. Luke, Apollos, or another Jewish believer could easily have known Timothy. Stylistically, the Greek of Hebrews differs sharply from Paul’s letters, and the rhetorical structure lacks Paul’s signature introductions, personal appeals, and benedictions. Hebrews reads more like a homiletic treatise than a personal letter.7. The Dispensational Divide Is Decisive
Most importantly, Hebrews belongs to the prophetic program for Israel, not to the mystery revealed through Paul. The book fits perfectly into the transition period of Acts, when the kingdom offer was still extended to the nation of Israel. Paul’s message, on the other hand, marks the interruption of that prophetic program and the beginning of a new dispensation of grace.To assign Hebrews to Paul is to erase the very distinction between Israel and the Body of Christ, between prophecy and mystery, between law and grace. It confuses the hope of the earthly kingdom with the calling of the heavenly Body and destroys the integrity of both programs.
Conclusion
Hebrews cannot have been written by Paul because its very premise contradicts his divinely revealed gospel. The author of Hebrews received his message from those who heard the Lord; Paul received his directly from the Lord Himself. Hebrews is addressed to Israel under covenant; Paul wrote to the Body of Christ under grace. Hebrews warns of falling away; Paul proclaims eternal security in Christ. Hebrews presents a priestly mediator for a covenant people; Paul teaches direct union with Christ in a new creation.To make Paul the author of Hebrews is to force him to deny everything he said about his unique apostleship and to undo the revelation of the mystery. The integrity of Scripture demands that we recognize Hebrews as inspired, yes, but not Pauline. It belongs to the Hebrew epistles, written for Israel’s prophetic hope, while Paul’s letters belong to the Body of Christ in this present dispensation of grace.
Derf
Well-known member
I'm going to focus on this point, because i don't have time to deal with the rest right now. Paul"s ministry was continually to Hebrews (Jews). In every town he visited, he went to the synagogue first, if they had one, or to the God-fearing Jews who met together if there were any. Throughout the book of Acts, which gives the account of Paul"s missionary journeys, the same theme holds: he would preach to the Jew first, and then to Gentiles. When the Hebrews of a town rejected his message, he woukd turn to the Gentiles. Such continued until the very last chapter of Acts. To say otherwise makes YOU look ridiculous, or at least like you've never read the book of Acts, which I'm sure is not true.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
$$ Heb 2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];
This clearly sets the author, whoever it is, apart from the Disciples. And those disciples who weren't among the Twelve as well (the 70 set out two-by-two, Luke 10:1). The author is definitely saying he is not among those who heard the Lord during His Earthly ministry. This as far as I can tell is the point of contention with those who deny it is Paul. They argue this is contradictory with Paul's words in Galatians:
$$ Ga 1:11
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
$$ Ga 1:12
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 2:3 is doing a lot of work for those who argue it wasn't Paul, but I can't say they're wrong. It reminds us of what Luke said, another man who as far as we know, never heard the Lord personally either:
$$ Lu 1:2
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luke here is saying, like the author of Hebrews, that he wasn't taught the Gospel directly from the Lord on Earth. He is saying he heard it from others. This is why those arguing against Pauline authorship do so, because it sounds more like Luke than like Paul. (Not saying Luke authored Hebrews, just that there is a similarity between Luke 1:2 and Hebrews 2:3.)
Is it possible for Paul to write Hebrews 2:3, and him only mean that he was not among the Twelve nor the Seventy, when Christ walked the Earth? I guess it's not impossible.
This misses the point. Once again, I think you knew this when you wrote it.
The point isn't that the Jews ceased to exist or that Paul never preached to a Jew. That is so obviously not the case that no rational person would ever suggest it, which is why I think you knew you were obfuscating when you made this objection.
The point is that Paul's gospel is indifferent to one's Jewishness or lack thereof. There can be no reading of Hebrews that in anyway even pretends to be indifferent to Judaism. It is not only specifically addressed to the Jews in particular but the whole message is predicated on Israel's covenantal relationship with God, which is antithetical to Paul's ministry which taught that Israel has been cut off and was all about the mystery, not the prophesied program Israel enjoyed.
Once again, it seems you would have to be intentionally missing the point here. Or is it that you think that your copy of Acts reads entirely different than mine and that the fact that I call myself a "Mid-Acts Dispensationalists" somehow means that I've never read the book of Acts and know nothing at all about what it says?
Pretending that I'm stupid doesn't make you look smart, Derf.
I have no doubt that you are indeed entirely certain that I've read the book of Acts which should be, by itself, sufficient to tell you that you've missed the point. The question is whether you missed on purpose or not.
Why would it be at all surprising or in the least unexpected that Paul would preach his gospel to Jews? Here's a news flash for you, JESUS WAS A JEW! The whole of Christianity is built on the foundation of whole of the Old Testament which speaks of Christ. Christianity would not exist and could not make any sense at all if the Old Testament and the Gospels weren't true and if the God it speaks of isn't THE God. Jews, having that foundation, are therefore the most logical and entirely natural first audience. They are the ones most likely to get it precisely because they are familiar with the scriptures which Christ fulfilled.
The book of Acts, contrary to what you imply, records that Paul preached first to the Jews but there came a point where that practice ended..
“But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul.
Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, ‘It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you. But since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.’” — Acts 13:45–46, NKJV
Which is not to say that he refused to preach to any Jew but simply that he no longer made them a focus. From that point forward, Paul's focus was toward non-Jews.
NONE OF WHICH IS RELEVANT! (At least not directly.)
I mean, leave it to you to focus on a totally secondary issue while ignoring the singular point that BY ITSELF proves that Paul cannot be the author of Hebrews.....
Paul was not one of the Twelve, nor was his message derived from them. He writes:
Paul’s gospel was a direct revelation from the risen, glorified Christ concerning the formation of the Body of Christ and the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:1–9). He ministered as the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13), sent to proclaim the unprophesied mystery that had been “kept secret since the world began” (Romans 16:25). His sphere was heavenly, his calling distinct, and his message entirely new.
Hebrews, on the other hand, addresses a nation still related to the prophetic program—Israel under covenant. The writer of Hebrews explicitly identifies himself as one who received the message from those who heard the Lord, not by direct revelation:
That statement alone disqualifies Paul. He did not receive his message from those who heard the Lord on earth, but directly from Christ in glory. To say Paul wrote Hebrews is to make Paul contradict his own testimony.
Last edited:
I think Luke is an excellent candidate for the authorship of Hebrews! It would fit both stylistically and doctrinally.
Derf
Well-known member
Yet, here's the next town he went to:
Acts 14:1 KJV — And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
So the Jews were still his focus, at least when he first entered a city. here's the next one with a synagogue:
Acts 17:1-2 KJV — Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Notice that vs 2 gives us Paul's focus when it says "as his manner was", which was that he went to the Jews first.
Next city:
Acts 17:10 KJV — And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
After all, that was his manner, right?
That's right, ignore the plain reading of the passage and move right along believing whatever the hell you desire to believe.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Should we discuss which plain reading you're ignoring?
Here's an additional point:
Whereas you gave the following as enough to disqualify Paul as author--
“Which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” — Hebrews 2:3--by these words:
That passage equally could be spoken by Paul as by anyone who heard any of the disciples who were with Christ recount His words of salvation. And certainly Paul did hear Christ's words of salvation from the 12. Please read the verse again before rejecting my assertion. This by no means is meant to suggest Paul didn't also hear words directly from Christ.
You've locked onto a certain understanding of that verse that is almost entirely driven by your systematic, something you critique in Calvinists.
Predictable.
Why should I?
Are you the only one who gets to ignore the other's points? Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yes, you can make any verse you come across say anything you like.
Go ahead. Tell me how Acts 13:46 means that Paul didn't turn to the Gentiles.
Tell me how Galatians 1:12 means that his gospel wasn't unique but was the some old stuff that the same Jesus that gave it to Him by revelation spent three years teaching it to the Twelve all of whom had been given the Holy Spirit in order to effectively preach it.
Tell me how Romans 16:25 means that Paul's gospel was that which was prophesied since before Moses.
Tell me how Galatians 2:2 means that Paul went to explain how he was preaching the exact same thing everyone else was preaching.
It is entirely driven by the words on the page and its support is supplemented by all of the other points which you've been presented and which you also ignore. Points like the fact that Hebrews is entirely and only about ISRAEL and the priestly ministry that Paul's ministry and message had nothing to do with. Points like the fact that Hebrews teaches very clearly not only that one can lose their salvation but that one's salvation has everything to do with what you not only believe but what you do and what you continue to do during this life. It, in short, teaches a gospel based on the law, which is completely the opposite and totally incompatible with Paul's gospel, which was so radically different than was anyone else was preaching that God sent Him, BY REVELATION, to Israel for the express purpose of explaining his gospel, (what is for us THE gospel), to Peter, James and John, who, after hearing it, agreed with Paul that he (Paul) would go to the GENTILES, while they would remain in Israel and minister to Israel - in direct contradiction to the so called "Great Commission", I might add.
So, no! This is not me being myopic or fixated on some underlying premise where I need to twist the meaning of the text to suit my doctrine. It is just the exact opposite of that. I do not need Hebrews 2:3 to mean anything other than what it seems to mean by a simple surface reading of it. The same goes for the entire book of Hebrews. I don't need to figure out a way to make it so that it doesn't teach that people can lose their salvation. It entirely and absolutely does teach that. In fact, if it didn't teach it, THAT would be a problem for my doctrine!!
So while you spend your time figuring out how verse after verse means something other than what it says, I get to read the bible and take it to means just exactly what it says, AND I get to have a biblical worldview that is completely coherent both with itself and with such common and foundational concepts as love, righteousness and justice, leaving me with an entire doctrinal system that is FULLY integrated with the reality of the life was are all forced to live on this Earth.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
The hypocritical irony of Derf telling us that our theology is driving our understanding of scripture when he is one doing exactly that is amazing!
They want it to be Paul because the author shows condemnation while in the covenant of circumcision. Broad is the pathway. They must believe and keep the law of Moses. If they don't believe, they are condemned already. Point being, they want it to be Paul.
There are many this is true of but most of the people I've known who believe Hebrews to have been written by Paul simply see no reason to think otherwise. They have no clue at all that his gospel was different and it would sound weird to them if anyone where to suggest it. The result is a knotted mess of law and grace jumbled together which leaves them with nothing concrete to establish their own doctrine upon. If they believe you can loose your salvation, they quote Hebrews. If they believe you can't, they quote Paul. And nary the two shall meet. At best the two contrary positions come down to a point of personal preference.
Last edited:
He commonly says things that would score superficial points with the crowd in a public debate. I think that's his whole motive, except that I think he actually believes that this is how one actually establishes the truth of a position. It's argument from sound bytes. Sounds like a good name for a new fallacy.
Argumentum ad Fragmenta Sonī
Lon
Well-known member
Maybe even they didn't know?
We don't have a name on Ruth, Samuel is mentioned as traditionally the author.
We don't know the author of Job, Job himself? Moses? Samuel?
True for most of us. Some will argue emphatically "Paul."
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The Holy Spirit knew. And it was up to Him. Nothing got handed down to us He didn't want to get handed down to us, and the opposite is also true. He decided in His wisdom to permit us to know who wrote some of the Bible, and He didn't permit us to know who wrote Hebrews. Why and why not? is a legitimate question.
It's placed in the Bible after all the Pauline epistles on purpose, because it was the most popular guess at who wrote it, so they tucked it right in after Paul's letters.