Hebrews

In the first-century, thousands of Jewish people came to faith in Christ. Yet, they were still a considerable minority among the greater Jewish population in Israel. This fits within Israel’s long history: The majority of people in the nation often fell away from God, but a remnant of Jews remained faithful to him. The author of Hebrews writes this letter these beleaguered Jewish Christians who were struggling to remain committed to Christ within a larger culture that rejected him.

These faithful followers of Christ faced numerous challenges. First and foremost, they would’ve faced theological confusion: How could their new faith in Christ be consistent with what God revealed in the OT? Indeed, God had prescribed an entire system of rules, regulations, and rituals in the OT. Should committed Christians continue to follow the Old Covenant or not? And if not, why not? These Christians needed answers, and mental laziness would’ve been disastrous (Heb. 5:11-14).

Moreover, the faith and practices of these Jewish Christians would’ve clashed with their religious culture. After all, it would be embarrassing to be the only family on the block who refused to follow the universal religious customs of the day. As a result, these early Christians faced social pressure and religious persecution (Heb. 10:32-34; 13:14). Some had even begun buckle under this persecution—no longer meeting together for fellowship (Heb. 10:25).

This is why the author of Hebrews wrote this letter. In rigorous theological detail, he argues from the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures how Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought us into the New Covenant. And now, there’s no going back.

Authorship

The author is anonymous, so we shouldn’t be dogmatic in our views. In our estimation, however, Paul (or someone under his supervision) most likely wrote this letter. At the very least, the evidence supports Paul more than any other potential author. Consider a number of arguments for this view:

(1) STYLISTICALLY, there are many similarities between Hebrews and Paul’s writings. For instance:

1. Only Paul (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14) and the author of Hebrews (Heb. 13:3) use the term “the Body” to describe the Church.

2. Both are very close to Timothy (Heb. 13:23).

3. Both refer to the milk and meat of the Scripture (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-14).

4. Both quote Deuteronomy 32:35 in the same form (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30). Leon Morris writes, “It agrees exactly neither with the MT nor the LXX, though it is quoted in the same form in Romans 12:19.”

5. Both quote Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38).

6. Both emphasize the rhetorical “we know,” rather than “I” Paul uses this many times (Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22; 1 Cor. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 Tim. 1:8), as does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 10:30).

7. Both emphasize the old and new covenant. Paul writes about the old and new covenants (2 Cor. 3:4-11), and so does the author of Hebrews (Heb. 8:6-13; 10:15-18).

8. Both refer to the old covenant being a “shadow” of Christ (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1).

(2) CANONICALLY, Hebrews appears alongside Paul’s letters. It appears in the P⁴⁶ document dated to AD 200. It wasn’t moved to the “general epistles” until the sixth century AD (Codex Claromontanus). While the Western church didn’t accept the letter as Pauline until the 4^th century AD, the Eastern church held that Paul was the author.

(3) HISTORICALLY, several church fathers affirmed Pauline authorship. For instance, Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) and Origen (AD 250) both believed in Pauline authorship. Pantaenus (AD 180) was the founder of a catechetical school in Alexandria, and he believed the letter was both Pauline and canonical.

To repeat, we are not dogmatic about this because the author is anonymous after all. However, we favor this conclusion. For a robust evaluation of the evidence, see our earlier article “Authorship of Hebrews.”

Date

The letter dates before AD 95. Clement of Rome (AD 95) cites Hebrews in 1 Clement 36:1-6. This dates the letter at least within the first century AD.

The letter dates before AD 70. The author writes about the ritual sacrifices as though they are still occurring. He writes, “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. ¹¹ For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp” (Heb. 13:10-11). The author writes about ritual worship in the present tense (Heb. 7:27-28; 8:3-5; 9:6-9, 25; 10:1-3, 8). This requires the existence of the Temple/Tabernacle and priesthood. Yet, the Romans destroyed the Temple/Tabernacle by AD 70 at the end of the Jewish War. Since the Jewish War began in AD 66, this would even support a date for the letter before this time.

This isn’t merely an argument from silence. Rather, this is a conspicuous silence. That is, we would expect the author to mention this. Indeed, Morris writes, “The best argument for the supersession of the old covenant would have been the destruction of the Temple. The author’s failure to mention this surely means that it had not yet occurred.”

The letter couldn’t be extremely early because this church was definitely a second-generation church. The author writes, “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb. 2:3 NIV). How early could the letter date? We’re unsure. However, being a second-generation church, we would guess that at least a couple of decades had transpired. After all, Hebrews 2 implies that some of the apostles were already dead and gone, which would require at least a decade or two (Acts 12:2, AD 44).

Allen dates the book as late as AD 67-68. However, following Morris, Bruce, and Guthrie, we date the letter some time before AD 70—probably AD 62-65.

Audience

Most modern commentators hold that this letter was addressed to Jewish Christians in Rome. However, we agree with older commentators and some more recent scholars that this letter was most likely written to Jewish Christians in Judea and perhaps even Jerusalem itself. In fact, this was the “dominant view until the nineteenth century.” Consider the evidence below:

The earliest known manuscripts contain the title, “To the Hebrews…” This title is attested by early sources among the church fathers. This, obviously, implies a thoroughly Jewish audience.

The internal evidence strongly implies a homogeneous Jewish audience. The Jerusalem church, of course, was almost entirely Jewish—not filled with Jewish and Gentile Christians. Many cities contained churches that had a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Consider Romans. The letter addresses both ethnic groups throughout the letter. But Hebrews? Not a single word to Gentile Christians or even Gentile practices! No mention of idolatry, no Jewish-Gentile tensions, no gross immorality. Nothing. What other church on Earth would better explain this phenomenon? This fits best with the Jerusalem church which was almost entirely Jewish.

Moreover, our author assumes that his audience knows the OT well, citing it more than any other NT book. For instance, when writing about the story of Esau, he writes, “For you know…” (Heb. 12:17). Additionally, Hebrews 11 is simply a rapid-fire string of OT stories that assumes a thorough knowledge of the OT. This further supports a Jewish audience—not a Gentile one.

The original audience witnessed apostolic miracles. The author writes, “[This salvation was] announced by the Lord Jesus himself and then delivered to us by those who heard him speak. ⁴ God confirmed the message by giving signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit whenever he chose” (Heb. 2:3-4 NLT). This further supports the thesis that these Christians witnessed multiple apostles performing miracles. This fits with an audience in Judea or Jerusalem. After all, as McCallum observes, “How many groups in other cities could be described as seeing miracles from multiple apostles?” Good question! Corinth would be a contender because they saw the “signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12), and perhaps both Paul and Peter are in view (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5).

The original audience consisted of urban Christians. At the end of the letter, we read, “Here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come” (Heb. 13:14). This implies that these Christians lived in a city—not spread throughout a general region.

The original audience experienced intense persecution. They didn’t necessarily experience rampant torture or execution because the author writes that they had “not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood” (Heb. 12:4). Yet, the persecution was severe nonetheless: Public insults, beatings, prison, and the seizure of their property (Heb. 10:32-34). This could apply to a number of ancient cities, including Rome. However, this internal evidence seems quite consistent with what we know of persecution in Jerusalem. Believers in Jerusalem were imprisoned (Acts 4:3; 5:18), threatened (Acts 4:21), flogged (Acts 5:40), scattered (Acts 8:1-4), and martyred (Acts 7:58-60; 12:2).

The original audience faced the real temptation and threat of apostasy. The threat of persecution was religious in nature, which implies pressure from fellow Jews. These Jewish Christians seem to be on the cusp of cracking under religious pressure to return to Old Covenant formalism. This explains why the author of Hebrews repeatedly warns them not to apostatize.

Conclusion. In our estimation, the anonymous author wrote to Jewish Christians who were surrounded by a highly religious Jewish culture—most likely in Judea or perhaps even Jerusalem itself. This seems to best explain the data.

Arguments against a Jerusalem audience

ARGUMENT #1. The author claims that the audience never heard Jesus personally. He writes, “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb. 2:3 NIV). This argument poses no difficulty in our estimation. After all, if our dating of the book is correct (AD 60s), then this church was in its second generation at this point. Hence, they were 30 years removed from Jesus. Moreover, Jesus had a very small following toward the end of his life, and he relied on his apostles to preach the gospel to the people in Jerusalem (Acts 2:14ff). Thus, this fits with the idea that Jesus’ message was “confirmed to us by those who heard.”

ARGUMENT #2. The letter contains Hellenistic ideas that don’t fit with the Jerusalem church. We don’t find this argument persuasive. For one, the use of Hellenistic ideas in the letter is debated. Thus, this argument “must not be overweighted.” Second, Hellenistic ideas travelled all the way to Qumran—a highly strict sect of Jews that was isolated near the Dead Sea. Hence, if Hellenism could make it as far as an isolated sect like those living in Qumran, why couldn’t it infiltrate a major metropolis like Jerusalem? Third, there is evidence of Hellenism in Jerusalem itself (Acts 6:9).

ARGUMENT #3. The author never mentions the Temple. We find this to be a specious argument. The Tabernacle was the Temple. So, this is raising a distinction without a difference. Indeed, because our author mentions Tabernacle worship in the present tense (Heb. 9:6-9), this argument works in favor of a Jerusalem audience.

Arguments for a Roman audience

Most commentators (Morris, Guthrie, Bruce) believe that the author was writing to believers in Rome—not Jerusalem. Several arguments should be considered:

ARGUMENT #1. The description of persecution fits with Rome under Nero. Our author writes, “You showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property” (Heb. 10:34). It’s true that this reference fits well with the seizure of Jewish property under Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews in AD 49 (Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25:4). Yet it could just as easily refer to the Jewish believers under persecution in Jerusalem. Moreover, the author’s mention of not suffering to the point of bloodshed doesn’t seem to fit with the widespread martyrdom of Christians under Nero in AD 64 (Tacitus, Annals 15.44).

ARGUMENT #2. Clement of Rome cited Hebrews in the first century (1 Clement 36:1-6, AD 95), implying that it was written to Rome. Yet, this doesn’t prove that the letter was sent to Rome—only that it travelled to Rome or perhaps the author wrote the letter in Rome (Heb. 13:24). Presumably, the author had the letter copied before sending it. After all, ancient authors (like Cicero) kept copies of their own letters in case they were damaged or lost (Fam. 7.25.1; 9.26.1). Moreover, the Western portion of the Roman Empire was slow to accept the letter to the Hebrews in the canon, which would point against a Roman audience. (Compare this with Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which was readily accepted.) If the letter landed in Rome first, then why did the Western Church (Rome!) take such a long time to accept its authenticity?

ARGUMENT #3. The author states that the believers haven’t shed blood (Heb. 12:4). The author to the Hebrews writes, “You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4). Yet, Acts states that the believers in Jerusalem did endure bloody persecution (Acts 5:40; 7:58-60; 8:1-4; 12:2). Yet, a couple of responses can be made.

First, this could be metaphorical language. The author’s words “could be understood metaphorically in the sense of ‘uttermost.’” Even Lane writes that this expression “can be understood figuratively to mean, ‘You still have not done your utmost.’” In other words, this could refer to literal shedding of blood (v.3), or it could be interpreted in light of the figurative shedding of blood, as in the overarching athletic metaphor (vv.1-4).

Second, if the author is referring to the literal shedding of blood, he could be referring to the contemporary audience (in the 60s AD), rather than the early church (in the 30s or 40s AD). After all, this was a second-generation church (see “Date”), so this group of Christians may not have suffered the way their leaders did. This would explain why the author speaks about the original leaders in the past tense, telling the readers to “remember those who led you” (Heb. 13:7). These original believers were gone.

ARGUMENT #4. The author states that he is writing alongside believers who formerly lived in Rome. The author writes, “Those from Italy greet you” (Heb. 13:24). The expression “Those from Italy greet you” (hoi apo tēs Italias) could either refer to “those domiciled in Italy or of Italians who were residing elsewhere.” For instance, when Paul was in Corinth, he met Aquila who was “recently come from Italy” (apo tēs Italias, Acts 18:2). To reiterate, the word “from” (apo) could be refer to (1) those sending greetings from Italy or (2) those living away from Italy. If the first reading is correct, this would rule out a Roman audience. After all, why on Earth would the author state that he was writing from Italy, if he was actually writing to Italy? A number of responses can be made:

First, the comparison with Acts 18:2 isn’t a good comparison. Allen notes that these are “verbal parallels” that use the exact same language, but they are not “grammatical parallels.” Acts 18 modifies a participle, while Hebrews 13 modifies a pronominal article (i.e. an article is used without a noun as a pronoun; an adjectival form of a pronoun). This is why “the church fathers interpreted this phrase in 13:24 to mean the author was writing from Italy to a destination outside Italy,” and this was true all the way up “until the eighteenth century.” Similarly, the Christians “from Joppa” still lived in Joppa (Acts 10:23).

Second, this argument isn’t conclusive. Even if the latter reading is correct, this would merely indicate that the audience was familiar with Roman Christians—similar to the way they were familiar with Timothy (Heb. 13:23). But this wouldn’t necessitate a Roman audience.

Third, there is strong grammatical evidence that the author was writing from Rome. More recently in his dissertation on the subject, Mosser studied the use of the combination of a preposition (apo) followed by the name of a place (e.g. “from” + “Italy”) in first century documents. His conclusion? He writes, “They consistently interpret the phrase to indicate the place from which the epistle was written.”

Fourth, the mention of Timothy’s release doesn’t fit with a Roman audience. The Pastoral Epistles place Timothy in Rome. But if Timothy was released from prison in Rome, why would the author need to mention this to his audience? (Heb. 13:23)

Conclusion. These counterarguments do not carry enough weight to overthrow a Judean audience. In lieu of better counterarguments, we hold that the author wrote to Jewish Christians living in Judea or maybe even Jerusalem itself.

Canonicity

Hebrews was questioned for its anonymity and its official lack of apostolic authority. The Eastern Church accepted Hebrews very early, but the Western Church (i.e. Rome) took longer to accept the letter as canonical. David Allen writes, “It was only toward the end of the fourth century that Pauline authorship began to be accepted in the Western Church and Hebrews gained a canonical position.” Again, the authorship of the letter was the reason that the Western Church waited to accept the work as canonical (see Eusebius, Church History, 3.3.5; 6.20.3)

Manuscript evidence. Hebrews appears in the P⁴⁶ document alongside of Paul’s letters, and this papyrus document dates to AD 200. Hebrews wasn’t moved to the “general epistles” until the sixth century AD (Codex Claromontanus).

Early Church Fathers accepted Hebrews. For example:

• Pantaenus (AD 180) was the teacher of Clement of Alexandria and the founder of a catechetical school in Alexandria. He believed the letter was both Pauline and canonical.

• Clement of Alexandria (AD 215) believed in the Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

• Origen (AD 250) believed in the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Origen is often usually quoted as saying, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows” (Church History25.11-14). However, in context, Origen is referring to the amanuensis—not the author. Origen wrote, “I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s.”

• 1 Clement (AD 95), Shepherd of Hermas (AD 100-150), Polycarp (AD 140), Justin Martyr (AD 150), and Tertullian (AD 200) all quote or allude to Hebrews. Yet none explicitly considered it canonical or attribute it to Paul’s authorship.

• Irenaeus (AD 180), Gaius of Rome (AD 200), and Hippolytus (AD 220) all cited from Hebrews, but they denied it was written by Paul.

• Jerome (AD 400) and Augustine (AD 400) both accepted Pauline authorship tentatively.

This evidence from the Church Fathers strongly favors the canonicity of Hebrews. While these early Christians were cautious in accepting Hebrews, this only shows that they were careful and not credulous.

Evidence against the canonicity of Hebrews

ARGUMENT #1. The Marcionite Canon (AD 140) rejected Hebrews. However, this isn’t surprising because Marcion was so intensely anti-Semitic.

ARGUMENT #2. The Muratorian Canon (AD 175) doesn’t contain Hebrews. This is only a fragment of the manuscript. Because it was damaged, it may have originally contained Hebrews. Indeed, 1 Peter was universally accepted by the early church, but it is also missing from the Muratorian Canon.

ARGUMENT #3. The Western Church was slow to accept Hebrews. Hebrews was accepted late, but for good reasons. The letter didn’t contain apostolic authorship, and this made the Church Fathers cautious in recognizing the book as inspired. However, they concluded that the book did contain apostolic authority—namely, under Paul’s authority. Furthermore, there is a major difference between anonymous authorship and pseudonymous authorship. The debate was over the former—not the latter.