Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 11–
June/2006
Does the Authorship of Hebrews Matter?
(1)
II
Peter 3:15-16
CONCERNING THE AUTHORSHIP OF
HEBREWS,
commentators often write such things as, “This great
epistle is anonymous. . . . This, however, does not
affect the genuineness of the epistle.”[i]
Another writes, “Today [Pauline authorship] is
considered very unlikely.”[ii]
Still another says, “Current scholarship admits the
puzzle still has no solution.”[iii]
Such statements, as well
as the overall nonchalant attitude toward this issue,
have puzzled (and troubled) me for several years. As the
beloved Harry Ironside writes:
May we be certain as to
its human authorship, or is it merely a matter of
intellectual speculation at best? I believe God has
given us definite information on this point.[iv]
I wholeheartedly
agree. It’s absolutely unthinkable that God would “hide”
the authorship of a key book of His
Word.
But does this really
matter? What difference does it make who wrote Hebrews?
It’s still in the Bible, right? I am convinced that it
matters a great deal and that there is a point here that
is not often addressed. Few seem to realize that without
knowledge of the author, we have a New Testament letter with
no apostolic authority and which therefore simply cannot
be Scripture.
Among other writers, commentator E. Schuyler
English, in his excellent
“Introduction” to Hebrews, makes this very point:
If Paul is not the author,
but Apollos, or Clement, or another, then we have in the
New Testament an inspired writing that does not have
apostolic authority.[v]
Is such a strong
statement justified? I believe it is when we consider
the requirements for a book of the Bible to be
considered a part of the “Canon” of Scripture. “Canon”
(from the Greek kanon and the Hebrew
keneh) literally means “cane”
or “rod of measurement,” since such was used in ancient
times for measuring purposes, much like we still do
today. The term came to be used for testing writings to
determine whether or not they “measured up” to the
standards required to be considered the Word of
God.
Briefly, there were four
major tests for the canonicity of a New Testament
book.[vi] One test was whether the
book agreed with the books already in the canon. There
certainly was no question here concerning Hebrews “in
view of its agreement with all of the Scriptures and its
revelation of Christ’s Deity, His grace, His sacrificial
death, His present mediatorial work, and His coming
again.”[vii] At first, however,
Hebrews was questioned because chapter 6 seemed
“out of sorts with apostolic teaching,” but this was
actually resolved “when the early church concluded that
Hebrews was written by Paul.”[viii]
A second test that goes
along with that one is inspiration. Does the book give
clear, unmistakable evidence of being “God-breathed” (II
Tim. 3:16)? In light of the above subjects, the answer
was yes to Hebrews.
A third test was that a
book had to be gladly received by the Early Church,
which Hebrews was. By the time of Clement of Alexandria
(c. 150-215) and Origen (c. 185-253), the Eastern Church
accepted the Epistle (as well as attributed it to Paul),
while the Western Church came along a little later. We
will come back to this point in more detail.
A final test of
canonicity was apostolic origin, that is, a book either
had to be written by or attested to by an
apostle. The two examples here, of course, are Mark and
Luke, neither of whom were apostles, but were
sanctioned by an apostle,
Peter in Mark’s case and Paul in Luke’s
case.
It is that last test, in
my view, that is really at the heart of this issue.
Without knowing who the author of Hebrews is, how can
anyone attest to him? How can someone sanction an
unknown writer? This is the equivalent of me writing a
letter to recommend a man for a job without knowing who
the man is. The whole idea is just plain silly. Further,
who is doing the attesting anyway?
Again, it is often said
that, “Hebrews is anonymous,” but we agree with J.
Sidlow Baxter who adds “it is only superficially
so.”[ix] I, for example, could
write a letter and not sign it, but still be recognized
as the author by people who know me or know my writing
habits. Likewise, I, with others, see no doubt
whatsoever that the Apostle Paul was the author of the
Book of Hebrews. I would offer the following evidences,
after which we will come back to our main question:
“Does it really matter?”
The
Testimony of Peter
This point and the next
are on almost equal ground, but this one must be first
because it deals with Scripture itself. One of the most
underrated indications of Pauline authorship (which is
virtually ignored by some and even missed by others) is
II Peter 3:15-16:
And account that the
longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given
unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his
epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are
some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other
scriptures, unto their own destruction.
The brilliant Puritan John
Owen, who exhaustively defends Pauline authorship in his
monumental and mammoth exposition of Hebrews, writes of
this verse:
Amongst the arguments
usually insisted on to prove this Epistle to have been
written by St Paul, the testimony given unto it by St
Peter deserves consideration in the first place, and is
indeed of itself sufficient to determine the inquiry
about it.[x]
In other words,
this verse alone is enough to settle the whole
matter.
Peter is here writing, of
course, to Jews of the dispersion (that is, Jews
scattered in lands outside Israel). In his clear
reference to Paul, he not only accepts Paul’s letters as
“Scripture,” but also refers to the fact that Paul has
already written to these very same Jews. Therefore, if
Paul did not write Hebrews, where is the letter that he
wrote to the dispersed Jews? Arthur W. Pink
concurs:
That this Epistle was
written by Paul is clear from 2 Peter 3:15. Peter
was writing to saved Jews as the opening verses of his
first Epistle intimate; 2 Peter 3:1 informs us that this
letter was addressed to the same people as his former
one had been. Then . . . he declares that his beloved
brother Paul “also according to the wisdom given unto
him hath written unto you.” If the Epistle to the
Hebrews be not that writing, where is
it?[xi]
The great
18th Century expositor John Gill likewise
agrees:
Above all, the testimony
of the Apostle Peter is greatly in favour of [Hebrews]
being [Paul’s], (2 Peter 3:15,16) from whence it clearly
appears, that the Apostle Paul did write an epistle to
the Hebrews; for to them Peter wrote; (see 1 Peter 1:1;
2 Peter 3:1) and what epistle could it be but
this?[xii]
We could add to these
quotations others from commentators such as Jamison,
Fausset, and Brown, Matthew Poole, B. W. Johnson, and E.
Schuyler English. The point, however, is clear: if
Hebrews isn’t the letter that Paul wrote to the same
Jews of the dispersion that Peter wrote to, where is the
other letter? Are we to believe he wrote another such
letter that didn’t make it into the Canon? John Owen
answers this question by offering a scenario that would
be just as ridiculous:
[If] we give place to such
rash and presumptuous conjectures, we shall quickly have
nothing left entire or stable; for why may not another
as well say, “It is true Moses wrote five books; but
they are lost, and those that we have under his name
were written by another?”
One other point can be
made here, namely, Peter specifically says that Paul
wrote a letter that contained “some things hard to be
understood,” which immediately, of course, brings to
mind such passages as Hebrews 6 and 10. It’s
significant, then, that Paul also makes mention of this
point in Hebrews 5:11: “Of whom we have many things to
say, and hard to be uttered.” And in point of fact,
Peter and Paul speak of some of the same things.
Compare, for example, 6:2 with I Peter 3:20-21, and
especially 10:26-27 with II Peter 2:20-22.
The
Testimony of the Early Church
Another underrated
indication of Pauline authorship is the testimony of the
Early Church. As Baxter puts it, “We believe that the
Pauline tradition is much weightier than is
generally allowed.”[xiii] In other words, it seems
irrelevant to many that the Early Church, especially the
Eastern branch, unhesitatingly recognized Paul as the
author. By A.D. 150, in fact, only 70 years after Paul’s
death, Panteanus (the head of the celebrated Christian
school at Alexandria) referred to it as a generally
accepted Epistle of Paul. Of Panteanus, trusted
commentator Albert Barnes writes that he
lived near Palestine. He
must have been acquainted with the prevailing opinions
on the subject, and his testimony must be regarded as
proof that the epistle was regarded as Paul’s by the
churches in that region.[xiv]
While virtually
every doubter falls back on the overused statement by
the famous 3rd Century Origen (“As to who
wrote the Epistle, the truth God knows”), few even
acknowledge, much less quote, the context of that
remark, which actually argues for Paul’s authorship:
I, to declare my own
opinion, should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s,
but the diction and composition that of some one who
recorded from memory the apostle’s teaching, and, as it
were, interpreted [or “wrote a commentary on”] what had
been spoken by his master. If, then, any Church receives
this Epistle as Paul’s, let it be well esteemed, even
also on this account [i.e., let it not for this reason
lose any recognition as a witness to the truth]; for not
without good reason have the men of old handed it down
as Paul’s. But as to who wrote the Epistle, the truth
God knows. The account that has reached us is, on the
part of some, that Clement, who became Bishop of the
Romans, wrote the Epistle; on the part of others, that
Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts, did
so.[xv]
Turning again to
John Owen, the great Puritan tallies the rest of this
external evidence for Pauline authorship. In the Alexandrian church,
besides Pantaenus and Origen, there was “Dionysius,
Theognostus, Peter, Alexander, Hierax, Athanasius,
Theophilus, Serapion, Didymus, and Cyril of Alexandria.”
In the Western church, “from the fourth century,
this view was held by Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome,
Augustine, Rufinus, Chromatius, Innocent of Rome,
Paulinus, Cassian, Prosper, Eucherius, Salvian, and
Gelasius.” In the Greek church, “the synod at
Antioch A.D. 264, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the council of
Nice A.D. 315, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil the Great,
the council of Laodicea A.D. 360, Gregory of Nyssa,
Titus of Bostra, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theodore of
Mopsuestia, assign it to the same author.” In the
Syrian church, “the same opinion generally
prevailed, as appears from Justin Martyr, Eusebius of
Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jacob of Nisibis, Ephraim
Syrus.” Finally, in the African church, “the council of Hippo A.D. 393, the
third council of Carthage A.D. 397, and the sixth
council of Carthage A.D. 419, decide in favor of the
same view.”
Special note should be made of
Eusebius, that well-known bishop of Caesarea and
historian in Palestine (4th Century). As
Barnes points out, his testimony is extremely
significant:
He took pains, from all
quarters, to collect testimony in regard to the Books of
Scripture. He says, “There are fourteen epistles of
Paul, manifest and well known: but yet there are some
who reject that to the Hebrews, alleging, in behalf of
their opinion, that it was not received by the church of
Rome as a writing of Paul.” The testimony of Eusebius is
particularly important. He had heard all the objection
to its canonical authority. He had weighed that
objection. Yet, in view of the testimony in the case, he
regarded it as the undoubted production of Paul. As such
it was received in the churches in the East.
So, are we to shrug our shoulders
at all that and say, “I guess we’ll just never know?” Is
it not obvious that the knowledge of Paul’s authorship
was known and then handed down by “the men of
old?” On this point, Baxter
writes, “Decades before Panteanus those
who immediately followed the apostles regarded it as
truly Paul’s.”[xvi]
Still there are those who
insist, “But Paul nowhere identifies himself as the
author, so we can’t be sure.” Really? Can we be sure
that he wrote Ephesians? “Of course,” we answer, “he
says so in the first verse.” Ah, yes, but “modern
scholarship” tells us that he didn’t! Contemporary
commentator Andrew L. Lincoln writes, “The more I have
worked on the text as a whole, the more persuaded I have
become that seeing the letter as the work of a later
follower of Paul makes better sense of its contents.” He
then even adds, “This is now the consensus view in NT
scholarship, though a sizable minority continues to
uphold Pauline authorship.”[xvii] Based on five ridiculous
reasons that he goes on to detail, this man denies
what the text clearly says,[xviii] despite the fact
that, similar to Hebrews, Eusebius recognized that the
entire Orthodox Church considered Ephesians as belonging
to Paul. So, if we “can’t be sure” when Paul says he
is the author, should we be unsure when he
doesn’t say he
is?
We’ll continue with other
evidences next time.
*
* *
I
sometimes think if I were in heaven I should almost wish
to visit my work at the Tabernacle, to see whether it
will abide the test of time and prosper when I am gone.
Will you keep in the truth? Will you hold to the grand
old doctrines of the Gospel? Or will this church, like
so many others, go astray from the simplicity of its
faith, and set up gaudy services and false doctrines?
Methinks I should turn over in my grave if such a thing
could be. God forbid it!
Charles
Spurgeon, Metropolitan
Tabernacle Pulpit,
Vol. 23, p. 514.
*
* *
JESUS – The Central Theme of the
Bible
In Genesis He is the Beginning and the Creator of all
things.
In Exodus He is the Deliverer and the
Redeemer.
In Leviticus He is the Priest, the Sacrifice, the Blood, and
the Offering.
In Numbers He is the Chastizer and the
Purifier.
In Deuteronomy He is the Law.
In Joshua He is the Conqueror,
In Judges the King,
And in Ruth the Kinsman-Redeemer.
In I and II
Kings He is the reigning
King,
In I
Chronicles He is the
Genealogy,
And in II
Chronicles He is the
Reviver.
In Ezra He is the Temple,
In Nehemiah the Walls,
And in Esther the Deliverer.
In Job He is the Suffering Servant,
In Psalms the Praise of God,
In Proverbs Our Wisdom,
In Ecclesiastes the Teacher,
And in The Song of
Solomon He is (poetically) the
Beloved Bridegroom.
In Isaiah He is the Coming Messiah,
In Jeremiah and
Lamentations He is the
Compassionate Judge,
In Ezekial He is Watchman,
And in Daniel He is the Returning Messiah.
In Hosea He is the Loving Redeemer,
In Joel the Merciful Jehovah,
In Amos the Judge of Sin,
And in Obadiah the Condemning Judge.
In Jonah He is the Sent One,
In Micah the Prince of Peace,
In Nahum the Counselor,
And in Habakkuk the Just One.
In Zephaniah He is the Protector,
In Haggai, the Temple,
In Zechariah the Shepherd,
And in Malachi He is the Messenger.
In Matthew He is the King,
In Mark a Servant,
In Luke a Man,
And in John He is God.
In Acts He is the Risen Savior in
Power,
In Romans He is the Gospel,
In I
Corinthians He is the Right
Conduct,
And in II Corinthians
He is The Authority.
In Galatians He is the Only Salvation,
In Ephesians the Church,
In Philippians the Only Joy,
In Colossians the Eternal Glory,
And in I and II
Thessalonians He is the
Returning Christ.
In I
Timothy He is the Good
Minister,
In II
Timothy the Faithful
Minister,
And in Titus the True Minister.
In Philemon He is the Law of Love,
In Hebrews the Priest,
And in James the Works of Righteousness.
In I
Peter He is the Glory of
Suffering,
In II
Peter the Basis for Growing in
Grace,
In I
John the Basis of
Fellowship,
And in II and III
John He is the
Truth.
In Jude He is the Faith We Contend
For,
And in Revelation He is the Reigning King.
In addition to all this,
He is the Light of Creation, the Ark of the Flood,
Aaron’s Rod, David’s Sling, The Lamb Without Blemish,
and the Cloud and the Pillar of Fire in the
Wilderness.
He is also Jacob’s Ladder,
Manna From Heaven, the Bronze Serpent, the Cities of
Refuge, and the Book of Life.
In the Tabernacle, He is the Ark
of the Covenant, the Shewbread, the Lampstand, the
Laver, the Veil, the Brazen Altar, and the Altar of
Incense.
And finally, men such as
Adam, Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Moses, Sampson, David, and Jonah were all types of
Christ.
Indeed, the Lord
Jesus Christ truly is the central theme of the
Bible.
Pastor
Watson
NOTES
[i]
Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible
Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press,
1967), p. 748.
[ii] Eerdman’s
Concise Bible Handbook
(Minneapolis, MN: Worldwide, 1973), p.
365.
[iii] John MacArthur,
MacArthur’s Quick Reference Guide to the
Bible (Nashville: W Publishing
Group, 2001), p. 291.
[iv] H. A. Ironside,
Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle
to Titus (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1932, 1958), p. 9.
[v] E. Schuyler
English, Studies in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Findlay, OH: Dunham
Publishing Company, 1955), p.
17.
[vi] See, for example,
such discussions in Merrill Unger, Unger’s Bible
Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 885, and
Henry Thiessen, Introduction to the New
Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1943, 1989), p. 10.
[viii] R. C. Sproul,
Foundations: An Overview of Systematic
Theology (Orlando, FL: Ligonier
Ministries, 1999), p. 23.
[ix] J. Sidlow Baxter,
Explore the Book (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), p.
277.
[x] John Owen, “The
Works of John Owen,” Vol. 17: Concerning the Epistle
to the Hebrews (Rio, WI: Ages
Software CD-ROM, 2000). Other quotations are from this
work.
[xi] Arthur W. Pink,
“The Arthur W. Pink Collection,” An Exposition of
Hebrews (Rio, WI: Ages Software
CD-ROM, 2000) (emphasis in the original). Other
quotations are from this work.
[xii] John Gill, “The
Collected Writings of John Gill,” Exposition of the
Old and New Testaments (Rio, WI:
Ages Software CD-ROM, 2000). Other quotations are from
this work.
[xiii] Baxter, p. 275 (emphasis
in the original).
[xiv] Albert Barnes,
Barnes Notes on the New Testament (electronic
edition in The Online Bible).
Other quotations are from this
work.
[xv] Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.
[xvi] Baxter, p. 276 (emphasis
in the original).
[xvii] Andrew T. Lincoln,
Word Biblical Commentary: Ephesians (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990), p. lx,
lxii.
[xviii] See my “Introduction and
Overview of Ephesians” on our web site for this detailed
discussion.
