I think Paul (Sha'ul) is the author of Hebrews

I worked with my spouse on the following article and must give thanks for this great contribution - I hope you like it :-)

The book of Hebrews has been considered by some theologians to be of second importance only to Romans in the New Testament. It shows the author and finisher of our faith, Yahushua the Messiah, fulfilling the law in His sacrificial work as Our High Priest, once and for all, abolishing the ceremonial law. It shows what remains is the moral law, and hones in on one particular moral law, the fourth commandment, the Sabbath commandment. This, however, is another topic to be discussed on its own.

It is not surprising to note that some, who cannot accept the truth in Hebrews, will try to discredit it. False teachers will make assertions not only as to the authorship but also to the readership of this Epistle. They will say “the book of Hebrews is addressed to Jews only”, but it is to be noted that the title “to the Hebrews” is not originally in the manuscript, which is in harmony with the fact that Paul uses “the people of YHUH” and “brethren” as words to show who he is talking to. Validating the authorship of Hebrews is an important issue as you will see throughout this article.

Many use the verse: Heb:10:25: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together…

to encourage church attendance, which, as we know, has been CHANGED by the Roman Catholic church to Sunday. This is hypocritical, as they, at the same time, insist that Hebrews is only addressed to the Jews who only observe Sabbath on the seventh day, Saturday. Worse still, an Assembly of God pastor uses this very verse to support Sunday worship as opposed to Sabbath. He says that here in this verse there is no mention of a specific day. He goes on to say that if YHUH wanted us to know on which day we were to assemble, He would have said it here in this verse. The irony is that He has said it, one must always read the entire Bible to understand where the message is coming from and where it is going to. Previously, in chapter 4, verse 9, he said, a Sabbatismos, seventh day rest, remains for the people of YHUH.

This verse, 10:25, is now the conclusion to the discussion of "the day" being spoken of. It is now the exhortation to keep this very commandment.

Heb 10:25 continues to say:

"...as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."

So he is actually saying that the believers must not forget to assemble together, and, all the more as you see Sabbath approaching. The sun sets on Friday and so Sabbath begins. This is the day that has been discussed way back in chapter 4 - the seventh day. It would be the manner of some to forget to assemble since the original definition of Sabbath is not church attendance but rather it means a rest from secular work. YHUH's people can "enter" and enjoy the Sabbath alone with YHUH as well. Here it is encouraging them not to get into a habit of forgetting to meet with fellow believers for fellowship on Sabbath, thus sharing the rest together.

Now others have also rejected the Sabbath as a Jewish ritual. One was Martin Luther. He also, interestingly, had an issue with Hebrews, stating:

"that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle" (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546).

So let’s look and see who the author most likely is and whether we can still discredit it as some try to do.

There is no greeting at the beginning which is unlike Paul who usually names himself. Perhaps the most likely reason, it has been suggested by some, is that Paul was the author but had someone else write out his letter. This is an acceptable opinion in my view, however, he ends the letter with “for I have written a letter unto you in few words.” This implies he personally wrote it.

But now, more importantly, let’s compare the way in which Paul ends his Epistles with the familiar salutations he uses in all his books, as rendered in the KJV. He gives his personal salutation in Colossians.

**I Peter uses “Peace (not grace) be with you all that are in Messiah Yahushua. Amen.”

***II Peter uses “To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” Similar to Romans but Paul specifically labels “Grace be with you. Amen” as his salutation in Colossians.

Conclusion: Hebrews, if anything, more closely relates to Paul than other letters of his. It is Paul’s style as he concludes his Epistle. More evidence ?

What about similar phrases or words that he uses in his Epistles which match those in Hebrews and are not used by any other Apostle in the Bible. This is probably even stronger evidence as similar investigations of linguistics are used in forensics to determine who has written a letter. Phrases are styled specifically in a person’s writing, particularly if they are repeated by that same person. The laws of probability or chances of a match are increased simply because there are more variables in a phrase than in a single word.

NOTE: Peter did use “I beseech you” but did not refer to them as “brethren” (brothers) but as “strangers and pilgrims “.

1Pe: 2:11: Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

Paul also had a specific terminology as he was speaking about new concepts in the new covenant gospel. He uses very specific words.

Mediator - μεσίτης, mesitēs, a go between, that is, (simply) an internunciator, or (by implication) a reconciler (intercessor). (Strong’s Concordance)

NOTE: he uses it three times in Hebrews.

Paul made comparison of milk to meat, referring to spiritual immaturity and not being able to bear the meat. (1 Pet 2:2 only refers to milk)

Submitting to YHUH’s will by use of the phrase…

Now this, in my view, is probably one of the strongest points. A very specific personality trait concerning Paul’s attention to the length of his letters:

Additionally, this so-called unknown author refers to wanting to visit the church he is writing to (but cannot at present as he is imprisoned in Italy) with Timothy who has been freed.

Heb 13:19  But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.

Heb 13:23  Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
Heb 13:24  Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

Who else could this be but Paul? Timothy and Paul were working together, Timothy being his spiritual “son” under his teaching, who would continue after Paul’s execution. Paul, we are told by the writings of Eusubius (AD324), was held in Rome twice. The first time he was acquitted and set free then after a period of relative freedom he was again put in prison in Rome and this time martyred. So it is likely that Hebrews was written by Paul prior to his second imprisonment. Proof of this is again given by his reference to being in bonds:

Heb: 10:34: For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

Also above, note his empathy for those in bonds. He would have empathy, having experienced it himself, and he is speaking from a position of authority - almost as a command, as a teacher of his stature only could.

No evidence they say? The author also carefully explains the priesthood in much detail, teaching that Yahushua replaced the Aaronic priesthood with all the details of the law as only Paul, a student of Gamaliel, would know, even expounding the mystery of Melchisedec, not covered by any other Apostle, and how he relates to Yahushua.

Paul also uses two very unique words in Hebrews not seen anywhere else in the New Testament. These are: sabbatismos - seventh day Sabbath, and diorthosis - reformation. Again this shows the strength of his vocabulary as a learned man.

Some have argued that “The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an Apostle” and they then quote Heb 2:3. This is at first glance a valid point. They claim that this statement in Hebrews would prove it is not Paul since it contradicts his claims elsewhere.

In Gal: 1:11-12 for instance Paul declares “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Yahushua Messiah.”

But if we look carefully at Hebrews 1:1-2 the author opens the message with “YHUH, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

If we examine the words more carefully in Heb 2:2-3 we will see what Paul is really saying. “For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;

Here he is referring to the words of the Old Testament and then he refers to the New…

Heb: 2:3: How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by Yahushua, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

Here Paul again says - spoken by Yahushua (not man) and then says “and” (meaning and, in addition) was confirmed by men. We see that this, in fact, is the order of things as described by Paul himself. First he receives the gospel, not by man, and later had it confirmed by men who had heard it elsewhere.

Ga: 1:15: But when it pleased YHUH, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

Ga: 1:16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Ga: 1:17: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Ga: 1:18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Here we see that Paul says the revelation of the Son of YHUH was given to him by YHUH and he did not confer with flesh and blood concerning this revelation, but only after a space of time, three years, he met with Peter and stayed with him 15 days. This was the time of confirmation, by one who had heard Yahushua’s gospel and who now confirmed the gospel with Paul.

To conclude, Paul was not taught the revelation of Yahushua. Paul’s message of grace was YHUH-given BUT this does not exclude any later confirmation or teaching that Paul received. If, as I have mentioned earlier, Hebrews was written later rather than earlier in Paul’s life, he would certainly have had, by this stage, input from other Apostles and brethren. Apollos is one that comes to mind.

Act: 18:24: And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act: 18:25: This man was instructed in the way of Yahushua; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of Yahushua, knowing only the baptism of John.

Act: 18:26: 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 YHUH more perfectly.

Act: 18:27: 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:

Act: 18:28: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Yahushua was Messiah.

It is clear that Paul’s message of grace had been further assisted by Apollos’s public teaching with more “hands on” evidence, and that Paul saw it as profitable.

1Cor: 16:12: As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time.

1Cor: 3:6: I have planted, Apollos watered; but YHUH gave the increase.

Paul would certainly have allowed Apollos’s influence, directly or indirectly, into his writing. Hence, a change in his writing could be possible, and, so we see in Hebrews how Paul goes into certain detail concerning Yahushua being the High Priest. His writing, at times, seems to be more evidence based. For example, explaining the inheritance of Messiah.

Heb: 1:5: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Heb: 1:6: And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of YHUH worship him.

Of course Paul's writing does not exclude the message of faith. As one would expect his Epistle to the Romans has the word "faith" appearing as many as 39 times. However, what about Hebrews? It does not do away with faith either. It scores a 31 hit for the word "faith". In fact the whole message of entering in to Sabbath is a message of faith versus unbelief. Given that both Romans and Hebrews are similar in length, 16 and 13 chapters respectively, (or 13 and 10 pages in my Bible), the rate of use of the word "faith" is very similar and therefore it is another proof that Paul's style is evident in Hebrews.

The style naturally matches. Any forgery by another author is beyond comprehension as there are far too many details that match Paul's style.

We, in fact, see his long list (Heb 11) of examples of faith in faithful men and women in action in the Bible. He mentions numerous characters starting with Abraham and ending with Samuel and the prophets. In fact this would be another reason why some would try to deny Paul's authorship. If they have to admit Paul wrote Hebrews they have to admit that he supports justification by faith WITH works. By the way, Paul has never said justification WITHOUT works as some try to affirm. He did not say "by faith alone" either. Martin Luther added the word "alone" and it has stuck as a doctrine of devils in the Protestant churches especially, leading to the antinomian "once-saved-always-saved" doctrine. Please note, I do not in any way accept the works of the Roman Catholic church (penance, indulgences etc). On the contrary, these examples in Hebrews of works in the Old Testament were not in obedience to a Roman Catholic priest since Catholic priests did not exist at that time. These were living works in obedience to a living YHUH, as they are today.

Paul said:

Rom: 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The word "alone" does not exist, but it says "without the deeds of the law". "Law" refers to the law spoken of in Romans regarding circumcision, that is, ceremonial law. He had also mentioned another law - the law of sin and death. These Messiah put out of the way, not the commandments. Therefore we can boldly affirm that Paul writes Hebrews and clearly shows how faithful all these men and women were by their works. Note that each mention of their faith is followed by an active verb - an action, so we have verse 8, by faith...obeyed, went out verse 9, sojourned, looked verse 11, through faith...received etc. These are all living works, not dead works, which is exactly the same as what James wrote. He also shows that faith must show evidence by its works:

James: 2:18: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Now even more glaring evidence to this fact is that James himself had come to this conclusion in his letter by first mentioning faithful men and women in the Bible who had worked their faith, and were therefore justified. In fact, since he merely mentions Abraham and Rahab, both of whom Paul had mentioned, one man and one women, it is safe to assume that he was actually summarising from Paul's teaching in Hebrews. Paul then would possibly be the original witness testifying to faith with works, using old covenant examples for the new covenant Christian.

Now let's look more at the readership of the book of Hebrews. The author is now speaking to a more mature church which one would expect to exist at this later stage in Paul’s ministry. The teaching must move from repentance from dead works, empty mechanised rituals, to works of faith.

Heb: 6:1: Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Messiah, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward YHUH,

You will notice that the doctrine of Messiah – the gospel of faith that Paul first spoke about, has now moved to a more mature level. The foundation of repentance from dead works now needs to grow into fruit – living works – fruits meet for repentance, as John the baptist prophesied:

Mat: 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance; (Modern King James)

Paul even shows his anxiety to preach less simply and with more detail on the revelation of the Priesthood of Messiah.

Heb: 5:8: Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Heb: 5:9: And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Heb: 5:10: Called of YHUH an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Heb: 5:11: Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

As proof against his authorship of Hebrews some have further cited:

1Cor: 1:17: For Messiah sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Messiah should be made of none effect.

And

1Cor: 2:1: And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of YHUH.

1Cor: 2:2: For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Yahushua Messiah, and him crucified.

1Cor: 2:3: And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

1Cor: 2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1Cor: 2:5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of YHUH.

My point, as to his education, is confirmed when he says he is not rude “…in knowledge”

2Cor: 11:6: But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.

Some have said that Paul spoke with plainness of speech, that he was not one to use great vocabulary, and therefore Hebrews is not his authorship. Rude speech would be speech that does not flatter and does not please man but merely gives the message of YHUH as instructed. Paul’s education was high and so was his knowledge. Speech and writing are two different things.

Act: 22:3: I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward YHUH, as ye all are this day.

1Th: 2:5: For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness; YHUH is witness:

Paul merely chose to speak simply to the new believers as opposed to how he wrote to the more mature believers in Hebrews. Anyone can choose to be ignorant in speech whilst still having much knowledge. Paul, after all, was preaching to the Gentiles who would not be very familiar with the religious terminology of Judaism. Remember that the title “Hebrews” was added and this must not bias one to believe the message was only to Jews. Also, speech and writing are two different things. Since I have not heard Paul’s speaking I cannot comment, but I have read his writing and I am still convinced it is his authorship in Hebrews.

Paul also refers to wisdom of man - this specifically means man’s philosophy, such as the philosophy under Gamaliel, as opposed to him being taught by YHUH, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It does not mean he was not wise in speech. So now, these brethren, to whom he is speaking, should have their faith founded on YHUH and he wants them to move to the next level. That is, after all, exactly what he said earlier:

Heb: 6:1: Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Messiah, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward YHUH,

Heb: 6:2: Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

So these are not new believers. It is clear that time has passed on and now they are at the stage when they should really be teachers themselves. It is as if it’s time for Paul’s followers to graduate and become teachers:

Heb: 5:12: For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of YHUH; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Paul is expressing his frustration that he would like to speak less plainly. He wants to get to the meat and away from the milk. Nonetheless Paul is patient and enduring:

Heb: 6:3: And this will we do, if YHUH permit.

All of the above is yet again evidence that singles Paul out as the author since the author shows he has had a long relationship with his hearers. Yet he nonetheless continues to explain many things concerning the Priesthood of Messiah and how His sacrifice has done away with the ceremonial law. He shows how the earthly tabernacle was a shadow of the true heavenly tabernacle. I believe that today some are still dull of hearing and so they will try to say this is not Paul and that this book is profitless, such as Luther did:

"that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle"

(Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546).

On the contrary, Hebrews is most profitable today in dispelling false doctrine, so-called contradictions between James and Paul, and the clarity of Sabbath and how it remains for today.

Luther also blasphemously said:

"It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw (O'Hare, p. 203).

It is questionable in any case as to how Protestant the reformer was. It is doubtful as to whether he had rid himself of the Roman Catholic heresy seeing he clearly believed in transubstantiation.

Now today people do not see that Paul in Hebrews has moved his attention from justification (offered to those unsaved who stood outside the temple), to sanctification (to those now saved in Messiah who stand in the “new tabernacle” with their High Priest Yahushua Messiah). They still do not hear what Paul is saying about the day that remains for the people of YHUH, that day to enter into - Sabbatismos, and therefore, they cannot declare Yahushua their Master. Yes, the Master of their Sabbath.

They do not hear the need to continue obeying and overcoming temptation with the help of Messiah, not a Catholic priest, dead Saint, Mary, Bishop or "holy father", which are all mortal.

Heb: 4:15: For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Heb: 4:16: Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

This is probably one of the most popular verses (16), used by countless professing Christians, yet they cannot see Paul’s message of grace AND sanctification here all wrapped up in one. The temple (our body) is the place of sanctification - an ongoing process at the throne, but by one sacrifice only - Yahushua Messiah.

Luther either rejected or misunderstood sanctification, probably seeing it as too closely resembling Catholic penance. But it is not penance. It is Messiah sanctifying you by the washing of His word (no longer water in the laver) as you humbly let him lead you away from temptation to the fruits of righteousness.

None of Paul’s writings in Romans would make as much sense without his explanations in Hebrews.

Rom: 12:1: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of YHUH, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto YHUH, which is your reasonable service.

Christian service and Catholic penance are certainly two different things, as are Catholic superstition and true obedience to YHUH. One cannot reject YHUH’s ways because one wants to reject Catholic superstition and penance. One cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.

The verse…

1Cor: 3:16: Know ye not that ye are the temple of YHUH, and that the Spirit of YHUH dwelleth in you?

This verse too would not make sense without Hebrews and its clear images of the work of our High Priest Yahushua in our lives. Those who twist Paul’s message of grace would seem all the more justified without the huge corrections and rebukes that Paul makes in Hebrews regarding these false teachers. Paul very clearly corrects those who use his writings in Galatians and Romans as a license to reject the moral law and go on sinning willfully. He had already rebuked those who were abusing his message of grace in Romans itself…

Rom 3:8: …(as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?

He proves what has been done away with - the ceremonial law NOT YHUH’s moral law. He shows who took away the ceremonial law - our Apostle and High Priest Yahushua Messiah.

Heb: 10:26: For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Heb: 10:27: But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Heb: 10:28: He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Heb: 10:29: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of YHUH, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Some give another reason for denying Paul’s authorship. Here is one such reference:

“The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul's usage.”

Now to this I quote from pg 44-47 of St. Paul and His Letters, Anthony C. Deane, London Hodder and Stoughton Ltd. Reprinted Aug 1942

“…Paul's father was among the exceptions. He possessed Roman citizenship, the privileges of which extended to every part of the Empire, but he was also a Pharisee, a fact which, as the name implies, set him apart from ordinary Jews and set Palestine apart from all other lands in his affection. As a Pharisee, he accounted exact obedience to the Law and the Tradition as the primary duties of religion. With all his heart he must have disliked the spread of Hellenistic influence among his fellow-Jews, an influence lessening the authority of the Law which Pharisaism was pledged to uphold. He must have been grieved when some of his fellow-countrymen in Tarsus mixed freely with the pagan inhabitants, and even in their own homes preferred to use Greek instead of their Palestinian language. This last failing at least he could refuse to imitate. In the streets and in his business premises he was compelled to use Greek. But in his own house it should be unheard; Aramaic should be the language of his home. Probably it was for this reason, as Dr. Rawlinson suggests, that Paul in after years described himself as a " Hebrew of Hebrews ", meaning " that his parents on both sides spoke Aramaic, and that Aramaic rather than Greek had been the language of his home...

As rabbinic authority prescribed, at the age of five or six Paul would be sent daily to the synagogue school In addition to his religious education here it was necessary, though his father may have deplored the necessity, that he should learn Greek. A colloquial knowledge of it he probably picked up, as young children will', from hearing it talked in the streets. But he must be taught to read and write this language, and, as has been remarked," it is not likely that his parents would have allowed him to frequent a pagan school "(25) Therefore a Greek-speaking Jew was probably engaged to teach the child this accomplishment. Professor Nock… comments on the degree in which Paul's vocabulary and style in his letters are influenced by the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. He points out, as "a striking phenomenon", the fact that " there is not a paragraph in Paul's writings which does not include subconscious recollections of the Greek Old Testament"; adding, "this is the more remarkable when we reflect that the Septuagint was a bulky and expensive book " (26) Perhaps Paul's father, dreading the influence of pagan literature on a youthful mind, stipulated that, if the boy must be taught to read and write Greek, no other work than the Greek version of the Old Testament should be used as the manual for his instruction and the pattern for his imitation. This is, of course, no more than a conjecture. Yet it seems reasonable, and if Paul, at the age of twelve or fourteen, was steeped in the Septuagint, if it was his model and the one Greek book he knew, then his " subconscious recollections " of it long afterwards need not be termed a "striking phenomenon".

SIDE NOTE: also by C. Deane pg 47

“Of course he was not allowed to read the classic writers of Greece, and indeed their idiom, would probably have baffled him. Yet, a disquieting symptom, he picked up a few familiar quotations from the heathen Greek poets. Already, too, he may have been heard to use sometimes in his talk a word or phrase derived from the pagan mystery cults. He did this afterwards in his letters, with an odd result in our own times. Commentators have swooped upon these few words and phrases, magnified their significance in Paul's writings, argued that their use proves him to have been deeply versed in these mystery cults, and that under their influence, without protest from those who had been taught by Christ, he transformed Christianity into a fundamentally different kind of religion. Here it is sufficient to note that the few mystery-cult words and phrases used in Paul's letters, possibly picked up by him as a boy at Tarsus, were such as had passed into common talk. The argument built upon his use of them is as precarious as it would be to assert that everyone who speaks to-day of an " inferiority complex '' must be an ardent student and disciple of Freud.”

I use this reference to show that Paul’s use of Greek is common knowledge and if he were bold enough to use secular Greek phrases, why not the Septuagint Bible which was held in high esteem? Furthermore, Paul must have spoken Greek as we see that he preaches to the Greeks in Athens. He also spends over a year and a half preaching there. He would have surely by this stage used a Greek version of the Old Testament to make his preaching easier and thus it would make sense to see him referring to it in Hebrews if he were speaking to such a group of people. The Book of Hebrews would be unique in that it draws together Greek and Jew by the death of Messiah - furthermore in reference to the people of YHUH (now neither Greek nor Jew but brethren) he states what remains for them - Sabbath.

Now one cannot escape the significance of this great change in Hebrews when the word for Sabbath is not presented in the Jewish language, but for the first and only time seen in the Bible, Sabbatismos - the Greek word! This does two things it makes the Sabbath presented by YHUH from the beginning understandable in the official Greek language, and, therefore, a fresh approach is given, a personal thing to receive as well, it does not divide since there is neither Jew nor Greek. And how is this done? Well, the word used is the exact equivalent to the Hebrew word. Paul thus draws together both Jewish and Greek believers to the original Sabbath that YHUH first sanctified at creation for ALL HIS PEOPLE who would receive his inheritance through Messiah, and NOT just the Jews.

I cannot think of a better example right now, so please forgive me, but it would be similar with Hitler’s word "Reich" (kingdom). Many Germans at that time would embrace it with its promises attached but would the Jews? Of course not. But imagine a new leader came in and extended his offer of the Reich to the Jews living there as well. Not only that, he also makes a statement in their language, and, for the first time they hear the word "Reich" in their own language. What I am trying to say is that certain words are more strongly associated with their origin, and, therefore, they have the natural stereotypes added to them until they can be broken down and looked at afresh as to what they really mean in light of new circumstances.

Another such word is the word "apartheid". You say it and people immediately think of the Old South African regime. Yet it is a word that is now used to describe the state that Israel is in. Similarly, the word association for “Sabbath” usually is the word “Jewish”.

It is no surprise to see that Paul refers to a partition (almost like a spiritual Berlin wall) coming down between Greek and Jew. He was concerned about the ceremonial law separating Jew and Gentile and was showing that this ceremonial law had been abolished by Messiah, as he explains:

Eph:2:14: For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Eph:2:15: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

If we are one man with Messiah then we are one with the Jew and the Greek who has come to Messiah through his sacrifice and abolished the ceremonial law. The moral law, remember, is not abolished but magnified. It is interesting to note that some say that the style of Hebrews is different to Paul’s other Epistles which show his concern that the law causes division between Gentile and Jew, while Hebrews on the other hand concentrates on the sacrificial system. Again, the verse I just quoted, regarding divisions most clearly supports this idea:

Eph: 2:14: For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Eph: 2:15: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

But now with regard to Hebrews, it is still concerned with ceremonial laws which have been done away with, namely tithing (“carnal commandment”) to priests without which the ceremonial system would not exist, and which separated Gentiles from the temple.

Heb: 7:16: Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Paul instead goes even further in Hebrews to show the great unity, rather than division, in the Sabbath (moral law - 10 commandments law) that remains for all the people of YHUH to enter in by faith.

Heb: 4:9: There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of YHUH.

The term “People of YHUH” again had and still has for some a word association –“the Jews” but prophetically it pointed to all YHUH’s covenant people as Moses already understood in the Old Testament.

De: 29:13: That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee an Elohim, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

De: 29:14: Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;

De: 29:15: But with him that standeth here with us this day before YHUH our Elohim, and also with him that is not here with us this day:

Verse 14 and 15 refers to the Gentiles and future people of YHUH as a whole.

Unfortunately, many are still seeing a wall of ceremonial laws and do not see the Sabbath now open to all without the ceremonial laws attached. Yet Messiah has broken that wall. He is truly Master of the Sabbath. So, to say it is not Paul writing because he speaks about sacrifice rather than focusing over dividing laws, I disagree. On the contrary, he is hammering home the fact that the sacrifice has magnified the moral laws since now all who accept Messiah are free to obey and receive the promised inheritance as people of YHUH.

Heb:10:19: Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Yahushua,

Heb:10:20: By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Heb:10:21: And having an high priest over the house of YHUH;

The above verse concurs with Paul’s teaching as in Ephesians. The middle wall and veil are one and the same thing, whether it be the fellowship between us and Messiah, or between us and our true fellow brothers.

Eph:2:14: For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Eph:2:15: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Now some have offered up various alternate writers for Hebrews.

Luke (medical doctor) - not as the original author but as a co-author or writing Paul’s speeches. The idea is due to his skill in Greek, which is seen in Hebrews, since he was present with Paul.

Barnabas (the Levite) - since the priesthood is discussed in detail, but his ability has been in question.

Apollos - since the letter has a high level of knowledge within it.

The latter would seem a contradiction however, coming from Martin Luther, when he had on another occasion said in so many words that the author wrote "mumbo jumbo". Why then would he suggest Apollos as the author since the Bible clearly says he is “…an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures” Acts 18:24.

It would suggest to me then that it is not the standard, but rather the message, that Luther may have rejected or discredited in Hebrews. Those who do not accept the gospel (which includes observing and teaching others to observe everything that Christ commanded (Mt: 28:19-20) as elaborated on in Hebrews, will not be profited.

This is the result of unbelief. What is in the unbelieving heart will be proven by the utterance from the mouth when they declare that Hebrews is nothing to them but wood, straw and hay. It is unprofitable to them. Interestingly they are stating the very thing that Paul warns against in this very Epistle.

Heb: 4:2: For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

I believe some people simply do not understand, or rather choose not to understand, what Paul has written. They have believed the lies propagated in the twisted grace message and see Hebrews as a contradiction to Paul. It cannot be the same person they think. Paul surely wrote it so as not to be the author of their false grace message.

Yahushua spoke in parables and yet his disciples understood him and it was not always immediately. Yahushua spoke simply but yet over the heads of many who chose not to understand.

If modern theologians can succeed in doing away with the authorship of Hebrews by Paul, the one who brought the message of grace and yet also the message of warning against abusing it, then perhaps they can succeed in furthering their lie and further build their foundation of boundless grace, encouraging YHUH’s people into apostasy, departing from the living YHUH. You see, this false Protestantism is so heavily founded on that slanderous interpretation of Paul’s books of Romans and Galatians that it has become a false doctrine altogether. They say boundless grace but Paul (and I repeat, Paul) says it is not boundless. You will spot a false teacher very quickly today if he preaches snippets from Galatians and Romans out of context and leaves out other Epistles, especially Hebrews.

Heb: 10:26: For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

But Martin Luther we still hear protesting, not as a true Protestant, but rather against the word of YHUH itself saying…

"Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day" (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).

Who will you believe?

Well, I believe Paul who believed the true doctrine of Messiah. I believe what he writes in Hebrews. He walks the talk also in his Epistle to the Corinthians. Here he demonstrates a need to set up the boundaries of YHUH’s grace within the church itself. This is a rebuke to those who preach “radical” grace (eg Joseph Prince).

1Cor: 5:9: I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

1Cor: 5:10: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

1Cor: 5:11: But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1Cor: 5:12: For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

1Cor: 5:13: But them that are without YHUH judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So we do not judge those in the world but those in the church who profess to be believers but are wicked. They must be judged and not left in the church to be loved to death (I mean they will later suffer the second death of the soul after Judgement).

Remember that the wicked shall NOT inherit the kingdom of YHUH. Here we see a “brother” who is called wicked. A new instruction by Paul, through the instruction of the Holy Spirit, has drawn attention to the fact that YHUH’s grace within the church of YHUH is not boundless or endless. This wicked brother later repents and Paul instructs the church to forgive him and receive him back. It is a warning to those who abuse YHUH’s grace. Paul was not an antinomian as some try to make him appear with their false references to his teaching. The church is to be obedient to the warnings of YHUH’s justice, for He is mighty to save and mighty to prove His justice and vengeance.

Heb: 10:26: For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Heb: 10:27: But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Heb: 10:28: He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Heb: 10:29: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of YHUH, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Heb: 10:30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith YHUH. And again, YHUH shall judge his people.

Let us read and by faith accept Hebrews as doctrine that concurs with the rest of Paul’s message of grace which is NOT antinomianism, neither against YHUH’s commandments. There is no contradiction in the theology of the New Testament but harmony. It is people who twist verses out of context here and there and make them fit their own theology, to become the authors of Hebrews themselves instead of Paul.

I repeat:

Heb: 10:30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith YHUH. And again, YHUH shall judge his people.