I realize that God is the real author, but what human was inspired to write it? It seems most believe Paul was but I disagree. Hebrews is basically exhorting jewish believers to leave completely the ceremonial religion for Grace. Paul was accused of this in Acts yet defended himself as it was a false charge. My view is Peter wrote. Paul said in Gal. 2 that Peter lived in the manner of gentiles, plus we know he had a problem with James, the Lord's brother and dissembled even after the decision of the jerusalem council in Acts 15 out of fear of him. What is your view of this?

Here are Bullinger's comments on Hebrews. When I first read them, I was like, "WHY didn't I see that?" In any case, I pray that you all are blessed and edified by what the Holy Spirit showed Dr. Bullinger.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

INTRODUCTORY NOTES BY E. W. Bullinger

The general subject of the Epistle is that the Messiah of the Old Testament Scriptures must suffer as Man (i.e. as Incarnate Man), and that Jesus is the Messiah.

ADDRESSED. "To the Hebrews": to the nation under its earliest name, Palestinian Jews and the Diaspora (John 7:35) alike. Outwardly for believers (Hebrews 6:8; Hebrews 12:15-16; Hebrews 13:10).

AUTHORSHIP. The arguments in favor of the Pauline authorship are much more weighty than those in favor of all other candidates put together, and they may be stated thus:---

1. The thought and reasonings are Paul's, whatever the style and language may be. All his other epistles were written to churches mainly composed of Gentiles. In addressing such an epistle to Hebrews, he would naturally write as an instructed scribe, one brought up "at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" (Acts 22:3). It is therefore futile to argue that if Paul were really the author, the language and style would have been in exact accord with those of the other epistles. Had this been so, it would be an argument against, and not in favour of, Paul's authorship.


2. There is a certain amount of external testimony that Paul was the writer, but none as to any other.


3. The testimony of 2 Peter 3:15-16, strictly interpreted, proves that Paul wrote an epistle to the Hebrews, and if this is not the epistle, where is it? No trace or indication of any other has ever been found.


4. Its anonymity is eminently in favor of Pauline authorship. The suspicion with which the Jews regarded Paul, and their furious hatred of him (cp. Acts 21:21; 2 Cor. 11:24; Philippians 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:15), would be ample reason why, in addressing so important a letter to his own race, he should withhold his name. If it was necessary at the time of it publication to send out such an epistle, equally necessary was it that it should not be handicapped with a name regarded generally by the Jews as that of an infamous renegade. The argument of the value of an unsigned article in any important journal applies with great force in the case of Hebrews.


5. DATE of writing and publication. Owing to the fixed idea in the minds of most commentators that the reference to Timothy in Hebrews 13:23 (see note there in the Companion Bible of course) must have been connected with the Neronian persecution, the date is usually assigned to a period shortly before the destruction of the Temple, which took place late in A.D. 69 (Appendix 50 Point VI). The very latest "guess" is that "it may have been written at any time between A.D 65 and 85". This is vague and unconvincing. In Appendix 180 the chronological position of Hebrews is shown, A.D. 53- 54. Modern tradition places it after 2 Timothy, circa A.D. 68. That the former is correct seems clear for the following reasons:--

(a) If Hebrews was written in or about the year 68, the Apostle Paul's ministry had existed for twenty-two years (since his and Barnabas's "separation" for the work, in A.D. 46, Acts 13:2) without the aid of a written statement of such paramount importance as this. What was the immediate object of publishing then, only a year or two before the destruction of the Temple, and very shortly before his own death (2 Timothy 4:6), so weighty an argument that Jesus was both Messiah and true Man, and as Man must have suffered? That the Old Covenant was ended and its place taken by a New (Hebrews 8:13)? It is not credible that the apostle who was inspired to write and publish Romans at a comparatively early date should not have been allowed to put forth Hebrews till the very end of his ministry. "To the Jew first" is verily applicable in this connection.

(b) Paul was at Jerusalem for the Council meeting (A.D. 51) when the very subjects of Hebrews had evidently been bitterly discussed (Acts 15:5-7). Shortly thereafter he writes 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, both of which contain poignant references to "shameful treatment" at the hands of his own people.

(c.) Some authoritative statement must be placed in the hands of even an early ambassador in regard to new and altered relationships between his supreme head and those to whom he is commissioned and sent. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles may be used as illustration. No representative there reported ultimately by word of mouth to his country, but by presentation of a copy of the entire Treaty. So with this treatise-epistle. The Apostle Paul, as God's ambassador to the Diaspora and Gentiles, must have had some documentary argument, proof, and testimony, in support of his (and of Timothy's and others') oral teaching and instruction, for circulation among the "many thousands" of Jews who believed at and after Pentecost, yet all of whom were "zealous of the Law" (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4; Acts 6:7; Acts 21:20), and with whom Paul and his fellow-workers must have come into contact. To Have attached his own name to this would have defeated his purpose, as above mentioned.

(d) The approximate time therefore for writing and publishing such a body of doctrine must have been shortly after the beginning of his ministry, and, consequently, Hebrews was in all probability written during the eighteen months of the Apostle Paul's sojourn at Corinth, during which he was "teaching among them the word of God" (Acts 18:11).

(e) Lastly, weighty support is given to these conclusions by the position Hebrews occupies in the four important MSS., N, A, B, C, and in others. In some MSS. Hebrews is found in different positions with regard to the other books of the New Testament. In certain it appears as it stands in our Bibles, but in these four, N (Codez Sinaiticus), A (Codex Alexandrinus), B (Codex Vaticanus), and C (Codex Ephraemi), it is placed AFTER 2 Thessalonians. This testimony to the foregoing is significant, and is not to be lightly set aside.

It seems Bullinger missed an important aspect of the Book of Hebrews. A large part of the book is spent showing the superiority of Christ over various aspects of the Law. Its readers are in a long drawn out way seem to be exhorted to leave the outward form of the religion for the fulness of Grace. "For there is verily an annulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did...By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament" (Heb.7:18-19,22).

Paul was accused of doing this very thing.

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

He ends up taking a jewish vow after this. Yet in an epistle that according to Bullinger was written after Hebrews he tells his readers the following:

1Co 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Peter being the chief Apostle to the circumcision would have been the clear choice to disseminate the Grace message to jews who already believed, and Paul makes the statement that he didnt want to preach where others have preached (I cannot remember or locate this verse yet). Paul may indeed have written Hebrews. If he did, the fact that he didnt sign it was not from fear that it would be badly received. It was to confirm for the jews the ministry of Peter in explaining the dispensation of grace to them.

Your thoughts? FOUND IT!!!!! Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

I need to rephrase what I stated so badly in my last post. Paul didnt sign Hebrews, but if the verse Bullinger quotes references this epistle then Peter and other jewish believers knew Paul was the author so it wasnt to hide his authorship. It may be he simply and humbly didnt want to overshadow Peter's authority over the circumcision believers in the task of explaining the truths of the mystery. Hebrews was Paul helping Peter basically.

OK, here we go...2 Peter 3:15-16...And account that the long suffering 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.

I submit to you, that the Apostle Peter is referencing the Apostle Paul's writing of the Book to the Hebrews in his Epistle to them, the Hebrews, here.

The Apostle Paul wanted to hide his authorship so that as this Book got wider distribution amongst the Jews it would not get instantly dismissed because it was from Paul. But by being anonymous it's contents would then have to be considered, before being accepted or rejected.

Now of course those at the Congregation at Jerusalem KNEW that Paul was the author...

I agree with the Pauline authorship Hebrews. The verse you referenced shows that Peter and other jewish believers knew Paul was the author, so he wasnt hiding it out of fear of bad reception. I submit that Paul's ministry was to "not where Christ was named". Peter had the authority over those of the jews who were already believers. I submit Paul left Hebrews unsigned to humbly avoid overshadowing Peter's authority. Paul wrote Hebrews to help Peter to exhort jews to leave the ceremonial religion, as Peter himself seemed to.

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, LIVEST AFTER THE MANNER OF GENTIILES, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

This confrontation occured AFTER the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.

This would explain the problem between James and Peter.