1) Hebrews in Context: A Messianic Jewish Perspective on the Book of Hebrews
In the realm of biblical exegesis, few writings pose as great a challenge to a Messianic Jewish interpretation of the New Testament as the Epistle to the Hebrews. This complex work, deeply rooted in Jewish tradition and Messianic hope, has been widely misunderstood as a comprehensive argument for Christianity replacing Judaism and rendering the Torah’s Levitical worship system obsolete.
I often wince when I hear someone mention they are studying the book of Hebrews. Why? Because, aside from Revelation, it is arguably one of the most challenging books in the New Testament to grasp. The way we interpret Hebrews is deeply influenced by our foundational theology. In my view, the book is best approached with a solid grounding in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostolic letters.
The Messianic Jewish Perspective
Messianic Judaism begins with the understanding that Christianity was originally a Jewish movement. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish, including Jesus himself, the apostles, and all the first disciples. They did not see themselves as founders of a new religion but rather as a reform movement within Judaism, inspired by the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth and their conviction that He is the long-awaited Messiah. They did not perceive Jesus or His gospel message as being in opposition to the Torah of Moses. They upheld Jesus' declaration:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)
In modern terms, their faith could be described as Messianic Judaism. Within a few decades, the early Jewish believers decided to extend membership to non-Jews (Acts 15), yet the movement remained fundamentally Jewish at its core.
Messianic Judaism is understood as a branch of Judaism that recognizes Yeshua of Nazareth as both the Messiah and the divine Son of God.
The contemporary Messianic Jewish movement traces its origins to Christian missionary efforts aimed at evangelizing Jews. However, in the late 19th century, Jewish believers in Jesus began reclaiming their faith, moving away from Gentile Christian practices to develop an authentic Jewish expression of their beliefs. In the 1960s and 1970s, the movement gained momentum in the United States, particularly among Jewish Christians of the Baby Boom generation. Since then, it has evolved beyond its roots as a Jewish missionary effort and has begun to reestablish itself as a distinct branch of Judaism, much like the early communities of the apostles.
As with the original Apostolic-era Messianic communities, modern Messianic Judaism also includes a significant number of Gentile participants. Many of these Gentiles are drawn to the movement in search of a more historically authentic form of Christianity. In this way, Messianic Judaism is no longer an exclusively Jewish movement, if it ever was. It now includes many "Messianic Gentiles" who, though not Jewish, have found a spiritual home within the Messianic synagogue. This background is important for understanding the perspective from which we will understand the book of Hebrews.
A Messianic Jewish Perspective on Hebrews
The central premise of a Jewish Perspective is that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to encourage Jewish believers to remain loyal to Yeshua as the Messiah at a time when they were tempted to turn away. Why were they tempted? Because the religious authorities were threatening to exclude them from the Temple and its priestly services. The message of Hebrews is clear: "Don’t let pressure from the Levitical authorities shake your faith in Yeshua. We have a high priest interceding for us in the heavenly sanctuary."
The epistle embarks on a lengthy and intricate piece of Jewish exegesis, demonstrating that the Levitical priesthood, the sacrifices, and the Temple in Jerusalem are tied to this present world, which the writer describes as "becoming obsolete and growing old, ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). Yeshua himself taught that the Torah and the covenant God made at Sinai would endure until heaven and earth disappear, yet according to Hebrews, even heaven and earth are aging and will pass away at the end of the age.
In contrast, the Messiah’s priesthood atones for Israel in the heavenly realm, operating under the new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31, which pertains to the Messianic Era and the everlasting World to Come. This covenant is eternal and unshakable. Therefore, the author of Hebrews urges, "Don’t trade the World to Come for this fleeting world. Don’t forsake the heavenly high priest for the approval of an earthly priesthood."
Throughout the epistle, a careful distinction is made between the Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of the Messiah, between the earthly Temple and the heavenly Temple, between the Sinai covenant and the new covenant, and between this present world and the World to Come. Nowhere does Hebrews suggest that the heavenly priesthood replaces the Levitical one, as replacement theology claims. Instead, the two are assigned to their proper domains—one in this age, the other in the age to come.
However, when the Epistle to the Hebrews is read through the lens of replacement theology—often shaped by a misunderstanding of Paul’s writings—it can appear as though the text argues for replacing the Levitical priesthood, the sacrificial system, the earthly Temple, and the Sinai covenant. In this flawed interpretation, Judaism is seen as "becoming obsolete and growing old, ready to vanish away" because it is supposedly being replaced by a new religion that is not bound by the Law (Hebrews 8:13). This misreading of Hebrews aligns closely with the misinterpretation of Paul’s epistles that has influenced much of Christian thought for nearly two thousand years.
The Conventional Approach to Hebrews Verses A Jewish Perspective Approach
The conventional approach to the Epistle to the Hebrews often leads directly to a conclusion of replacement theology. This reading emphasizes the finality and superiority of the new covenant in Christ over the old covenant, including its priesthood and sacrifices. It presents the epistle as a theological argument for transitioning from the old covenant to the new. Popular counterarguments, which challenge this traditional Replacement Theology view, can be summarized in the following points:
Christ’s Superiority Over Angels and Moses:
Hebrews begins by declaring the superiority of Jesus Christ over angels and prophets, especially Moses. Traditional interpretations suggest this signifies a new, superior revelation in Christ, surpassing the messages delivered through angels and prophets in the Old Testament. In future lessons, we will argue that the elevation of the Messiah above Moses and the angels is rooted in traditional Jewish interpretations of specific messianic texts and is not meant to replace the Old Testament but to affirm the Messiah’s authority.The New Covenant:
A central theme in conventional readings of Hebrews is the contrast between the old and new covenants. The new covenant, mediated by Jesus, is often seen as replacing the old covenant, i.e., the Torah given at Mount Sinai. However, we will argue that the new covenant described in Jeremiah’s prophecies is not about canceling or replacing the Torah or God’s covenant with Israel in favor of a new religion. Instead, it points to the Jewish eschatological hope for the Messianic Era and the World to Come.The High Priesthood of Jesus:
In traditional Christian theology, the depiction of Jesus as the heavenly high priest is understood as surpassing the Levitical priesthood, with Christ serving as the perfect, eternal high priest, thereby replacing the Levitical order established in the Torah. In future lessons, we will argue that the messianic priesthood described in Hebrews operates in a different sphere and does not compete with the Levitical priesthood. Each belongs to its own respective order and functions in different venues.The Obsolescence of the Old Sacrificial System:
Traditional interpretations of Hebrews present Christ as the perfect, eternal, once-for-all sacrifice, rendering the old system of repeated animal sacrifices obsolete. The sacrifices under the old covenant are often viewed as mere shadows of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the cross. We will argue that the Messiah’s sacrifice parallels the Levitical sacrifices by analogy, but it does not replace them, nor does it accomplish the same purposes or goals. Yeshua’s death did not signal the end of the Levitical sacrifices; rather, those sacrifices ceased a generation later with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.Faith and Perseverance:
The epistle’s calls for faith and perseverance are traditionally read through the lens of New Testament teachings on salvation through faith in Christ, often contrasted with a supposed reliance on the Law and works in the Old Testament. We will argue that the exhortations to faith and perseverance in Hebrews are not addressing Pauline arguments about works of the Law. Instead, the epistle encourages Jewish believers to continue observing the Torah without abandoning their allegiance to Yeshua as the Messiah.Warnings Against Apostasy:
The strong warnings against apostasy in Hebrews are commonly interpreted as warnings against leaving the church and reverting to Judaism. I argue that this reading is anachronistic, as Hebrews predates the emergence of a separate religion called Christianity. It was addressed to a Messianic Jewish audience who practiced Judaism as a natural expression of their faith in Yeshua. The warnings against apostasy are not about returning to Judaism—because they never left Judaism—but about maintaining their allegiance to Yeshua as the Messiah.
From Sinai to Zion
The Epistle to the Hebrews presents a powerful contrast between two mountains: Mount Sinai and Mount Zion.
First, it takes us back to the awe-inspiring scene at Mount Sinai, a tangible mountain that "may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them" (Hebrews 12:18-19). The Sinai experience was marked by an overwhelming display of God's presence—fire, thunder, and a voice so terrifying that the people pleaded for no more.
Then, the focus shifts forward to Mount Zion, "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," where "innumerable angels" gather in joyful celebration with "the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven" (Hebrews 12:22-23). This vision of Mount Zion is one of hope and promise, where the fullness of God’s kingdom is revealed, and the righteous are made perfect.
At Sinai, the revelation of God came through fire. Moses first encountered God in a burning bush that was not consumed, and later, the Lord descended on the mountain in flames of supernatural fire. From this fire, the voice of God spoke directly to the assembly of Israel: "The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice" (Deuteronomy 4:12).
The giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai was a grand unveiling—an unprecedented and unrepeated revelation of God in human history. It was so overwhelming that the people begged Moses to speak on God’s behalf, as they could not bear to hear the voice from the fire: "We have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire... This great fire will consume us. If we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, we shall die" (Deuteronomy 5:24-25).
Hebrews reflects on this moment, stating that the voice from the fire "made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them... Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, 'I tremble with fear'" (Hebrews 12:19-21). This was a unique encounter where every person present heard the audible voice of the Almighty, surpassing even the highest revelations given to the prophets.
Yet, the apostles taught that the revelation awaiting us in the kingdom and the World to Come will surpass even the grandeur of Sinai. In the future, we will stand before "God, the judge of all, and the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and [Yeshua], the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel" (Hebrews 12:23-24). The promise of Mount Zion offers a revelation of even greater intimacy and glory, where we will encounter God in His fullness through Yeshua, the perfect mediator of the new covenant.
Reevaluating Hebrews: A Challenge to Replacement Theology
Traditional interpretations of Hebrews 12 often place Mount Sinai and Mount Zion in direct opposition, viewing them as symbolic representations of the old and new covenants. From the perspective of Christian supersessionism and replacement theology, this contrast suggests that the new covenant has entirely supplanted the old. The logic seems straightforward: the Epistle to the Hebrews declares, "You haven't come to Mount Sinai; you've come to Mount Zion," which is commonly understood as "You haven't come to the Law; you've come to grace." In other words, the Old Testament, with its portrayal of a fearful and wrathful God, has been replaced by the New Testament, where God is seen as more loving and gracious.
These interpretations rest on the assumption that the old covenant—the covenant of the Law—was flawed and has now been replaced by a more benevolent, new covenant.
The prevailing understanding of Hebrews is built on several key assumptions:
The book was written to Hellenistic, Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in the Diaspora.
The author aimed to warn Jewish Christians against reverting to Judaism.
The new covenant is inherently superior to the old covenant.
Christ’s heavenly priesthood replaces the Levitical priesthood.
Christ’s death replaces the Levitical sacrificial system.
The heavenly Temple replaces the earthly Temple in Jerusalem.
Grace replaces the Law.
Eternal life in Christ supersedes the Sabbath.
Obedience to the Law is dismissed as "dead works."
Messianic Jewish perspective believes this replacement interpretation is anachronistic, as it applies later church theological developments to a Jewish document, distorting its original meaning. By setting aside the biases of replacement theology and Christian supersessionism, we can approach Hebrews with fresh eyes and better grasp its intended message.
The Epistle to the Hebrews: Authorship, Style, and Audience
What do we know about the Epistle to the Hebrews? It is a brief Greek document that shares the tone and genre of Apostolic-era epistles, yet it stands apart in several ways from other writings in the New Testament canon. Unlike many epistles, it lacks a formal introduction identifying the author or the intended audience, instead opening directly with a profound discourse. Its style is deeply rooted in Jewish thought, employing distinctly Jewish modes of argumentation and symbolism.
Throughout early Christian history, particularly in the West, there was some hesitation to accept Hebrews for public reading, and it took time for the epistle to be recognized as canonical Scripture. Was it written by the Apostle Paul? Some early church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, believed so, even suggesting that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. Indeed, several early manuscripts include Hebrews alongside Paul’s letters. However, Pauline authorship seems improbable for several reasons.
The Greek style in Hebrews is more polished and rhetorically sophisticated than Paul’s writings, and the theology differs significantly. Notably, Hebrews makes no mention of Gentile inclusion, a central theme in all of Paul’s letters. Furthermore, unlike Paul, who often inserts himself into his writings using singular pronouns like "I," "me," and "my," the author of Hebrews avoids personal references and instead uses plural pronouns such as "we," "our," and "us." This absence of personal commentary, a hallmark of Paul's letters, is a strong indication that Paul was not the author.
The New Testament canon reflects the uncertainty surrounding the authorship of Hebrews by positioning it at the end of Paul’s letters, thus beginning what might be considered the "Jewish section" of the New Testament. Unlike Paul’s letters, Hebrews seems to address an exclusively Jewish audience, as do the epistles that follow.
The book of Hebrews invites readers into the setting of a first-century synagogue, where they can listen to a teaching from a disciple of the original apostles. It has a style reminiscent of rabbinic literature, such as the Midrash, sections of the Talmud, or the mystical Zohar. The book follows a rabbinic approach to discourse, filled with esoteric references to Hebrew Scriptures, much like the style favored by the rabbis—taking passages out of their apparent context and giving them new meaning, similar to how the sages often did. The author of Hebrews crafts the argument with abrupt departures from linear reasoning, utilizing broad leaps in logic and interpreting obscure details in biblical texts before returning to the main point.
Kol v'Chomer: Light and Heavy
The Epistle to the Hebrews frequently employs a rabbinic form of argumentation known as kol v'chomer, meaning "from the light to the heavy." This technique follows a simple logic: "If something is true (or not true) for a less significant circumstance, how much more (or less) true must it be for a weightier one." Rabbi Yeshua (Jesus) often used this Jewish hermeneutical method. For example, He said:
"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:11).
For this argument to be effective, the initial comparison must be undeniable. The two elements being compared are not opposites, nor do they negate each other. The strength of the argument comes from building on the truth of the lesser example—in this case, human fathers—to emphasize the greater reality, the fatherhood of God. The comparison does not diminish human fatherhood but rather enhances our understanding of God's role.
In Hebrews 12, the author uses this same form of reasoning:
"See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven" (Hebrews 12:25).
Contrary to popular interpretation, this passage does not place the old and new covenants in opposition. It does not claim that Mount Sinai has been replaced by Mount Zion. Rather, the argument is this:
"If you feared Moses, who spoke to you on earth, how much more should you fear Yeshua, who speaks from heaven."
The power of the argument rests on the continued authority of Moses to elevate the revelation of Yeshua. In other words, "If the revelation through Moses at Sinai demands obedience, how much more does the revelation of Yeshua from Mount Zion."
The revelation through Yeshua carries more weight, is more awe-inspiring, and brings greater consequences for those who refuse to listen. This is not a message of "cheap grace" that dismisses the Torah; rather, it builds upon the foundation of the Torah. The author emphasizes this by concluding with:
”Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:28-29).
The fire that began at Mount Sinai still burns at Mount Zion. The latter does not replace the former, but rather intensifies and fulfills it.
Unlocking Hebrews: Exploring Its Origins and Purpose
A proper introduction to the book of Hebrews requires us to ask the same fundamental questions we should consider for any piece of literature, especially biblical texts: What is it? When was it written? Who wrote it? Who was it written to? And why was it written? These questions are crucial to understanding the epistle before diving into a formal study.
What?
First, we need to determine what type of document we are reading. The Bible contains various literary genres, including legal texts, historical narratives, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, apocalyptic writings, gospels, and letters (commonly called "epistles"). Knowing the genre gives us a framework for interpretation.
When?
Understanding when the document was written helps us place it in its historical context. Without that context, we risk misinterpreting its meaning. For instance, if you read the Gettysburg Address but mistakenly thought it was delivered by a U.S. president in 1986, you would inevitably misunderstand its significance.
Who?
Knowing the author provides insight into the document's perspectives and intentions. If we understand the author's experiences, background, and objectives, we can better grasp the message being conveyed.
To whom?
The intended audience is key to interpreting the text. When we read someone else’s letter, knowing who it was written for and where it was meant to be read gives us valuable context that shapes our understanding of the message.
Why?
Identifying the reason or occasion for writing is crucial. Every piece of biblical literature was written with a specific purpose in mind, to address particular issues or concerns. With the exception of Moses, none of the Bible’s authors sat down with the intention of writing sacred scripture. Each had a contemporary situation they were responding to, and discovering that helps unlock the text's overall message.
Unfortunately, because Hebrews lacks a clear introduction or universally accepted tradition about its origins, answering these questions becomes more challenging. We have to engage in some detective work, using speculation and educated guesses to piece together information about its authorship, date, and intended audience.
What: A Word of Exhortation
What kind of document is the Epistle to the Hebrews? At first glance, it seems obvious: it’s an epistle, a letter of correspondence sent from one person to another. After all, the title "Epistle to the Hebrews" suggests exactly that. However, this title is based on church tradition rather than anything within the text itself. In fact, the document lacks many of the features typical of an epistle until its final chapter:
"Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things. I urge you the more earnestly to do this in order that I may be restored to you the sooner" (Hebrews 13:18-19).
"I appeal to you, brothers, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly. You should know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom I shall see you if he comes soon. Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. Grace be with all of you" (Hebrews 13:22-25).
Like Paul’s epistles, Hebrews ends with personal notes, references to colleagues, and greetings, suggesting that it is a letter. However, the author describes the document as a "word of exhortation" rather than simply an epistle.
The term "exhort" means to "incite by argument or advice" or "to make an urgent appeal." The Greek word used in this context is paraklesis, which can also mean "encouragement." For example, in Acts 13, the same word is used when the synagogue leaders asked for a "word of encouragement" after the reading of the Law and the Prophets:
"On the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent a message to them, saying, 'Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement (paraklesis) for the people, say it'" (Acts 13:14-15).
In the first-century synagogue, a Sabbath service typically included three key elements:
A reading from the Torah,
A complementary reading from the Prophets,
A teaching or d’rashah (exposition) based on the readings.
The Epistle to the Hebrews follows a similar pattern. It is less a personal letter and more akin to a d’rashah, or sermon, delivered in a first-century Messianic synagogue. This type of exhortation, focusing on biblical exposition, was meant to edify the community, much like rabbinic teachings found in collections such as the Midrash.
Therefore, rather than viewing Hebrews as a traditional epistle, it is best understood as a first-century Messianic Jewish homily or synagogue discourse. While it includes epistolary elements at the conclusion, the body of the text is clearly a form of teaching. It’s possible that this exhortation was delivered on a Sabbath and later sent to other communities for their instruction. Documents like Hebrews may have been circulated among early believers and read aloud in the assemblies of Yeshua’s followers. For this study, we will refer to the anonymous author simply as "the exhorter," reflecting the document’s intended purpose.
When: Before 70 CE
When was Hebrews written? When did the exhorter compose this teaching?
The earliest known quotation from Hebrews appears in Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians (also called 1 Clement), written around 95 CE, near the end of Emperor Domitian's reign. This gives us a terminus, indicating Hebrews was composed earlier than that.
Internal evidence strongly suggests that Hebrews was written while the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing, placing its composition before 70 CE. Whenever the exhorter discusses the Temple, priesthood, and sacrifices, he uses the present tense. For instance, in Hebrews 8:4-5, he writes, "There are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things."
Although Greek verb tenses in the New Testament are subject to academic debate, a straightforward reading of the present tense "they serve" implies that the Temple rituals were ongoing when the epistle was written. This indicates that Hebrews was likely composed before the Temple's destruction in 70 CE.
Furthermore, the epistle makes no mention of the Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–73 CE) or the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE—events that would seem relevant given its extensive discussion of the Temple ministry. If the exhorter had known about these significant events, it’s reasonable to assume he would have referenced them, but he does not, suggesting the letter was written in the mid-60s.
Additionally, the author does not reference Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome (64 CE), despite Hebrews being a letter meant to encourage believers facing persecution, particularly with its connection to Italy. This omission further supports the idea that Hebrews was likely written before 64 CE, possibly around 62 or 63 CE. Placing the epistle in the early 60s allows us to better reconstruct the historical context in which it was written.
Who: A Figure Like Clement
Who was the exhorter who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? We know that the author was not one of the original apostles or one of Jesus’ immediate disciples. He clarifies this in Hebrews 2:3, stating:
“This message was declared at first by the Master, and it was attested to us by those who heard.”
This implies that the exhorter was a second-generation disciple, someone who received the gospel from the apostles. Despite not being an apostle, the author speaks with a tone of authority and seems to transmit apostolic teachings, such as his statement about Yeshua:
“In the days of his flesh, [Yeshua] offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears” (Hebrews 5:7).
This sounds like an eyewitness report, possibly learned from one of the original disciples, like Peter. Whoever the exhorter was, he spoke with an authority that suggests he was a prominent and respected figure among the early believers.
The lack of a formal introduction leaves the author’s identity anonymous and open to speculation. Early church tradition sought to associate the epistle with Paul, and some manuscripts grouped Hebrews with Paul’s letters. However, the style and content differ significantly from Paul’s known writings. The Greek of Hebrews is more refined, and its theology does not align with Paul's, especially since it lacks any reference to Gentile inclusion—a central theme in Paul’s letters. Furthermore, Paul identified himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, while Hebrews is clearly addressed to a Jewish audience.
Still, it’s likely the exhorter was closely connected to Paul’s circle. The mention of Timothy’s release from prison and the expectation of his arrival suggests the author had a close relationship with him, placing the exhorter within Paul’s network, as Timothy was Paul’s key disciple.
The second-century church writer Origen offered an intriguing hypothesis about the authorship of Hebrews:
"If I were to state my own opinion, I would say that the thoughts are the apostle’s [Paul's], but the style and composition belong to one who remembered the apostle’s teachings and made short notes of what he said. But who really wrote the epistle, only God knows.” (Origen, Homilies on Hebrews, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.1-4)
Some early church traditions speculated that Luke or Clement of Rome could have been involved in writing Hebrews. Modern theories also suggest figures like Barnabas, Apollos, or even Priscilla, but none of these have strong historical backing.
Clement of Alexandria proposed that Luke translated the epistle from an original Hebrew or Aramaic text composed by Paul. However, this theory is unlikely, as the Greek of Hebrews does not match Luke’s style and shows no signs of being a translation from a Semitic language. Eusebius, the fourth-century bishop of Caesarea, mentioned Clement’s theory but also supported the idea that Clement of Rome might have been the exhorter.
There is early tradition linking Clement of Rome to both Peter and Paul. Paul refers to Clement as a fellow worker in Philippians 4:3, and tradition holds that Clement was a key disciple of Peter, much like Timothy was for Paul. Eusebius further noted that the writing style and thoughts in 1 Clement are similar to those found in Hebrews, suggesting a possible link between the two:
"Others claim that it was Clement himself [who wrote Hebrews]. This seems more probable because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar style, and the thoughts contained in both works are not very different."(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.38:2-3)
However, modern scholars often dismiss this theory, arguing that the theology in Hebrews contradicts Clement’s views in 1 Clement. For example, 1 Clement appears to affirm the ongoing role of the Temple and the Levitical system, while Hebrews has traditionally been understood to teach their cancellation.
Yet, if we read Hebrews from a post-supersessionist perspective, this objection disappears. Hebrews can be interpreted as affirming the Levitical system rather than replacing it, aligning more closely with Clement’s views. If this reading is adopted, Clement of Rome once again becomes a strong candidate for authorship, supported by both historical tradition and stylistic similarities.
Whether or not the exhorter was Clement, he was certainly someone like him—a second-generation disciple with nearly apostolic authority, well-connected in the Pauline circle, and familiar with believers in Italy, as indicated by the greeting: “Those who come from Italy send you greetings” (Hebrews 13:24).
To Whom: Greek-Speaking Messianic Jews
Who were the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews? It was clearly written to Jewish followers of Yeshua. The content of the epistle strongly indicates this, as it directly addresses Jewish disciples, in contrast to Paul’s epistles, which often focus on Gentile believers. The letter assumes its readers have a deep familiarity with Scripture, midrashic interpretation, and rabbinic argumentation. It is best understood as an exhortation directed toward a Messianic Jewish assembly or synagogue.
The intended audience was likely Greek-speaking Jews, not Aramaic-speaking Galileans like Yeshua's family or His early disciples. They were probably more like Hellenistic Jewish believers, such as Stephen or Philip the deacon. Some scholars suggest that the epistle was written to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish believers in Rome, citing Hebrews 13:24, which states, “Those who come from Italy send you greetings.” However, this is weak evidence for a Roman destination, as the phrase could also mean, "Those of Italy send you greetings," implying that the letter was written from, rather than to, Rome.
Several internal clues suggest that the letter was more likely intended for Jews in Judea, rather than Rome. The extensive discussion of the Temple, priesthood, and sacrifices would have been of little relevance to Roman Jews, who had no direct access to the Temple. Many of them may never have visited Jerusalem at all. The concern over sacrificial foods, as seen in Hebrews 13:9-10, points to an audience familiar with Temple practices:
“It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.”
This passage, referencing sacrificial foods and sacred portions available only at the Temple in Jerusalem, would resonate most with disciples who had access to these privileges—likely those living in or around the holy city.
Further evidence points to a Judean audience in the reference to "the city" in Hebrews 13:12-14, which speaks of Yeshua suffering outside the gates of Jerusalem and calls on believers to seek the city to come. According to Acts, there was a sizable Greek-speaking Jewish community in Jerusalem, large enough for the apostles to appoint seven Greek-speaking deacons to manage their needs (Acts 6:1-6). Many of these Greek-speaking Jews attended the synagogue of the Freedmen, which served Jews from Greek-speaking regions (Acts 6:9).
For this study, we will consider the possibility that the exhorter was addressing Greek-speaking Jewish disciples of Yeshua who had access to the Jerusalem Temple. They could have been Jews living in Judea, or Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora who made regular pilgrimages to the Temple. Either way, the epistle was clearly written to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish believers, likely part of a Messianic synagogue, who were deeply concerned with maintaining their connection to the Temple and its services.
Why: Exclusion from the Temple
What prompted the writing of Hebrews? The exhorter provides several clues to the purpose of the epistle: “Let us hold fast our confidence”; “let us hold fast our confession”; “hold fast to the hope set before us”; “let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.” He also warns: “Do not harden your hearts”; “do not throw away your confidence”; “do not neglect assembling together”; “do not refuse him who is speaking”; “do not be led astray; do not be deceived.” Clearly, the epistle addresses the risk of apostasy, which means "falling away."
The exhorter was urging Jewish disciples of Yeshua not to abandon their faith. Some external or internal pressures had made apostasy a real danger. The letter responds to this by highlighting the unmatched greatness of the Messiah's priesthood and its role in securing eternal life. The exhortation urges Jewish believers to remain committed to Yeshua, reinforcing the importance of their steadfastness.
This message remains just as relevant for modern disciples. Today, there is an increasing tendency for Yeshua’s followers to fall away, drawn by the pull of secularism. Once-devout believers can easily slip into the post-Christian values of contemporary culture, influenced by agnosticism and self-indulgence. For us, the exhortation in Hebrews serves as a vital warning, reminding us to guard against the secular spirit of our age and remain firm in our commitment to the Master.
Conclusion
In closing, our introduction study of Hebrews today has shown us that this epistle, while often interpreted through the lens of replacement theology, presents a more nuanced view when seen from a Messianic Jewish perspective. Rather than arguing for the obsolescence of the Torah and the Levitical system, it distinguishes between the priesthoods and covenants of this world and the World to Come. As we continue to study Hebrews, let us remain mindful of its deep roots in Jewish tradition and allow that understanding to shape how we engage with its teachings. May we be encouraged to hold fast to our faith in Yeshua while honoring the timeless covenant God made with Israel.
References
This lesson was curated and taken from teachings by Daniel Lancaster, author of the book The Holy Epistle to the Hebrews: Sermons on a Messianic Jewish Approach, Volume 1.