In the book of Hebrews, the writer is never identified. That fact is worthy of some consideration as one studies the book. Though a student of the book may believe it likely that a particular person was the writer, the fact is that we cannot be sure who wrote it since that information is not revealed in Scripture. In the final analysis, the writer's identity does not make any difference. Why? Because the Hebrew writer proves every point he makes by an appeal to Old Testament passages. Since the original readers were from a Jewish background and were tempted to return to Judaism, the Hebrew writer used the Old Testament, a revelation they accepted without question, to prove that the way to God's ultimate blessing is found in and through Christ. Hence, the Hebrew writer did not need to be named.
Now, let us suppose that I establish a rule from this case to say that we should not identify any teachers of truth because the Hebrew writer was not named. After all, I could argue that the truth teacher's identity does not really matter. I might say that the only thing that really matters is the content of the teaching, not the identity of the teacher. Let us suppose that I carry my idea yet further and charge those identifying teachers of truth with promoting a party spirit if they name true teachers -- or maybe only of using extremely poor judgment.
No doubt, if I started to establish such a rule, brethren could rightly remind me of several facts I had left out in establishing my human law. For instance, brethren might call my attention to the fact that Paul is named as the teacher in Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, and several other books. I might also be referred to the fact that Peter is named as the writer of his two epistles and others are either named or so clearly identified that we can be absolutely certain of their identity. What effect would these facts have on my attempt to justify my rule about not identifying a teacher? Clearly, it would show my attempt to impose such a rule as being at variance from Scripture.
But let us suppose again that I still want to maintain my established rule, so I respond that teachers were only identified by apostles or inspired sources. This could lead me to conclude that, since we have no apostles today and no current writing is inspired, we should not identify present day teachers. I might begin to question whether those identifying preachers and teachers by name are thinking of men over God or drawing attention away from the matters of real importance. I could even go so far as to claim that those naming teachers are causing people to divide into classes and decide which meetings to attend based upon men. I could then appeal once more for the acceptance of my rule as the solution to these ills.
Since the Bible does not require identifying teachers of truth, some might conclude that the best course would be to submit to my new rule. After all, it could be argued, that would allow for peace. If I persuade several brethren to join in my effort and we press our point while questioning why others would insist on identifying teachers though such was not always essential, we might be successful in establishing that rule.
What should brethren say in response to my effort to impose such a rule? Is acquiescence the best way to deal with such efforts? No, it will merely cause other problems in the long-run. If first century brethren named teachers without promoting division and a party spirit then, the same may be done today. Naming the teachers of truth is not the cause of division and a party spirit. The fact remains that the Bible identifies some teachers of truth. To forbid what the word of God allows is to replace divine will with human will.
Efforts to limit naming teachers to only apostles or inspired men might seem innocent at first, but think about that principle for a moment. For that point to have any validity, it suggests that I am forbidden from following the example of the apostles or other inspired men. That is exactly opposite of the truth! Approved apostolic examples teach us the content and method of teaching and action which is authorized by God (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil. 4:9; etc.). In matters other than the miraculous revelation and confirmation, we are to follow their example -- not forbid it! Whether I realized it or not, my effort to forbid naming teachers of truth would have the effect of undercutting how authority is established. If brethren placated my efforts, the consistent application of that principle would have devastating effects. They should oppose my attempts to establish the rule as they continue to name teachers of truth whenever they recognize a benefit to truth in so doing or when they see the need to do so for any number of reasons.
When we search the Scripture for our pattern, the answer becomes obvious. Paul commanded that "the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-26). A few verses earlier, he identified Hymenaeus and Philetus as ungodly men who had erred from the truth and whose doctrine ate as a cancer or gangrene (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Later, he named Alexander the coppersmith as one who "did me much evil" (2 Tim. 4:14). There is no conflict between any of these verses if we understand that public rebuke of sin and error is not necessarily unloving or unkind. It may be done in plain and clear language without a failure in gentleness or compassion. The same writer said that he resisted Peter to the face and rebuked him before all in the same letter wherein he commanded proper attitudes and condemned bad attitudes (Gal. 2:11-14 cf. 5:13-15, 18-25). Paul repeatedly named those in sin and error both individually and collectively (Acts 13:8-12; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 4:10; Titus 1:9-14).
Other approved examples establish the same pattern. The "apostle of love" is the same one who named and condemned Diotrephes in his public writing (3 John 9). It was by John's writing that specific sins of specific individuals and groups in specific churches were made known to all (Rev. 2 & 3). Jesus was our perfect example of love and compassion. Did He fail in those qualities when He specifically condemned Herod as a "fox," named the Pharisees as hypocrites and recalled the guilt of David (Luke 13:32; Matt. 23; 12:3-4)? No, because His actions were perfectly consistent with true love and compassion.
The inspired admonition urges, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them" (Rom. 16:17). How can we "mark" and "turn away from" one we cannot identify? In such cases, naming the offender is essential. We must go back to the Scripture, not present worldly concepts or "political correctness," to define true love in nature and action.