Gareth Lee Cockerill. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Pp. xlix + 742.
Gary Cockerill, long-time
professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Wesley Biblical Seminary in
Jackson, MS, is one of the most prolific writers on the book of Hebrews. In addition to his doctoral dissertation, he
has written a couple of popular commentaries and numerous articles and essays
on Hebrews. His commentary for the
NICNT, the “replacement” volume for F. F. Bruce’s commentary, represents the
culmination of a career dedicated to the study of this important book.
The introduction is
divided into two main sections: 1) Hebrews in its environment—that is,
background issues regarding its composition; and 2) The Message of
Hebrews. In the first part of the introduction
Cockerill begins by briefly surveying the question of authorship and canonicity
in the early church (pp. 3–6). He then
reviews some of the major candidates for authorship: Paul, Clement of Rome,
Luke, Apollos (pp. 6–10). He seems to
favor Apollos as the best candidate for authorship but acknowledges that
ultimately authorship cannot be determined.
Cockerill next turns to
the literary features of Hebrews, highlighting its oral and rhetorical features
(p. 11). He contends that the debate to
place Hebrews in the epideictic or deliberative category is misplaced (p.
12). Instead, Hebrews is best classified
as a homily or sermon that was typified in the synagogue and early Christian worship
(p. 13–15). Its sermonic character is
evident by its interweaving of exposition and exhortation.
Cockerill next considers
the recipients of the book. Hebrews was
written to a specific congregation, most likely a house church that was part of
a larger community (p. 16). The
recipients had suffered from lassitude, neglect, and spiritual immaturity that
could lead to the danger of apostasy (p. 16).
But they also experienced external pressures of marginalization and
persecution (pp. 16–17). He briefly
discusses the role of honor/shame and patron/client relationships in the first
century world (pp. 17–18). Regarding the
ethnicity of the recipients, he points out that Hebrews makes no distinction between
Jews and Gentiles. According to
Cockerill, Jewish Christian “describes both Jews and Gentiles who give
allegiance to Christ while insisting on or feeling the need of various Jewish
associations or practices” (p. 20). He
further notes that Hebrews has no direct polemic against Judaism. Christ is not contrasted with the old covenant
but he stands in continuity with it by fulfilling it (p. 21). Moreover, Hebrews envisions one people of
God; those under the new covenant stand in continuity with those under the old
covenant in the salvation history of God, but now that the new covenant has
come through Christ, the author of Hebrews urges his audience to break with
those who still insist on living according to the old covenant order (p. 21). Cockerill thus rejects the notion that
Hebrews is supersessionistic (pp. 22–23).
Turning to the author’s
worldview, Cockerill notes that Hebrews is highly dependent on the Christian
tradition and evinces many commonalities with other NT writings. Its development of Christ’s high priesthood,
however, is one of the unique contributions that Hebrews makes (p. 24). Hebrews also shares a similar heavenly and futuristic
eschatology that is characteristic of apocalyptic writings (pp. 25–26), but it also
contains some differences “due to the pastor’s purpose and to his conviction
that Christ fulfilled the OT” (p. 27).
Despite the affinities between Hebrews and Neo-Platonism, Cockerill highlights
significant differences between the two (pp. 28–34).
When considering the date
of composition, Cockerill groups scholarly proposals into three major
groupings: “First, there are those who argue that Hebrews was written to a
Gentile audience late in the first century with little or no concern for the
destruction of Jerusalem. Second, some
recognized Hebrews’ affinity with Judaism but date its composition shortly
after Jerusalem’s fall in A.D. 70. A
third group contends for the traditional position that Hebrews was written to a
largely Jewish-Christian audience before the fall of Jerusalem” (p. 35). After weighing the evidence, Cockerill favors
the third option of a pre-70 date (p. 40).
In the second half of the
introduction, Cockerill begins by tracing Hebrews’ use of the OT. He examines in turn Hebrews’ use of the
Psalms, the Pentateuch, and the historical books and then gives special
attention to three passages that use the OT: 3:7–4:11; 7:1–10; 12:18–24 (pp.
41–52). For Cockerill, Hebrews’ use of
the OT reveals a typological relationship between the old order and Christ. The old covenant is not invalidated, but it
anticipates its final fulfillment in Christ.
Hebrews’ drawing upon OT examples of faithfulness/unfaithfulness in
order to encourage obedience in his audience also demonstrates the continuity
of the people of God. He remarks, for
example, that the faithful of Hebrews 11 are not types but examples to be
followed (pp. 52–54). I found Cockerill’s
discussion of the relationship of the old covenant to the new to be
particularly helpful. He concludes his
discussion of Hebrews’ use of the OT by noting parallels between Hebrews and
contemporary practice, but he also highlights how the author’s methods
distinguish him from rabbinic literature (pp. 54–57).
In the remainder of the
introduction Cockerill delineates the “sermon’s rhetorically effective
structure.” He advocates a tri-partite
structure (1:1–4:13; 4:14–10:18; 10:19–12:29) which is chiastically arranged
(pp. 60–77). Section 1:1–2:18 correlates
with 12:4–29 around the theme of God speaking in his Son. Section 3:1–4:13, which urges the avoidance
of the example of the unfaithful wilderness generation, correlates with
10:19–12:3, which urges following the example of the faithful people of God
from Israel’s history. The central
section, 4:14–10:18, focuses on the Son’s all-sufficient high priesthood. Unfortunately, the outline provided on page
69 in the commentary seems convoluted and will probably have to be corrected in
later editions. Page 614 provides an
expanded outline of the chiastic structure that Cockerill proposes.
The basic message of
Hebrews is this: God has spoken in his Son.
The people of God are called to heed the message of God and avoid the
example of the unfaithful wilderness generation, but instead follow the example
of the faithful people of God from Israel’s history in light of the work that
Christ has accomplished in inaugurating the new covenant.
The commentary proper
follows the usual format of the New International Commentaries. Each text is divided into sections. For each section there is the author’s
original translation, a general introduction to the section, and a
verse-by-verse commentary. In places
Cockerill’s translation is a little wooden, but I think he is attempting to
convey the Greek as literally as possible.
He does not analyze the Greek text in the same depth that one might find
in William Lane’s or Paul Ellingworth’s commentaries, but he does frequently deal
with the more technical linguistic matters in the footnotes (as per NICNT
format). Nor does Cockerill always lay
out the interpretive options for crucial texts as clearly as, for example,
Craig Koester does in his commentary.
The brilliance of Cockerill’s commentary is showing the flow of Hebrews’
argument and how all of the pieces relate to each other. A couple of examples from the commentary will
suffice:
In section 5:11–6:20,
Cockerill demonstrates how the author of Hebrews uses different appeals to
emotion:
5:11–6:3 – shame
6:4–8 – fear
6:9–12 – comfort
6:13–20 – assurance
The two negative emotions
of shame and fear prepare for the two positive emotions of comfort and
assurance. Moreover, this section
correlates with the later hortatory section of 10:19–12:3:
5:11–6:3 ≈ 10:19–25 – description of hearer’s spiritual
condition
6:4–8 ≈ 10:26–31 – warning against apostasy
6:9–12 ≈ 10:32–39 –
expression of confidence
6:13–20 ≈ 11:1–12:3 – examples to emulate (pp. 252–253, 462)
For section 8:1–10:18, a
section I have found difficult to outline, Cockerill describes it as “a
symphony in three movements (8:1–13; 9:1–22; 9:23–10:18) developing these three
themes—sanctuary, sacrifice, and covenant” (p. 346). He outlines the section as follows:
Sanctuary (8:1–2; 9:1–10; 9:23–24)
Sacrifice (8:3–6; 9:11–15; 9:25–10:14)
Covenant (8:7–13; 9:16–22; 10:15–18)
While this structural
proposal is not perfect (for example, Hebrews mentions sanctuary also in 8:5
and 9:11), it works quite well.
Cockerill is also usually
quite sound in the exegetical judgments that he makes throughout his
commentary. It might be instructive to
give examples of his exegetical decisions regarding a number of interpretive
cruxes in Hebrews:
•1:6 refers to the
exaltation of Christ rather than his incarnation or second coming (p. 104).
•In 2:6–8a he adopts the
Christological interpretation of Ps 8 rather than the anthropological one (pp.
127–29).
•In 2:9 he opts for the
textual variant “by the grace of God” rather than “without God” (p. 135).
•In 2:11 “from one” most
naturally refers to God, and not to Abraham or Adam or some other option (pp.
140–41).
•The wilderness wandering
is not the theme of chapters 3–4, but rather the rebellion of the wilderness
generation at Kadesh-Barnea in Num 14 (pp. 155–56).
•In 3:14 μετοχοι του Χριστου means “participants in Christ”
rather than “partners with Christ” (p. 188).
•In chapters 3 & 4,
the “rest” is both local and future: “It is the place where God’s people will
join him in his ‘rest’ penultimately at death and finally at the Judgment” (p.
199). Its reality is a “place” and not
merely a “state” (p. 200).
•In 5:7, the phrase εκ θανατου means “out of death” and
not merely “from death” (p. 243). The
expression απο της ευλαβειας means
“because of his godly fear” and not “from fear” (p. 246).
•In 6:1 the expression τον λογον της αρχης του Χριστου means “the
elementary Christian message.” The
phrase “of Christ” is a genitive of description and not an objective or
subjective genitive (p. 261).
•6:4–6 expresses the real
possibility of genuine Christians falling into apostasy (pp. 268–277).
•In chapter 7, the author
does not consider Melchizedek to be an angelic or heavenly being (pp. 303–6).
•In 7:16 the “indestructible
life” is inherent to Christ’s eternality and does not refer to something he
obtains after his resurrection or exaltation (pp. 323–24).
•In 7:26, the expression “separated
from sinners” refers to a local separation via the exaltation, and not to a
moral separation (p. 341).
•In 8:2, the “sanctuary
and the true tent” refer to the same reality; the expression does not refer to
the two-part sanctuary in heaven (pp. 354-357).
•In 9:14, the expression δια πνευματος αιωνιου refers
to the Holy Spirit and not to Christ’s divine nature (pp. 397–98).
•In 9:16–17 διαθηκη should be translated “covenant”
and not “testament.” He adopts Hahn’s contention that Hebrews refers to what
must be done when a covenant is broken (pp. 404–7).
•In 10:20, for δια του καταπετασματος, τουτ’ εστιν της σαρκος αυτου, “through the veil” should be taken locatively. A second δια should be supplied for “flesh” and taken instrumentally (pp.
470–71).
•In 12:2, the expression αντι της προκειμενης should be translated “for
sake of the joy that was set before him” rather than “instead of the joy that
was at hand” (p. 609).
•In 12:23, “assembly of
the firstborn” refers to all the faithful people of God, and does not refer to
angels, nor does it refer just to those who lived before Christ, nor is it
limited only to those who are living now on earth (pp. 654–655).
•In 13:10, “altar” refers
to the sacrifice of Christ, in contrast with the foods & false teachings of
verse 9 that are spiritually unprofitable.
The altar is not located in the heavenly sanctuary, nor does it refer to
the Eucharist (pp. 696–97).
Gary Cockerill wrote his
commentary for the benefit of the church.
He was a missionary to Sierra Leone for 9 years and has been a seminary
professor for 28 years. He writes not
just as an academic but someone with genuine pastoral concern. For him, the writing of this commentary was
not just an academic exercise, but one that has enriched him spiritually. I can personally attest that his Christian
faith is genuine. I heartily recommend
Cockerill’s commentary and believe it ranks among the top commentaries written on
the book of Hebrews.
No comments:
Post a Comment