Polumeros kai Polutropos

Hebrews Carnival January 2012

2012-01-31T23:59:00.000-06:00

The new year has started off with considerable blog activity on the book of Hebrews:

Leon Mauldin illustrates the racing metaphor of Hebrews 12:1 with a picture of the stadium at Aphrodisias.

David Stark offers an interpretation of Melchizedek's Bread and Wine.

Collin Hansen interviews Peter O'Brien about the Warning Passages. Scot McKnight offers a Brief Response.

William Varner explores the relationship between Hebrews, Angels, and Us. He also highlights a couple of rhetorical devices that reveal the main message of Hebrews (First; Second). He also shares about the time he saw the oldest copy of the letter To Hebrews, the Chester Beatty Papyrus, in Dublin. He provides a picture of the first page of P46. He also reiterates his argument that Jude is the author of Hebrews. He then explores the question of the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews.

Justin Mihoc summarizes a paper by Mark Elliott entitled, "The Promise and Threat of Reception, with Reference to Patristic Interpretation of Texts in Hebrews and Ephesians."

Phillip Long sets forth The Purpose of Hebrews. He also examines the tradition about Paul as The Author of Hebrews. He then identifies four things about what we can know about the author. He also tries to give an explanation as to why the author chose to remain anonymous. He then discusses Jesus and the Angels in Hebrews 1, Jesus and Moses in Hebrews 3, An Exhortation to Righteousness in Hebrews 3:12-19, Jesus, the Great High Priesthood (Part 1) in Hebrews 4:14-16 and 5:1-10 (Part 2), and Who Melchizedek Was in Hebrews 7:1-3. He also has a two-part post on Hebrews 6:4-12 (Part 1; Part 2).

Some Book News

2012-01-20T23:13:00.000-06:00

Four items of interest pertaining to books on Hebrews came up in the blogs today:

Mike Kibbe provides a brief review on David Moffitt's new book, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in Hebrews (he will have a more extensive review in an upcoming issue of Themelios). He raises questions about the implications of Moffitt's thesis on atonement theology in the rest of the NT. Whether or not Moffitt's book changes views on the atonement in the rest of the NT, it could change the discussion on Hebrews for years to come. Put simply, if Moffitt is right, then he has solved the long–standing problem in Hebrews' scholarship of when Jesus became high priest.

The T & T Clark blog announces that next month will see the publication of Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews. Here is the description of the book:

"Christology and Hermeneutics discusses the history of the interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Contributors assess the study and interpretation of Hebrews across the last two millennia. Beginning with the Patristic period, the book goes on to examine the responses of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, as well as more recent figures such as Karl Barth and contemporary global interpreters.

The premise behind the work is to move study of Hebrews away from the perennial arguments about its authorship and provenance and to instead engage with it from a theological perspective, focusing upon the text's reception history. Consequently the issue of the Christological message in Hebrews is at the forefront and is considered both in terms of the interpreter's context and historical setting. At the end of the book the investigations are summarised and responded to by leading scholar Harold Attridge, providing a fitting conclusion to a radical academic project."

Matthew Miller for the Christianbook.com blog informs us that Eerdmans is planning to discontinue the publication of F. F. Bruce's commentary The Epistle to the Hebrews in the NICNT series and replace it this Spring with the forthcoming commentary of the same name by Gary Cockerill.

Finally, Matthew Montonini announces that Wipf and Stock have just released a festschrift for I. Howard Marshall entitled, New Testament Theology in Light of the Church's Mission. Here is the description of the book:

"This book offers important new case studies in understanding the theology and praxis of mission in the New Testament and in reading the New Testament for mission. Significant scholars from around the world explore aspects of the missional theology of the Gospels, Acts, Paul, Hebrews, and Revelation. The essays are offered as a fitting tribute to I. Howard Marshall—one of the most outstanding evangelical New Testament scholars of his generation."

Of interest for this blog is the chapter on Hebrews entitled, "Hebrews and the Mission of the Earliest Church" by Jon Laansma.

New Resources Added

2012-01-04T21:39:00.000-06:00

In addition to the resources mentioned in the last four posts, I have just added the following resources:

Dissertations/Theses:

Hentschel, Christoph. “Lebendiges Gotteswort: Die Rezeption des Hebräerbriefs im Ersten Clemensbrief und im Hirten des Hermas.” Ph.D. diss., Ludwig-Maximilians University, 2008.

Wilson, Andrew J. "Warnings within the Argument of Hebrews." M.A. thesis, Brunel University, 2005.

Articles:

Haraguchi, Takaaki. “Hebrews 1–2 in the Light of Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4QShirShabb; 11QShirShabb; MasShirShabb).” Theological Forum 46 (2006): 81–98.

Oestreich, Bernhard. “Volk Gottes im Hebräerbrief.” Spes Christiana 21 (2010): 25–42.

Oestreich, Bernhard. “Worttheologie und Schriftauslegung im Hebräerbrief.” Spes Christiana 7–8 (1996–1997): 70–92.

Wider, David. “Christliche Identität im Hebräerbrief: Beobachtungen zum Aufbau der Paränese.” Theological Studies 50 (2003): 157-70.

Woude, A. S. van der. “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI.” Pages 354–73 in hk: 1940–1965.Oudtestamentische Studiën: Names het oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap inNederland 14. Leiden: Brill, 1965.

Ruth Hoppin Article Available Online

2012-01-04T18:20:00.001-06:00

Ruth Hoppin's article is now available online:

Hoppin, Ruth. "Priscilla and Plausibility: Responding to Questions about Priscilla as Author of Hebrews." Priscilla Papers 25.2 (Spring 2011): 26-28.

Matthew Easter Dissertation

2012-01-04T17:48:00.001-06:00

Matt Easter informed me that he has recently completed his dissertation and it is available online:

Matthew Charles Easter. "'Let Us Go to Him': The Story of Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews." Ph.D. diss., University of Otago (Dunedin, New Zealand), 2011.

Thanks Matt!

Douglas Moo Sermons

2012-01-03T19:58:00.000-06:00

In March 2008 Douglas Moo preached a five-part sermon series on Hebrews entitled, "Call to Faith and Endurance" for the Denver Sound Church in Lakeland, CO.

HT: Matthew Montonini (again!)

Gary Cockerill Lectures

2012-01-02T22:17:00.000-06:00

Gary Cockerill gave the Chamberlain Holiness Lectures at Wesley Biblical Seminary in October 2011. Videos and mp3 files of the lectures can be found as follows:

#1 Such a Great Salvation (mp3 download)

#2 For We Have Such a High Priest (mp3 download)

#3 Pioneer and Perfecter of the Faith (mp3 download)

#4 Gratitude and Godly Fear (mp3 download)

The four lectures can also be found at the WBS Chapels iTunes webpage. They give an overview of the book of Hebrews.

HT: Matthew Montonini

Hebrews Carnival December 2011

2011-12-31T23:59:00.000-06:00

Ken Schenck offers a Targum of Hebrews 13:9-16. He also gives a meditation on Hebrews 11 for the second Sunday of Advent, and an excerpt on Hebrews and the Temple. Ken also give a preview of an article he wrote in which he argues that "Christ's death was an atonement for all the sins of the Jews in the past who ever lived and were in right relationship with God."

Scott McKnight is doing a series on how he changed his mind about Calvinism based on the warning passages in Hebrews. Parts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Derek Ouellette provides a summary of McKnight's argument.

Rod Decker offers an interpretation of the temporal reference in Hebrews 2:5.

David M. Allen does a guest book review on Chris Tilling's blog on David Moffitt's new book, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

New Article in Affirmation & Critique

2011-12-16T12:18:00.001-06:00

I just stumbled across this new article in the journal Affirmation & Critique. The website only gives a preview of the first page:

Pester, John. "The Scope, Content, Judgment, and Goal of the Gospel in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Affirmation & Critique 16.2 (Fall 2011): 49ff. [Links directly to a PDF]

New Articles in Tyndale Bulletin & Restoration Quarterly

2011-12-12T18:36:00.001-06:00

The most recent issue of the Tyndale Bulletin has a new article on Hebrews:

Andrew J. Wilson
Hebrews 3:6b and 3:14 Revisited
Hebrews 3:6b and 3:14 have been central to Reformed interpretations of the warnings in Hebrews for several centuries. Today, however, there is something of an impasse in scholarship: on one side, there are those who see these verses as an interpretive key to the letter, and thus understand the warnings to refer to spurious or false believers; on the other, there are those who argue that since Hebrews warns real believers away from real apostasy, these two verses cannot mean what, at a grammatical level, they appear to mean. In this paper, I appraise the scholarly discussion so far, identify three key issues relating to grammar and context, and then propose a way through the impasse that has not been considered in modern scholarship.

I should also draw attention to the new article by James Thompson in the Restoration Quarterly (see previous post).

2011 Articles on Hebrews (Updated)

2011-12-10T13:00:00.000-06:00

Here are the articles on Hebrews that have appeared in 2011:

Allen, David L. "The Authorship of Hebrews: Historical Survey of the Lukan Theory." Criswell Theological Review ns 8.2 (2011): 3-18.

Bénétreau, Samuel . "L'espérance chrétienne selon l'épître aux Hébreux : une spécificité?" Biblica 92 (2011): 97-111.

Beyer, Andrea, and Delia Klingler. "Ps 95 und die Ruhe in Hebr 3-4." Protokolle zur Bibel 20 (2011): 1-26.

Compton, Jared. "The Origin of sōma in Heb 10:5: Another Look at a Recent Proposal." Trinity Journal 32 (2011): 19-29.

Dewey, Joanna. "Sacrifice No More." Biblical Theology Bulletin 41 (2011): 68-75.

Dochhorn, Jan. "Eine Konjektur zu Hebr 3,16." Biblische Zeitschrift 55 (2011): 115-121.

Doré, Joseph. "Secundum ordinem Melchisedech : le sacerdoce du Christ en He 7,11-28." Revue des sciences religieuses 85 (2011): 1-26.

Ernst, Michael. "Eucharistie im Hebräerbrief?" Protokolle zur Bibel 20 (2011): 51-65.

Gelardini, Gabriella. "Melchisedeks (Opfer-)Gabe: der Priesterkönig im Alten Testament, Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament." Bibel und Kirche 66 (2011): 40-44.

Gruber, Christian J. "Neues zur Einordnung von Hebr 13,20-21 hinsichtlich der Gattung und der Funktion." Protokolle zur Bibel 20 (2011): 67-79.

Holsteen, Nathaniel D. "The Trinity in the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca sacra 168 (2011): 334-346.

Hoppin, Ruth. "Priscilla and Plausibility: Responding to Questions about Priscilla as Author of Hebrews." Priscilla Papers 25.2 (Spring 2011): 26-28.

Levin, Christoph. "Lebenszeugnis für Christus : Predigt über Hebräer 13,5b-15 am 18. Januar 2010 in der Erlöserkirche in München-Schwabing im Gedenkgottesdienst für Erzbischof Prof. D. Georg Kretschmar." Lutherische Kirche in der Welt 58 (2011): 69-73.

Mackie, Scott D. "Ancient Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews' Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations." New Testament Studies 58 (2011): 88-104.

Mackie, Scott D. "Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011): 77-117.

Martin, Michael W., and Jason A. Whitlark. "The Encomiastic Topics of Syncrisis as the Key to the Structure and Argument of Hebrews." New Testament Studies 57 (2011): 415-439.

Oropeza, B. J. "The Warning Passages in Hebrews: Revised Theologies and New Methods of Interpretation." Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2011): 81–100.

Pester, John. "The Scope, Content, Judgment, and Goal of the Gospel in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Affirmation & Critique 16.2 (Fall 2011): 49ff.

Richir, David. "Le repos du Roi : l'épître aux Hébreux à la lumière du royaume." Théologie évangélique 10 (2011): 133-157.

Spellman, Ched E. "When Hope Screams: Learning How to Suffer as Sons from the Book of Hebrews." Southwestern Journal of theology 53 (2011): 112-134.

Thompson, James W. "Insider Ethics for Outsiders: Ethics for Aliens in Hebrews." Restoration Quarterly 53 (2011): 207-19.

Thompson, James W. "The New Is Better: A Neglected Aspect of the Hermeneutics of Hebrews." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011): 547-561.

Ueberschaer, Frank. "Mit gutem Glauben und vorbildlicher Weisheit : zwei Ahnentafeln im Vergleich (Sir 44f. und Hebr 11)." Protokolle zur Bibel 20 (2011): 27-50.

Wilson, Andrew J. "Hebrews 3:6B and 3:14 Revisited." Tyndale Bulletin 62.2 (2011): 247-67.

This listing was compiled with the help of a online search engine that I have recently discovered: The Index Theologicus of the University of Tübingen.

New Mackie Article on Hebrews

2011-12-05T17:04:00.001-06:00

Scott Mackie informed me that he has a new article out on Hebrews:

Mackie, Scott D. "Ancient Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews' Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations." New Testament Studies 58 (2011): 88-104.

Hebrews Carnival November 2011

2011-11-30T23:59:00.000-06:00

William Varner proposes that Jude is the author of Hebrews.

Frederik Mulder spotlights David Moffitt's new dissertation on Hebrews, which argues that Jesus' resurrection is central to the author's argument, while Matthew Montonini draws attention to Gary Cockerill's forthcoming commentary in the NICNT series. Although these authors take different perspectives on what is going on in Hebrews, both will be excellent works that should shape the discussion on Hebrews for years to come.

Ken Schenck reflects on the meaning of "resting from his works" in Hebrews 4:10. Ken also notes that the author of Hebrews does use allegory, despite the fact that many scholars are adverse to this idea. Ken also offers excerpts on Hebrews 13:9-14 and on the Date of Hebrews.

Peter Leithart offers a Eucharistic meditation on Hebrews 12:22-23.

New Hoppin Article on the Authorship of Hebrews

2011-11-29T17:05:00.001-06:00

Ruth Hoppin has informed me that the following article has been published:

"Priscilla and Plausibility: Responding to Questions about Priscilla as
Author of Hebrews." Priscilla Papers 25.2 (Spring 2011): 26-28.

She says, "It deals in part with Heb. 11:32!"

Jordi Cevera Articles (Update)

2011-11-26T11:05:00.001-06:00

Last year about this time I mentioned that I met Jordi Cevera, a professor with the Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya in Barcelona, at SBL. I had discovered some of his articles online. Jordi has just sent me a listing of all his articles on Hebrews. I list here only those that are fully accessible online. Some of his other articles are also available through such sites as Google Books, but these are only partial previews.

Cervera i Valls, Jordi. "Una aliança millor, un poble millor?" Revista Catalana de Teologia 23.1 (2004): 19-33.

Cervera i Valls, Jordi. "Ancient Targumic Tradition in Heb 8:2." Revista Catalana de Teologia 34.2 (2010), 509-523.

Cervera i Valls, Jordi. "Hebreus, una exhortació a perseverar." Revista Catalana de Teologia 23.3 (1998): 299-328.

Cervera i Valls, Jordi. "Jesús, gran sacerdot i víctima, a Hebreus. Una teologia judeocristiana de la mediació i de l’expiació." Revista Catalana de Teologia 34.2 (2009): 477-502. [Article is found here also]

Oropeza on the Warning Passages in Hebrews

2011-11-23T16:37:00.001-06:00

A new article has appeared in Currents in Biblical Research:

B. J. Oropeza, "The Warning Passages in Hebrews: Revised Theologies and New Methods of Interpretation." Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2011): 81–100.

Abstract:

"The interpretation of the warning passages in Hebrews has long been disputed, especially 6.4-6. Discussions on the issue over the last several decades frequently remain in dialogue with the theologies of Calvinist-Reformed and Arminian traditions, and intrigue about the passages often centers on whether or not the recipients of the message are ‘genuine’ believers and able to abandon their salvation because of apostasy. Recent methods of interpretation have opened up new ways of looking at the warnings and bring them into sharper relief. Such methods include historical-critical, socio-rhetorical, social-scientific, intertextual, and oral-critical methods. This article addresses studies of the warnings in Hebrews relevant to such approaches, and it also surveys recent interpretations that integrate Calvinist or Arminian viewpoints."

New Dissertations Added

2011-11-11T23:48:00.001-06:00

The following dissertations have been added:

Fernandes, Celso Eronides. “A liturgia de Hebreus: Uma análise de como as mudanças sociais influenciam as formas de culto.” M.A. thesis, Universidade Metodista de São Paulo, 2006.

Jang, Jae Young. "Communicative Preaching: A Homiletical Study in the Light of Hebrews." Ph.D. diss., North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

Jong, Adam de. “The Writer of Hebrews as a Reader of Hebrew: An Inquiry into the Linguistic and Hermeneutical Use of the Old Testament Quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” M.Th. thesis, University of Glasgow, 2011.

Laughton, Lance Craig. “The Hermeneutic of the Author of Hebrews as Manifest in the Introductory Formulae and Its Implication for Modern Hermeneutics.” M.A. thesis, University of Pretoria, 2005.

Mvunabandi, Shadrack. “The Communicative Power of Blood Sacrifices: A Predominantly SouthAfrican Perspective with Special Reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 2008.

Nel, Pieter. “Die rol van Psalm 110 in Hebreërs.” M.A. thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2005.

Van der Walt, Sarel Petrus. “‘Ons weet omdat ons glo!’: 'neksegeties-openbaringshistoriese studie vanuit Hebreërs 10:38-11:3 toegepas opdie problematiek van die verhouding tussen geloof en kennis.” Ph.D. diss., North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2005.

Hebrews Group at SBL Annual Meeting

2011-11-08T21:12:00.000-06:00

I received the following announcement from Gabriella Gelardini today:

Dear participants of past Hebrews Group sessions

As the annual meeting is approaching quickly, we would like to warmly invite you to the two sessions that the Hebrews Group sponsors or co-sponsor this year (see the program in detail below). We are particularly proud about the triple-joint session, in which we aim to introduce new methodologies to Hebrews scholarship. Furthermore we were able to interest Daniel Boyarin to read Hebrews with us. And finally, we have scheduled a business meeting particularly designed to get into conversation with you about the future of the Hebrews Group at SBL. All papers and responses should be available through our website after the meeting (<http://www.hebrews.unibas.ch/Program2011.html>).

Hope to see you in San Francisco,
Gabriella Gelardini
Co-chair Hebrews Group, SBL AM

Hebrews at the SBL Annual Meeting

2011-11-08T21:07:00.001-06:00

S19-302

African-American Biblical Hermeneutics
11/19/2011
4:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Room: Sierra J - Marriott Marquis

Jennifer T. Kaalund, Drew University
Neither Here Nor There: Black Migrant Workers and “Strangers and Foreigners” in Hebrews (20 min)

S19-341

Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity
11/19/2011
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: Sierra H - Marriott Marquis
Theme: Scripture in the Synoptic Gospels

Kevin B. McCruden, Gonzaga University
The Eloquent Blood of Abel: How Does Abel Speak in the Epistle to the Hebrews? (30 min)

S20-119

Hebrews
Joint Session With: Hebrews, Space, Place, and Lived Experience in Antiquity, Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement
11/20/2011
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Cyril Magnin II - Renaissance Parc 55
Theme: Simultaneous Cults: The Intersection of Sacred Space, Time, and Practice
Ellen Aitken, McGill University, Presiding

Jon Berquist, Disciples Seminary Foundation
Critical Spatiality and the Book of Hebrews (30 min)

Jorunn Økland, Universitetet i Oslo, Respondent (15 min)

Kathryn McClymond, Georgia State University
Space and Sacrifice in Leviticus: Implications for Sacrificial Theory (30 min)

Christian Eberhart, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon, Respondent (15 min)

Gabriella Gelardini, Universität Basel, Respondent (15 min)

Discussion (30 min)
Business Meeting (15 min)

S20-224a

Greek Bible
11/20/2011
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: Walnut - Marriott MarquisTheme: Greek Bible and New Testament

Gert J. Steyn, University of Pretoria
Septuagint Torah Quotations Common to Philo of Alexandria and Luke-Acts (30 min)

S21-315

Hebrews
11/21/2011
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: 3011 - Convention CenterCraig Koester, Luther Seminary, Presiding

Daniel Boyarin, University of California-Berkeley
The Stammbaum of MalkiZedek: The Christology of Hebrew in Jewish Context (25 min)

Susan Docherty, Newman University College Birmingham UK
Analysing the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Hebrews: Towards a New Methodology (25 min)

Harold Attridge, Yale University, Respondent (13 min)

Luke Timothy Johnson, Emory University
Suffering as Means of Moral Transformation: Hebrews in Philosophical Context (25 min)

Alan C. Mitchell, Georgetown University
The Death of Jesus in Hebrews: A Contribution to a Developing Tradition (25 min)

Ellen Aitken, McGill University, Respondent (13 min)

Discussion (24 min)

Hebrews at the ETS

2011-11-08T20:40:00.000-06:00

The 2011 Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society has the following sessions on Hebrews:

Thursday, November 17

8:30-11:40 am
Marriott – Nob Hill A & B
Hebrews, Letter to the

Moderator: Herbert W. Bateman IV
(Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)

8:30-9:10 am
Authorial Commentary Overviews
David L. Allen
(Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Review of Hebrews in the New American Commentary Series

Gareth Lee Cockerill
(Wesley Biblical Seminary, Jackson, MS)
A New Volume on Hebrews in the NICNT—Distinct Emphasis and Contributions

9:20-10:00 am
Reviewer
Buist Fanning
(Dallas Theological Seminary)
Review of Two Recent Commentaries on Hebrews

10:10-10:50 am
Reviewer
Michael Allen
(Knox Theological Seminary)
Recent Commentaries on Hebrews: A Theological Reply

11:00-11:40 am
Responses
David L. Allen
(Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Gareth Lee Cockerill (Wesley Biblical Seminary, Jackson, MS)
Panel and Audience Discussion

8:30-11:40 am
Marriott – Foothill D
Patristics and Medieval History
Eastern Patristics/Early Medieval

Moderator: Paul Hartog
(Faith Baptist Theological Seminary)

9:20-10:00 am
Ashish J. Naidu
(Talbot School of Theology, Biola University)
Assisting Grace or Transforming Grace? An Investigation of the Motifs of Grace in John Chrysostom‘s Exposition of Hebrews

Friday, November 18

Marriott – Yerba Buena 1
Hebrews, Letter to the

Moderator: Jon C. Laansma
(Wheaton College)

9:45-10:25 am
Thomas Keene
(Westminster Theological Seminary)
I’m Glad I Don’t Know: The Literary Function of Anonymous Authorship in the Epistle to the Hebrews

10:35-11:15 am
Benjamin J. Ribbens
(Wheaton College)
Conceptual Backgrounds and Sacrifice Theology in Hebrews

11:25 am-12:05 pm
Jacob Rosenberg
(Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
The Sin of Esau as Anti-Type to the Character and Position of Jesus in Hebrews 12:16

12:15-12:55 pm
Barry Joslin
(Boyce College of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Whose Name? A Comparison of Hebrews 1 and Philippians 2 and Christ‘s Inheritance of the Name

George Guthrie Course on Hebrews

2011-11-08T20:24:00.000-06:00

BiblicalTraining.org is now offering a course on Hebrews taught by George Guthrie.

Description of the course: "An exegetical study of Hebrews. As Dr. Guthrie interacts with each verse, he explores not only the meaning of the text, but how we apply the theology of the text in our daily lives and ministries."

HT: Charles Savelle

Worship in the Book of Hebrews

2011-11-08T20:16:00.001-06:00

I have just become aware of a new book out on Hebrews:

John Paul Heil. Worship in the Letter to the Hebrews. Cascade Books.

Blurb from the Wipf & Stock website:

"This book seeks a more comprehensive understanding and appreciation for the Letter to the Hebrews by examining it from the viewpoint of its prominent theme of worship. It aims to demonstrate the topic of worship in all of its rich and varied dimensions provides the major concern and thrust that embraces Hebrews from start to finish. The author of Hebrews encourages his audience to hold on to the letter he has written to them as "the word of the encouragement" (Heb 13:22). In a very carefully concerted and masterfully artistic way, the letter persistently encourages the members of its audience with regard to their worship. Indeed, Hebrews was intended to be presented orally in a public performance as a liturgical or homiletic letter, an act of worship in itself, heard by its audience gathered together as a worshiping assembly. Hebrews exhorts the members of its audience not only with regard to their liturgical worship in which they engage during their communal gatherings, but also with regard to their ethical or moral worship in which they engage by the way they conduct themselves outside of their communal gatherings. This close examination of Hebrews through the lens of worship is intended to inform and enrich the worship of Christians today. Hebrews presents important and unique points about worship not found in any other New Testament writing. The goal is to illustrate and illuminate these points for the benefit of those who desire to deepen their worship as Christians by deepening their understanding of the magnificent literary masterpiece that the poetically lively letter to the Hebrews articulates for all Christians."

Cockerill on Melchizedek

2011-11-02T20:21:00.000-05:00

The following article is now available online:

Cockerill, Gareth Lee. "Melchizedek or 'King of Righteousness.'" Evangelical Quarterly 63.4 (1991): 305-12.

On a related note, I noticed today that Cockerill's commentary on Hebrews in the NICNT series now has an expected publication date of June 2012.

Hebrews Carnival October 2011

2011-10-31T23:59:00.000-05:00

The biblioblog activity on the book of Hebrews for the month of October:

Kevin Brown explores When did Jesus become a Priest?

Dirk Jongkind discusses a variant of Hebrews 5:6 in P46.

Ken Schenck offers his Outline of Hebrews that will be a part of the study notes for the CEB Study Bible.

Daniel Streett explains that the Sabbath Rest in Hebrews is based upon the author's interpretation of the LXX text, and not the Hebrew.

Michael Bird Introduces the Book of Hebrews.

Hebrews Recited

2011-10-26T11:21:00.001-05:00

Joey Shorey of Covenant Fellowship Church recites the entire book of Hebrews from memory. A video like this reminds us that the original audience would have heard the book orally; they would not have read it. This video gives us a sense of what it would been like to have heard it orally for the first time.

New Articles Added

2011-10-20T16:49:00.000-05:00

The following articles have been added:

Anonymous. "A Lawyer Looks at Hebrews 9:15-17." Evangelical Quarterly 40.3 (1968): 151-56.

Legg, John D. "Our Brother Timothy: A Suggested Solution to the Problem of the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Evangelical Quarterly 40.4 (1968): 220-223.

Rendall, Robert. "The Method of the Writer to the Hebrews in Using Old Testament Quotations." Evangelical Quarterly 27.4 (1955): 214-220.

Thurston, Robert W. "Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews." Evangelical Quarterly 58.2 (1986): 133-43.

Trudinger, L. Paul. "The Gospel Meaning of the Secular: Reflections on Hebrews 10:10-13." Evangelical Quarterly, 54.4 (1982): 235-37.

Hebrews Dinner at SBL in San Francisco

2011-10-15T20:17:00.000-05:00

Last year, after one of the sessions on Hebrews, we had an impromptu gathering of several Hebrews specialists who had a meal together. This year Scott Mackie and I would like to be more intentional about organizing a dinner together with other Hebrews specialists. Scott has told me that there is already some interest in having such a gathering.

We think the best time for the dinner would be right after the Monday session which meets from 4:00-6:30.

If you are going to be in San Francisco for the SBL meeting and would like to join us for dinner, please leave a comment.

". . . not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some . . ." (Hebrews 10:25)

Letters to the Churches

2011-10-15T01:25:00.004-05:00

Apparently, Karen Jobes' new book, Letters to the Churches: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles (Zondervan) is now available.

Description from the Zondervan website:

"Respected New Testament scholar Karen Jobes explores the cultural and theological background of Hebrews and the general epistles (James through Jude) in this rich commentary. Writing from an evangelical perspective, Jobes addresses issues of historical relevance as well as how these ancient books connect with Christian faith and practice today. Letters to the Church includes: -Historical background for each book focusing on authorship, genre, date, and content -An exploration of the major themes in each book and detailed commentary on key passages -Boxes with chapter goals, outlines, challenges, and significant verses -Sidebars addressing difficult passages or ideas -Maps, photographs, charts, and definitions -Questions for discussion, reflection, and testing -A comparison of the teachings about Christ in each of the letters Pastors, professors, students, and laypeople interested in deeper biblical study will find this an invaluable resource that offers well-researched commentary in an accessible, spiritually meaningful form."

About the Author:

Karen H. Jobes is the Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at Wheaton College. She is the author of many articles and several books, including The NIV Application Commentary: Esther.

HT: Matthew Montonini

Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews

2011-10-10T23:19:00.001-05:00

The Society of Biblical Literature has just announced the publication of a new resource on Hebrews. I knew that this book was in the works but couldn't say anything about it. The book has a line-up of leading Hebrews scholars:

Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric Mason and Kevin McCruden.

From the SBL website:

Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students addresses major issues in the interpretation of this important but complex biblical text and provides an introduction to contemporary scholarship on Hebrews. With contributions from an international team of leading scholars on Hebrews and related fields, this volume reflects the most recent trends in the study of Hebrews and is designed for classroom use by students in both undergraduate and graduate programs. The various chapters emphasize the importance of interpreting Hebrews in light of its ancient Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman contexts and address major interpretive issues, including genre, conceptual backgrounds, Hebrews’ use of Scripture and biblical themes, the theology of the letter and major theological issues in its reception, emerging interpretive approaches, and the use of the book in the history of Christian thought and worship.

Eric F. Mason is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and chair of the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies at Judson University. He is the author of ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Brill).
Kevin B. McCruden is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Gonzaga University. He is the author of Solidarity Perfected: Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews (de Gruyter).

CONTENTS

Introduction
— Eric F. Mason

Hebrews among Greeks and Romans
— Patrick Gray

What Has Middle Platonism to Do with Hebrews?
— James W. Thompson

Cosmology, Messianism, and Melchizedek: Apocalyptic Jewish Traditions and Hebrews
— Eric F. Mason

The Interpretation of Scripture in the Epistle to the Hebrews
— David M. Moffitt

Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity
— Craig R. Koester

Hebrews, Homiletics, and Liturgical Scripture Interpretation
— Gabriella Gelardini

Jesus the Broker in Hebrews: Insights from the Social Sciences
— Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.

Hebrews as the Re-presentation of a Story: A Narrative Approach to Hebrews
— Kenneth Schenck

The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews
— Frank J. Matera

The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews
— Kevin B. McCruden

The Jesus of Hebrews and the Christ of Chalcedon
— Rowan A. Greer

“A Sacrifice of Praise”: Does Hebrews Promote Supersessionism?
— Alan C. Mitchell

Hebrews in the Worship Life of the Church: A Historical Survey
— Mark A. Torgerson

Epilogue
— Harold W. Attridge

Hardback edition available from Brill Academic Publishers (www.brill.nl)

Demarest on Hebrews 7:3

2011-10-10T23:05:00.000-05:00

The following article has been added:

Demarest, Bruce A. "Hebrews 7:3: A Crux Interpetum Historically Considered." Evangelical Quarterly 49.3 (1977): 141-162.

HT: Rob Bradshaw

Belief Commentary on Hebrews

2011-09-26T18:52:00.001-05:00

Apparently, D. Stephen Long's commentary on Hebrews in the Belief series is now available.

From the website:

"The book of Hebrews is a fascinating extended sermon which has nurtured and challenged the church for centuries. It stands in tension with our sensibilities but provides guidance for the church's life and for individual Christians. In this theological commentary, D. Stephen Long explores this captivating book. He finds Hebrews extremely relevant for today since it integrates doctrine, ethics, and politics while helping faithful Christians find their ways through troubled times. It invites us into a robust world beyond the assumptions of today's scientific worldviews. Hebrews also helps us understand how to read Scripture after the triumph of Jesus Christ. Long's expert theological guidance helps us understand Hebrews and hear its message for our contemporary world.

The volumes in Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible from Westminster John Knox Press offer a fresh and invigorating approach to all the books of the Bible. Building on a wide range of sources from biblical studies, the history of theology, the church's liturgical and musical traditions, contemporary culture, and the Christian tradition, noted scholars focus less on traditional historical and literary angles in favor of a theologically focused commentary that considers the contemporary relevance of the texts. This series is an invaluable resource for those who want to probe beyond the backgrounds and words of biblical texts to their deep theological and ethical meanings for the church today."

Reformation Commentary on Scripture

2011-09-26T18:35:00.000-05:00

I read on Charles Savelle's blog that InterVarsity Press has started a new commentary series, Reformation Commentary on Scripture. For the interests of this blog, I note that Ron Rittgers is editing the volume on Hebrews and James.

New Articles Added

2011-09-14T22:50:00.000-05:00

The number of articles available online continues to grow. I have recently added links to three new articles:

Campbell, Kenneth M. "Covenant or Testament?: Heb. 9:16, 17 Reconsidered." Evangelical Quarterly, 44.2 (1972): 107-11.

Ounsworth, Richard. "What Are They Saying about the Letter to the Hebrews?" Scripture Bulletin 39.2 (2009): 76-90.

Worden, T. "Before Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews." Scripture 14 (1962): 48-57.

JSTOR Articles Now Available

2011-09-07T20:34:00.001-05:00

JSTOR has now made articles dating before 1923 available for the public. The following articles have been added to the Articles page:

Bruce, Alexander Balmain Bruce. "Four Types of Christian Thought III. The Epistle to the Hebrews." Biblical World 7.2 (Feb 1896): 94-104.

Burbridge, A. T. "Faith as an Effort of the Soul (Heb. 11.1.)." Biblical World 18.3 (Sep. 1901): 185-93.

Burton, Ernest De Witt. "The Biblical Doctrine of Atonement: XI. The Teaching of the First Epistle of Peter and of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Biblical World 32.5 (Nov. 1908): 336-48.

Cobet, C. G. "Pauli Apostoli locus in Epistola ad hebraeos XI. 4. tentatus." Mnemosyne 9 (1860): 308-14.

Crosby, Howard. "Heb. X. 26-27." Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 7.2 (Dec. 1887): 1-2.

Gardiner, Frederic. “The Language of the Epistle to the Hebrews as Bearing upon Its Authorship.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 7 (June 1887): 1–27.

Gardiner, Frederic. "On διαθήκη in Heb. ix. 16, 17." Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 5 (1885): 8-19.

Gilbert, George Holley. “The Greek Element in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” American Journal of Theology 14 (1910): 521–32.

Goodwin, D. R. “On the Use of και in Hebrews x. 38.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 5 (1885): 84–85.

Hayes, D. A. "Jesus the Perfecter of Faith (Heb. 12:2)." Biblical World 20.4 (Oct 1902): 278-87.

Hayes, D. A. "The Practical Outcome of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 10:19-25)." Biblical World 24.6 (Dec 1904): 443-47.

Johnston, R. P. "A Message for Times of Transition: A Study in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Biblical World. 28.4 (Oct 1906): 251-60.

Lewis, Wm. M. "St. Paul's Defense before King Agrippa in Relation to the Epistle to the Hebrews." Biblical World 13.4 (Apr. 1899): 244-48.

Marshall, J. T. "The Epistle to the Hebrews." Biblical World 7.5 (May 1896): 359-65.

Penick, Daniel A. "Paul's Epistles Compared with One Another and with the Epistle to the Hebrews." American Journal of Philology 42.1 (1921): 58-72.

Schiele, Friedrich Michael. "Harnack's 'Probabilia' concerning the Address and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews." American Journal of Theology 9.2 (Apr. 1905): 290-308.

Scott, E. F. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and Roman Christianity.” Harvard Theological Review 13 (1920): 205–19.

Williams, Clarence Russell. “A Word-Study of Hebrews 13.” Journal of Biblical Literature 30 (1911): 129–36.

Gert Steyn's New Book on Hebrews

2011-09-07T19:16:00.000-05:00

It seems that Gert J. Steyn's book is also out: A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)

Synopsis: The assumed LXX Vorlage of the explicit quotations inHebrews remains unresolved to date – despite the fact that it is an importantpre-requisite before one can attempt to investigate the function of thesequotations within their NT context. The selection, origin and version of theexplicit quotations are greatly neglected aspects in previous studies. Thisquest attempts to address these matters from a tradition historical and a textcritical angle. It follows the ground plan of Hebrews‘ own presentation of twosets of quotations that are listed in pairs: the first consisting mainly ofhymnic texts and the second consisting of quotations from the Torah that arealternated with quotations from the Psalms and the Prophets. The investigationconsiders each quotation in the light of possible alternative Vorlage(n) tothose of the printed versions and interacts with previously proposedhypotheses, such as the »Testimony Book«, liturgy, homily, and midrashhypotheses. It became clear that, although Hebrews might have known a largenumber of quotations from the early Jewish and early Christian traditions, healso expanded on some and added some longer quotations. The author himself wasresponsible for the majority of the combinations of the quotations, althoughthere are traces of the existence of exegetical traditions that combinedparticular passages prior to his time. The use of Psalms, Odes, hymnicreworkings and compositions of his quoted texts all testify to an interestinginclination towards hymnic tendencies. The study concludes that so-calleddifferences between Hebrews and the LXX could be explained in the light of analternative Vorlage where the readings of the quotations seem to be closer toan Egyptian text tradition, but also to the author‘s own creative hand.

The assumed LXX Vorlage of the explicit quotations in Hebrews remains unresolved to date – despite the fact that it is an important pre-requisite before one can attempt to investigate the function of these quotations within their NT context. The selection, origin and version of the explicit quotations are greatly neglected aspects in previous studies. This quest attempts to address these matters from a tradition historical and a text critical angle. It follows the ground plan of Hebrews‘ own presentation of two sets of quotations that are listed in pairs: the first consisting mainly of hymnic texts and the second consisting of quotations from the Torah that are alternated with quotations from the Psalms and the Prophets. The investigation considers each quotation in the light of possible alternative Vorlage(n) to those of the printed versions and interacts with previously proposed hypotheses, such as the »Testimony Book«, liturgy, homily, and midrash hypotheses. It became clear that, although Hebrews might have known a large number of quotations from the early Jewish and early Christian traditions, he also expanded on some and added some longer quotations. The author himself was responsible for the majority of the combinations of the quotations, although there are traces of the existence of exegetical traditions that combined particular passages prior to his time. The use of Psalms, Odes, hymnic reworkings and compositions of his quoted texts all testify to an interesting inclination towards hymnic tendencies. The study concludes that so-called differences between Hebrews and the LXX could be explained in the light of an alternative Vorlage where the readings of the quotations seem to be closer to an Egyptian text tradition, but also to the author‘s own creative hand.

David Moffitt's New Book on Hebrews

2011-09-07T18:51:00.001-05:00

Apparently, David M. Moffitt's book Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Brill) has also been published. Trust me, this one is worth taking a look at.

Synopsis: Scholars often explain Hebrews' relative silence regarding Jesus' resurrection by emphasizing the author's appeal to Yom Kippur's two key moments the sacrificial slaughter and the high priest's presentation of blood in the holy of holies in his distinctive portrayal of Jesus' death and heavenly exaltation. The writer's depiction of Jesus as the high priest whose blood effected ultimate atonement appears to be modeled upon these two moments. Such a typology discourages discrete reflection on Jesus' resurrection. Drawing on contemporary studies of Jewish sacrifice (which note that blood represents life, not death), parallels in Jewish apocalyptic literature, and fresh exegetical insights, this volume demonstrates that Jesus' embodied, resurrected life is crucial for the high-priestly Christology and sacrificial soteriology developed in Hebrews.

The Use of Exodus in Hebrews

2011-09-07T18:32:00.000-05:00

A new book on Hebrews has recently come to my attention:

King L. She. The Use of Exodus in Hebrews. Studies in Biblical Literature 142. New York: Peter Lang, 2011.

Synopsis: The Use of Exodus in Hebrews illustrates how traditions and hermeneutics have significantly determined people's valuations of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants in Hebrews. By showing how the author of Hebrews uses the canonical revelation from Exodus to argue rhetorically, ontologically, and hermeneutically that Jesus Christ is the New Covenant priest in the heavenly tabernacle, this book offers an epistemological lens from Exodus to identify the correct view of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.

HT: Clifford Kvidahl who promises a review.

C. K. Barrett (1917-2011)

2011-08-27T23:31:00.000-05:00

I am saddened to hear of the passing of C. K. Barrett. Barrett was the first world-class scholar that I had the opportunity to meet back in my seminary days. I remember him as a kindly British gentleman. This picture on Ben Witherington's blog is closer to how I remember him. We've lost a giant in the NT world.

Barrett did not write any monographs or commentaries on Hebrews, but in 1954 he wrote a very influential article on "The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews" in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, edited by W. D. Davies and D. Daube.

He also wrote "The Christology of Hebrews" in Who Do You Say That I Am?: Essays on Christology, edited by Mark Allan Powell and David Bauer in 1999.

New Articles Added

2011-08-04T23:42:00.002-05:00

I just came across these article which have been added to the articles page:

Ackerman, David A. “The High Priesthood of Jesus and the Sanctification of Believers in Hebrews7–10.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45.1 (Spring 2010): 226–45.

Joslin, Barry C. “Christ Bore the Sins of Many: Substitution and the Atonement in Hebrews.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 11 (2007): 74–103.

With the addition of this article I have crossed the milestone of 300 links for articles.

Hebrews Carnival July 2011

2011-07-31T23:59:00.031-05:00

Steven Coxhead comments on The Faith of Abraham in Hebrews 11. He also explores the meaning of Hebrews 11:39-40.

Dan Fabricatore has A note on ὄγκος in Hebrews 12:1.

Jeremiah Bailey queries Did Clement, Bishop of Rome, Write or Quote from Hebrews?

The Seeking Disciple discusses many of the Securities for the Disciple in the Book of Hebrews.

Scott Bailey reports that the mystery to Who Wrote the Book of Hebrews has finally now been solved. Not!

Review of Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception

2011-07-23T00:12:00.002-05:00

Review of Biblical Literature has recently posted a new review:

Steyn, Gert J. and Dirk J. Human. Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception. Review by Steve Moyise.

New Audio Lectures Added

2011-07-01T00:43:00.003-05:00

I have recently added links to audio lectures on Hebrews by Ronald Nash, Bill Mounce, Robert Stein, and Thomas Schreiner on the Multimedia page.

Hebrews Carnival June 2011

2011-06-30T23:59:00.001-05:00

Richard Fellows presents New evidence that Hebrews was written by a man.

Ken Schenck reflects on Hebrews 12:27.

New & Forthcoming Books Page Updated

2011-06-19T22:39:00.000-05:00

I have updated the New & Forthcoming Books page with updated links and expected publication dates. There was some discrepancy between publication dates between a couple of sites, so I have gone with Dove Bookseller's dates. Forthcoming books are arranged now according to expected publication dates. Some new books have been added to the list. So far, 2011 has been rather slow about new books on Hebrews, but if the publication dates hold, we should see several new titles by the end of the year. Of course, if you know of some other works that I am unaware of, please let me know.

Hebrews in the Lectio Continua Series

2011-06-19T19:18:00.000-05:00

Anthony Billington announced on his blog that there is a new commentary series, Lectio Continua. So, naturally I was interested to see who was doing the Hebrews commentary (See list of contributors). His name is David B. McWilliams.

Here is the bio on him:

Rev. Dr. David B. McWilliams: Dr. McWilliams is Senior Minister of Covenant Presbyterian Church where he has served for twenty two years. A former Associate Professor of Systematic Theology on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (Dallas) he continues to teach Systematic Theology at Redeemer Theological Seminary. He is devoted to Christ centered, expository preaching. The author of numerous articles he has also published, Galatians, A Mentor Commentary.

History of Research Page Updated

2011-06-18T07:56:00.001-05:00

As I am plowing through the rest of the secondary literature on Hebrews, whenever I come across anything on the history of interpretation, I am adding them to the History of Research page. Several new titles have been added recently. I will continue to update this page through the rest of the summer.

Jared Calaway's Dissertation Available Online

2011-06-09T23:09:00.000-05:00

Jared Calaway has announced that his dissertation is available online:

"Heavenly Sabbath, Heavenly Sanctuary: The Transformation of Priestly Sacred Space and Sacred Time in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Epistle to the Hebrews." Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 2010.

You can go to his blog to read the abstract.

Encomiastic Topics of Syncrisis in the Structure and Argument of Hebrews

2011-06-09T00:15:00.000-05:00

The newest New Testament Studies issue is out and it includes a new article on Hebrews from a couple of Baylor grads:

Michael W. Martin and Jason A. Whitlark. "The Encomiastic Topics of Syncrisis as the Key to the Structure and Argument of Hebrews." New Testament Studies 57.3 (2011): 415-439.

Abstract:

"This study examines comparison in Hebrews in the light of ancient rhetorical theory of syncrisis, identifying five epideictic syncrises: the messengers/angels vs. Jesus (1.1-14; 2.5-18), Moses vs. Jesus (3.1-6), the Aaronic high priests vs. Jesus (5.1-10), the Levitical priestly ministry vs. the Melchizedekian priestly ministry (7.1-10.18), and Mt. Sinai vs. Mt. Zion (12.18-24). The study shows that these comparisons collectively function as a single syncritical project that argues for the superiority of the new covenant to the old, and that the project, like most of the individual comparisons, is arranged topically in accordance with ancient rhetorical theory."

My understanding from Jason is that this article is only part one.

Hebrews Carnival May 2011

2011-05-31T23:59:00.010-05:00

The month of May saw the following contributions to the book of Hebrews:

Dan Fabricatore has A note on ἐφάπαξ: Once for all in Hebrews 10:10.

Ken Schenck discusses the CEB translation of Hebrews 1:5-14.

Kenneth Way discusses the Handling of "Heroes" in Hebrews 11.

Kevin Brown has some reflections on Hebrews, Jesus, and Creation in Hebrews 1:2, 10.

Horace Jeffery Hodges discusses Hebrews 9:14-17 on Covenant and Testament. He takes διαθηκη in this context to mean "covenant." He then moves on to Hebrews 9:15 and asks whether it is Specifically about Israelites and their Descendants. He then interacts with my comments on 9:14-17.

Horace Jeffery Hodges is puzzling over the meaning of Hebrews 9:23 - "heavenly things themselves be cleansed." He discusses Brooke Foss Westcott's and Kenneth L. Schenck's take on Hebrews 9:23.

Ken responds with his own post asking, What is cleansing the heavenly sanctuary in Heb. 9:23?

New Resources Added

2011-05-24T01:47:00.002-05:00

I have added to the articles page the following resources that have chapters or divisions on Hebrews:

Adeney, Walter Frederic. “The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 218–28 in The Theology of the New Testament. 1894.

Bartlet, James Vernon. “Palestine and the Epistle ‘to Hebrews.’” Pages 277–96 in The Apostolic Age: Its Life, Doctrine, Worship, and Polity. 1900.

Beyschlag, Willibald. “The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 282–347 in New Testament Theology or Historical Account of the Teaching of Jesus and of Primitive Christianity according to the New Testament Sources. Vol. 2. 1895.

Bovon, Jules. “L’épître aux Hébreux.” Pages 357–403 in Théologie du Nouveau Testament. Tome second: L’enseignement des apotres. 2d ed. 1905.

Feine, Paul. “Der Hebräerbrief.” Pages 643–57 in Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1912.

Gould, Ezra Palmer. “The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 160–73 in The Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 1900.

Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. "Der Autor ad Hebraeos." Pages 281–308 in Lehrbuch der neutestamenlichen Theologie. Vol. 2. 1897.

Lechler, Gotthard Victor. “The Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 119–35 in The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times: Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 3d ed. Vol. 2. Translated by A. J. K. Davidson. 1886.

McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. “The Christianity of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 463–82 in A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. International Theological Library. 1897.

Neander, Augustus. “The Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 212–28 in History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1842.

Pfleiderer, Otto. “The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 272–99 in Primitive Christianity: Its Writings and Teachings in Their Historical Connections. Vol. 3. Translated by W. Montgomery. 1910.

Rendall, Frederic. “The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 11–92 in The Theology of the Hebrew Christians. 1886.

Reuss, Edward. “The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 238–61 in History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age. Vol. 2. 1874.

Sheldon, Henry C. “Modified Paulinism—Hebrews and First Peter.” Pages 270–99 in New Testament Theology. New York: Macmillan, 1911.

Stevens, George Barker. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Pages 483-522 in The Theology of the New Testament. 1899.

Weiss, Bernhard. “The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 166–234 in Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 2. 1883.

Hebrews and the Second Coming

2011-05-23T00:07:00.001-05:00

In light of recent (non-)events I thought I would post something on what Hebrews says about the παρουσία or second coming of Jesus. The clearest reference to the second coming is found in 9:28:

"so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." (NASB)

Since Christ appeared (πεφανέρωται; 9:26) once to take care of sin in his sacrificial death, he will appear (ὀφθήσεται) a second time without the need to deal with the sin problem. Many scholars see here an oblique parallel to the high priest who reemerges from the holy of holies after he had made atonement on the Day of Atonement. The high priest's reemergence means that the sacrifice had been accepted.

The second more oblique reference is found in the quotation of Habakkuk 2:3 LXX in 10:37:

"For yet 'in a very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not delay.'" (NRSV)

In the original context the passage is part of God's second reply to Habakkuk's questioning. It refers to a vision that the prophet must write down since its fulfillment will not happen immediately but according to its appointed time, which will be coming soon. The author of Hebrews appears to add an article before the LXX translation ἐρχόμενος, "coming," thus making it a substantive that has messianic overtones. The author interprets the passage as a reference to Jesus' imminent return.

The third passage, found in 1:6, is even more oblique and highly disputed. The introduction to the quotation reads:

ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην

One interpretive crux in the passage is the placement of πάλιν. It may merely introduce another quotation, as is the author's practice elsewhere (1:5; 2:13; 4:5; 10:30). The NRSV reflects this option:

"And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world."

Or πάλιν may modify the verb εἰσαγάγῃ. The NASB reflects this option:

"And when He again brings the firstborn into the world."

If the first option is adopted, then it may refer to Jesus' incarnation, or exaltation. If the second option is adopted, then it likely refers to the second coming of Jesus into the "inhabited world." On this reading, God commands the angels to worship Jesus upon his return.

New Latin and German Titles Added

2011-05-15T19:33:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Jan Krans who informed me about VD18 which is a cooperative digitalization project which is seeking to preserve works from the 18th century. It links to other sites where I was also able to find some works from the 17th century as well. Consequently, I have been able to add about two dozen Latin and German titles, mostly dissertations, to the Electronic Books page.

New Resources Added

2011-05-07T08:15:00.002-05:00

The number of resources on Hebrews on the internet is simply astonishing. I keep finding more and more resources. The following resources have been added to the appropriate pages:

Asumang, Annang, and Bill Domeris. “Ministering in the Tabernacle: Spatiality and the Christology of Hebrews.” Conspectus: The Journal of the South African Theological Seminary 1.1 (2006): 1-25.

Betz, Erin L. "Christology in The Epistle to the Hebrews: Martin Luther's Reception of John Chrysostom." M.S.T. thesis, Boston University School of Theology, 2010.

Biesenthal, Johann Heinrich R.H. Das Trostschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Hebräer. 1878.

Etter, Bruce. "Christology and Psalm 2:7 in the Book of Hebrews." M.A. thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 2002.

Fakhoury, Gary. "The Christology of the Letter to the Hebrews." 2004.

Just, Arthur. "Entering Holiness: Christology and Eucharist in Hebrews." Concordia Theological Quarterly 69.1 (2005): 75-95.

Robinson, Donald W. B. “The Literary Structure of Hebrews 1:1-4.” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1 (1972): 178-86.

Steyn, Gert J. “Addressing an Angelomorphic Christological Myth in Hebrews?” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 59 (2003): 1107-28.

Ménégoz on Sacrifice in Hebrews

2011-05-04T14:54:00.002-05:00

The following are my notes on Ménégoz's analysis of the theology of sacrifice in Hebrews.

Ménégoz, Eugène. "Le Sacrifice." Pages 102-27 in La théologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux. Paris: Fischbacher, 1894.

Sacrifice

[102] The goal of the incarnation of the Son was the sacrifice of his life offered for the remission of sins. The will of God is not the observation of the moral law, but the abasement in the humanity and offering of his body in sacrifice (10:10).

[103] The doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ is the main subject (8:1).

[/104] The author seeks to affirm the religious faith and fidelity of his readers and showing them the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ over the Levitical sacrifices. Everything is superior in the Christian cult: the priest, victim, sanctuary, and the results of the sacrifice.

-the notion of sacrifice of Hebrews is the same as that of the Jews. The author is working with the same presuppositions as his readers.

-“Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission” (9:22) is an axiom for him.

-He does not discuss the necessity of sacrifices.

[105] He produces an argument drawn from civil law. A testament is valid only upon the death of the testator; Christ must die so that we can enter into possession of the inheritance (9:15-17).

-The author plays on the double sense of diatheke, which means testament or covenant.

[107] The author recalls the sacrifices offered by Moses at Sinai and he shows that the law needed the sprinkling of blood for the remission of transgressions (9:18-22)

[108] The new covenant must be inaugurated with blood. In the new covenant the sacrificer is Christ. He must receive his vocation from God (5:4-6).

[109] The type of Melch plays a great role in the argument of the author. Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi (7:14), which alone offered the sacrifices

-Ps 110:4, a messianic psalm - the order of Melch, the order of Christ, is superior to Levi.

[110] Author interprets Gen 14:17-20: Melch=King of justice; King of Salem=King of peace. He is without father, mother, ancestors, without beginning of days or end of life; he is assimilated to the Son (7:2-3).

[111] The author shows the superiority of Christ (7:4-10).

-The word of Psalm 110 reveals the rest: Jewish priesthood was transitory, proving its weakness and insufficiency (7:11, 15-16).

[112] Sacrifice must take place outside the camp (13:10-12).

-As for the blood, Jesus carried it into the true tabernacle, of which the Jewish sanctuary was only a copy, into heaven in the presence of God himself (9:11, 24; 8:1-2).

[113] Other proofs for the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood: he became a priest according to an oath (7:20-22). His priesthood is singular and immutable (7:23-24). Jesus does not need to offer sacrifices for his own sins (7:26). He does not need to renew his sacrifice which is offered once for all (7:27; 9:12; 10:2, 10, 12, 14).

[114] The Levitical priests are full of weakness; the Son is made perfect forever (7:28).

-The chief difference is that the Levitical priests offer animal sacrifices while Christ offered himself (7:27). The absolute superiority and the inestimable price of the victim gives to the sacrifice of the new covenant its unique value (9:12-14; 10:4-10)

[/116] The author tries to show that Jesus is the perfect realization of the divine thought, symbolically hidden under “the image and shadow” of the Levitical cult (8:5; 10:1).

-Contrast of the high priests: mortal vs. eternal; sinner vs. perfect; simple man vs. Son of God

-Contrast of the sacrifice: animal vs. celestial being; victim is without fault or spot vs. Christ who is pure, innocent, perfect holiness.

-High priest enters holy of holies once annually vs. Jesus entered once for all.

-Whole burnt offering burned outside the camp; Jesus was sacrificed outside the city.

-High priest traversed the veil; Jesus traversed the veil, his own flesh, torn by death.

[117] The high priest enters into an earthly sanctuary; Jesus entered into a heavenly one.

-High priest offered to God, symbolically the blood; Jesus offered his own blood.

What is the religious and theological significance of the death of Christ?

-His premises are those of contemporary Judaism; he grounds his notion of sacrifice on the OT.

-Sacrifice in the OT is an offering made to God to gain his favor.

[/118] High priest is charged to offer gifts and sacrifices (5:1; 8:3; 9:9).

-The intention of the gifts is to make God agreeable and to gain his good graces. The remission of sins is obtained by this means.

-The author assimilates the sacrifice of Christ to the Levitical sacrifices. Christ’s death is likened to the sacrifices made in the temple (8:3). The difference between the two sacrifices is not in the idea of sacrifice but in the respective value of the victims.

[119] Some scholars mistakenly see a substitutionary sacrifice in Hebrews.

-The ceremony of the scapegoat was not a sacrifice, but a symbolic act. Having charged the goat with the sins of the people, it was not offered to God but released into the wilderness. One offers to God only pure and spotless victims.

-In OT the sinner does not expiate his sin with animal sacrifice, and God does not take leave of the punishment because he approves of the substitutionary punishment of the victim. The victim does not expiate the crime in place of the criminal. Such an idea is absent in the Law and Prophets.

[/120] According to Leviticus, it is the sinner who expiates his fault by sacrificing to God a precious object. In this sense Jesus has offered to God what is most precious, his life. One can call this an expiatory sacrifice, but not a substitutionary one.

-The excellence of the sacrifice of Christ is manifest also in its scope: Jewish sacrifices only make cleansing of the flesh; the blood of Christ gives remission of sins. Cf. 10:4; 9:13; 9:9-10.

[122] The author supports this thesis on the fact of the repetition of sacrifices (10:1-3, 11).

[123] The sacrifice of Christ remits sins, purifies the conscience, gives access to God.

[124] In 12:18-24 the author makes a parallel between the old and new covenants.

[125] The author assimilates Jesus to the high priest; the high priest only functions in the name of the people of Israel. The author does not consider Christ as representing humanity entirely.

-Hebrews also assimilates Christ to Melch. He gives Christ a greater sphere of action; it can be extended to the pagan world. This universal application also applies to the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus died to purify the people (13:12).

[126] The death of Christ has universal expiatory value (2:9; 5:9; 9:28). Included are the faithful since the creation of the world (9:26). Christ’s death is retroactive to cross the centuries. The Jewish sacrifices cannot efface sin; it is the blood of Christ which effaces them.

-The author founds this idea of retroactivity on the fact that Christ only suffered once and offered to God a sacrifice of absolute value. If his sacrifice had only a temporary value, he would be obligated to die many times as the efficacy of his sacrifice would embrace periods, just as the high priest is obligated to renew annually his sacrifice, whose effect was limited to the duration of one year (9:25-28).

[127] Christ died for all people and not only for his people. His sacrifice is valuable for all time for all people.

Ménégoz on the Christology of Hebrews

2011-05-04T03:00:00.003-05:00

I am currently working my way through Eugène Ménégoz's La théologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux. The following is my translation of his chapter on Christology. The translation is not polished. I did not bother transcribing all of the Greek, nor are the footnotes included. Pages numbers are set in brackets []. I will say up front that I do not agree with his christological interpretation of Hebrews.

Ménégoz, Eugène. “Le Christ.” Pages 77-101 in La théologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux. Paris: Fischbacher, 1894.

The Christ

[77] At the center of the theology of the epistle to the Hebrews is found the person of Christ. It penetrates all the religious conception of the author, it dominates all his system. To better understand his doctrine, it is necessary, before anything, to have a clear idea of his Christology.

The author did not know Jesus. “The salvation,” he said, “announced at first by the Lord, has been confirmed by us who have heard” (2:3). All he knows he holds from tradition. And this tradition appears to have been oral tradition, because there is no trace in our epistle of a gospel writing. Moreover, the author seems to have known only a rather summary knowledge of the life of Jesus. He reports none of his words, he makes no mention of his miracles, he does not speak of his earthly activities. The death of Christ is more interesting than his life. However, we can conclude from the manner of which he speaks about this death, that he knows the life of Jesus in its great lines and that he supposed that it is known by his readers.

We find in the epistle only two facts on the earthly life of Jesus. At 7:14 the author [78] observes, in passing, that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. And at 5:7, speaking of the suffering of Christ, he says that Jesus supplicated God “with great cries and tears” to deliver him from death. It is probably an allusion to the scene of Gethsemane, perhaps also to the cries of Jesus in his agony; but as one sees, it is literally independent of our canonical passages. It is to these two nearly incidental indications, which can be excised without injury for the rest of the writing, that the facts of the epistle on the earthly existence of Jesus can be reduced. The life of Christ “in the flesh” (5:7) seems scarcely to have occupied the author. In this respect he shared the views of Paul.

The epistle to the Hebrews teaches in the most formal manner the personal preexistence of Christ. This one occupies the first place in date and in rank in the world of superior spirits, of celestial beings. He is their “firstborn” (1:6), and as such – by right of primogeniture – is the universal heir (1:2; cf. v. 4).

The author does not explain the metaphysical nature of the preexistent Christ. He calls him “the reflection of the glory of God, the imprint of his being” (1:3). These metaphors strike the imagination, but they say nothing precise in thought. Man also is made in [79] the image of God. Christ is a degree superior to him; his resemblance to God is perfect. He reflects God as a mirror reflects an image; he carries the imprint of God, as the wax the imprint of the stamp. But these comparisons do not define the proper nature of Christ. It is necessary to seek the theological sense in the general exposition of the epistle.

[80] What stands out clearly from the text, is that, on the one hand, the author classifies Christ in the order of celestial beings, without thinking to attribute to him the divine nature itself, and that, on the other hand, he endeavors to demonstrate that Christ occupies in the order of celestial beings the first rank. God has chosen and anointed him “in preference to his companions” (1:9). His name is above all other names (1:5).

According to our author, the celestial beings who surround the throne of God are designated by the generic term of angels. These angels are the “spirits” (1:14; cf. v. 7). God is their father (12:9).

It is not necessary to understand this name of “father” in the Gnostic sense of emanation. The author of our epistle professes the most absolute monotheism. His God is the God of the Old Testament, the unique God, sovereign, all-powerful, creator of heaven and of earth, the origin and goal of the universe. He is “the one for whom and by whom are all things (2:10), “the one who has established all things (3:4), “the one by whose word the world was formed, so that what one sees is not originated from existing things” (11:3). The superior spirits, as the rest of the universe, [81] go in the order of creation. The terms of father, son, children are figurative expressions of character at the same time metaphysical and moral, not implying any idea of organic evolution, of pantheistic effluence.

These observations are applied also to Christ, the Son of God par excellence (1:2, 4, 5). The terms of “Son” and of “Firstborn” does not express the idea of a divine emanation. Our author says explicitly that Christ has “neither father, nor mother, nor ancestors” (7:3). As Adam, he is the first of his species. He does not have a father in the sense of generation. God, his creator, is his father in the metaphorical sense; and it is in this sense that it is necessary to understand the citations of Psalm 2:7: “You are my son, today I have begotten you,” and that of 2 Samuel 7:14: “I will be your father and he will be my son” (1:5; cf. 5:5).

[82] In applying to Christ this word “today I have begotten you,” the author indicates that he assigns a date to the creation of the Son: “today.” The metaphysical idea – difficult, if not impossible to realize by the thought – of an eternal generation is strange to him; and one would be wrong to take in this absolute sense the affirmation that the Son of God, just as Melchizedek, “does not have the beginning of his days” (7:3). These words only complete the preceding idea: “without father, without mother, without ancestors,” and they signify that the life of Christ did not begin by birth; he was not born. He is the immediate and primordial product of the creative power of God. “Today I have begotten you,” means: today, I have called you into existence. This “today,” in the thought of the our author, refers to a moment where the succession of “days and nights” did not exist; it is before the “beginning” of the first chapter of Genesis, before the creation of the heavens and the earth.

God created the Son “an eternal spirit” [83] (9:14); he gave him a “life without end” (7:3, 8), an “imperishable life” (7:16). “His years will not end” (1:12). He remains the same, “yesterday, today and eternally” (13:8). His “throne remains from eternity to eternity” (1:8; cf. 7:28).

Given these attributes, the Son was the organ of the creation of the world (1:2). The author relates to the Son these words of Psalm 102:26: “You anciently established the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (1:10). This idea of a celestial being charged to realize the creative thought of God is a Philonic idea; it penetrated into Judaism under the influence of Greek philosophy. God is conceived as a being too elevated and too pure to enter into immediate contact with matter. He uses intermediary beings for the creation and preservation of the world. The same idea gave birth to the rabbinic teaching according to which God had given the Law to Moses, not directly, as Exodus (ch. 20) and Deuteronomy (ch. 5) report it, but by the ministry of angels (2:2; cf. Galatians 3:19; Acts 7:53). See also Deuteronomy 33:2 in the Septuagint version; et Josephus, Antiquities 15.5.3.

[84] It is also by the Son that God continues to sustain the world. The Son, says our author, “bears all things by his powerful word” (1:3). We know that in Philonism, the “word” is the sensible expression of the intimate nature of a person. The powerful word of the Son is his powerful nature, the power of his metaphysical being. Just as a minister acts in the name and by the delegation of his sovereign, likewise the Son acts with the full power of the Father in the work of creation and the preservation of the world.

With this double title and according to the conceptions of the era, the Son occupies vis-à-vis other creatures, even the more elevated ones, the rank of a god. It is what expresses, in the thought of our author, these words of Deuteronomy: “All the angels of God must bow before you” (Deut 32:43, solely in the version of the Septuagint; cf. Ps 97:7), and this passage of Psalm 45 (Hebrew 44):6ff.: “Your throne, O God, remains from eternity to eternity, the scepter of your reign is a scepter of equity; you have loved justice and you have hated iniquity; it is why, O God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy in preference to your companions” (1:8-9).

These last words prove to us that it is not a question here of the essential divinity of Christ, of his deity, of his homoousia with the Father. God is one, in the absolute [85] sense; he is essentially distinct from the whole universe; he is outside of comparison. The Son, on the contrary, is not only of his species, he has “companions” – “fellows” (as Osterwald and Martin translate), “colleagues” (according to the translation of Reuss and Segond), “peers” (according to Oltramare), “equals” (according to Stapfer). These μέτοχοι are the superior spirits, among which Christ is classified as to the order of creation, but above which he is elevated by the dignity and the privileges which it pleased God to accord to him.

The psalmist, in the citation above, is supposed to give to the preexistent Christ the name of God. One would be wrong to infer an identification of Christ and of God in the thought of our author. Noting first of all that the name of God, applied to the Son, is found only incidentally in the citation, and that this has for a goal to prove, not the equality of the Father and the Son, but the superiority of the Son over the other celestial spirits. In the course of his exposition, the author never gives to Christ the name of God. According to the citation of Deuteronomy, it is the angels “of God” who must [86] bow before the Son. There, the distinction of God and Son is clearly marked. And in the citation of the psalmist, the Son is called God only in a derivative sense; he has above him his God: “O God, your God has anointed you.” His God, it is Jehovah, who does him the favor of choosing him “in preference to his companions,” and with whom our author did not identify him.

In the language of this era, one can employ the name of θεός in a derivative sense, even as we do today for the adjective divine. The term had something of an elasticity that it lost later. In the Old Testament, the name of God is several times applied to men: “I have said, “You are gods, you are sons of the Most High’” (Ps 82:6; cf. Exod 4:16; 7:1; 22:8-9). Jesus Christ himself revealed the loose character of this expression (John 10:34-35). Saint Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Although there are beings called gods, whether in heaven, whether on the earth – as there is, in fact, a great number of gods and lords – nevertheless for us, there is only one God, the Father, from whom comes all things and for whom we are, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and by whom we are” (1 Cor 8:5-6). Philo also know this derivative sense: ὁ μὲν ἀληθεία θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν, οἱ δ᾿εν καταχρήσει λεγόμενοι πλείονες (de somn. 39). [87] It is manifestly in this sense that it is necessary to understand the name of θεός applied to Christ in our citation; and one should not invoke this citation against our conception of the Christology of the epistle.

If the author had wished to teach the essential divinity of Christ, he would have made it with a perfect clarity; he was a rather good theologian and he handled rather well the pen for expressing clearly his thought. But he thinks so little to identify Christ with God that, in his enumeration of the inhabitants of the “celestial Jerusalem”, he separates Jesus from God: “You have approached . . . of God, the judge of all, and of the spirits of the just made perfect, and of Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant” (12:23-24). Noting also that in saying that Christ is seated “at the right hand of God” (1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2), the author distinguishes perfectly the one who is seated on the throne, and the one who is seated to his side. The exalted Christ is not God: he is next to God, to his right, at the place of honor. There is, according to our author, no tendency to identify them.

Moreover, the author places explicitly in the category of created beings, not only Christ and the superior spirits, but also Christ and men. “The one who sanctifies,” he says “and those who are sanctified are all issued from the one God” [88] (2:11). “It is why,” he adds, “Christ is not ashamed to call them his brothers.” In support, some prophetic passages of the Old Testament follow: Ps 22 (LXX: 21):23; Isa 8:17ff. And that one should well mark it, it does not concern here the incarnate Christ, but the preexistent Christ.

All the effort of the author, in the two first chapters, tends to prove, not the divinity of Christ, but his superiority over similar spirits. This effort would have been useless and the argumentation would have been very awkward if [89] the author had believed in the real divinity of Christ; because in this case, it would have been sufficient for him to affirm this divinity, and the superiority over the angels would become obvious.

If we need more proof to support our interpretation, we will find it in the fact that the idea of an incarnation of the divinity is absolutely absent from our epistle; we will find no trace in it neither in the premises nor in the argumentation of our author. It is not found in his premises, because according to his platonic conceptions, he would not, as we have seen, admit an immediate contact of God and matter.

Just as for the creation and preservation of the world, an intermediary being, a mediator, is needed for the incarnation and redemption (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). In the exposition of our author, it is not God who is abased or is incarnated. This idea, which in later theology has played a crucial role, is unknown to him. In his notion of God, there are not hypostases or intra-divine persons, of whom once could be externalized and incarnated. God, immutable in his majesty, presides at the incarnation of the Son, but he does not participate personally. He has prepared for him, says our author, “a body” (10:15). This body, clothed the Son [90] at the time of his incarnation. It is a body “of flesh and of blood” as those of other men (2:14). He has lived thus in “the flesh” (5:7); and death has torn this flesh as a veil (10:20).

One sees here the platonic premises of the Judeo-Alexandrian school. According to Plato, the spirits preexist in the celestial regions and are incarnate in human bodies. This incarnation is by way of natural generation. Has the author of our epistle represented the mode of the generation of Christ as different from those of other men? This is not likely. In any case, there is in the epistle no indication to suggest that the author had believed in the miraculous conception of Jesus in the womb of a virgin. If he had this belief, it is scarcely admissible that he would not have expressed it, given his tendency to exalt Christ and to place him above all the beings of creation. A miraculous exception in favor of the Son would have been an argument too precious to be passed under silence.

[91] Historically speaking, the idea of the preexistence of Christ and that of his supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit are exclusive of one another. According to the latter, Christ would not have existed before his conception; it is the union of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary that he is born. According to the former, on the contrary, Christ was called into existence by the Creator before all other celestial spirits, and the Holy Spirit would have played no role in his incarnation. One can seek to reconcile dogmatically these two notions; but on the terrain of history they are irreconcilable. The authors of the New Testament, who teach one, do not teach the other. We are then authorized to conclude that the author of our epistle, in teaching the incarnation of the preexistent Christ, does not profess the doctrine of the conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit in the womb of a virgin. He nevertheless does consider of the Son as a miraculous fact; because this is not one of the innumerable preexistent human souls who are incarnated – an incarnation which according to the platonic theories is the rule, the natural and daily fact – but a superior spirit, a unique being, the Firstborn, who was not, as human souls, naturally destined to be clothed with flesh and blood.

[92] The reason which, according to our author, determined the Son to be incarnated is the will of the Father. Adopting the word of a Psalm, the Son says to the Father: “Here I am, O God, to do your will” (10:7; cf. Ps 40:7-9). The incarnation of the Son was necessary, not only so that one can offer his body in sacrifice for sin – because without the shedding of blood there is no pardon (9:22) – but also so that he can sympathized with sinners in participating in their weakness, their sufferings, their temptation. “He must be made like his brothers in all things in order that he may become compassionate” (2:17) . . . “because having suffered himself in trials, he can succor those who are tempted” (2:18) . . . “We do not have a great priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, because he experienced the same temptations as us, but without falling into sin (4:15; cf. 5:2).

These passages confirm also our conclusions relative to the nature of the Son of God. If the author of our epistle had believed in the essential divinity of Christ, he would not have made the knowledge of the miseries of humanity depend on his incarnation. God is omniscient; he knows the sentiments of men because without having the need to be incarnated. It is precisely because he knows them that he has sent his Son into the world. The firstborn of creatures, on the contrary, would be perfectly, in the [93] thought of our author, ignorant, before having personally experienced all the breadth and depth of the evils of humanity.

Surrounded by temptations, Christ always triumphed (4:15). “He offered himself to God without spot” (9:14). “For it is right for us to have a sovereign priest: holy, innocent, without spot” (7:26). The holiness of Christ could not be affirmed with more clarity; it is supposed in the whole writing. The author does not examine the question, if Christ could have sinned. As he does not identify with God, he must admit the possibility of a fall. However, given his superior nature and his original obedience, the Son of God is found in more favorable conditions to leave victoriously from the battle.

Despite his celestial nature and his exceptional gifts, the Son of God did not primitively have the fullness of perfection. He must progress more, in order to attain the most elevated degree of glory and felicity. It pleased God, says the author, to elevate him to perfection by suffering (2:10).

La τελείωις, in the language of the epistle to the Hebrews (7:11, 19, 28; 9:9, 11; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:2, 23; 6:1), is not moral perfection, but the term of an evolution, the plenitude of a fulfillment. This perfection, the Son of God attained (5:9; cf. 2:10; 7:28; Phil 2:9). If the author had believed in the deity of Christ, he would not have expressed it thus; because God, in the Israelite conception, is the absolute perfection. The primitive state of the Son, on the contrary, was [94] susceptible to a development, to a progress, to a perfecting.

To arrive at perfection, the Son must undergo a formidable test: he must be abased, to be incarnate in humanity, to triumph over temptations, to be patient in suffering, to be submitted to the will of God until the torment of the cross.

Christ knew that a glorious recompense would crown his victorious battle. “He suffered the cross,” says our author, “and he despised the ignominy, in view of the joy which was reserved for him” (12:2). It is this perspective which sustained him.

[95] The author, note it well, does not say, and none of his interpreters would say, that Jesus had accepted the sufferings in the intention of gaining the celestial joys. It is for the salvation of his brothers that he is sacrificed. But what sustained him in the ignominy, in the sufferings, on the cross, is the perspective of the felicity [96] and of the glory to come. All the faithful of the old covenant had been sustained in their ordeals by the faith in the divine promises (ch. 11). Jesus likewise. And he had not failed. He fought valiantly until the end. He became thus our model for faith, patience, perseverance. “Running with perseverance in the lists which are open before us, by regarding Jesus, the chief and consummator of our faith” (12:1-2).

[97] Suffering had exercised him, seasoned him. “He learned obedience by suffering” (5:8). God came to his aid “by his grace” – 2:9; he heard him “because of his piety” – 5:7.

As one sees it, our author has taken seriously the [98] ordeals, the battles, the sufferings of Christ. He considers as meritorious his obedience and his piety; he represents him as sustained by the grace of God and by the hope of a glorious future. Christ incarnated was really like men “in all things except for sin” (4:15).

Superior to the angels in the transcendent world, Christ was superior, in humanity, to the greatest of the men of God, Moses (3:1-6). Both Moses and Jesus received a calling from God; both were faithful in their mission (3:2). But the mission of Jesus was superior to that of Moses, since Moses entered into the house of God (the people of Israel) as servant, while this house already existed; whereas the Son of God is the founder of a new house, namely the Christian [99] church (3:6). But, in the last analysis, the two houses, ancient Israel and the Christian church, have God for the founder (3:4). The subordination of the Son is clearly marked by these words. In the order of created beings, Jesus is superior to Moses; but vis-à-vis God, there is an assimilation of Moses and of Jesus. One sees with what care the author accents the sovereignty of God. In this passage, God is called θεός in an absolute sense which excludes formally, by the conjunction δέ, the assimilation of Christ to God.

A last trait that the author mentions to exalt Christ in his humanity, is his superiority over the sovereign priest or great priest of Israel. We will see in the next chapter that this parallel is all to the advantage of Christ, in whom our author sees the realization of the mysterious and prophetic type of the priest-king Melchizedek.

After having accomplished his redemptive work in allowing himself to be sacrificed on the cross, the Son of God was raised [100] from death (13:20). He traversed the heavens (4:14; cf. 9:11), he entered into the celestial holy of holies (6:19; 9:24), he offered his precious blood in the temple which was not made by the hands of men (9:11), he sat down at the right hand of God (12:2; 1:3; 8:1), he was crowned with glory and honor (2:9), he remains “the same, yesterday, today, and eternally” (13:8), interceding without ceasing, as eternal high priest, for sinners who turn with faith to his holy ministry; and he abides in heaven, until God has placed all his enemies under his feet (10:13; cf. 1:13; 2:8). Here, we find ourselves in eschatology, which will be the object of a special chapter of this work.

The Christology of our author is manifestly the attempt of a Philonian Christian seeking to render an account, with his philosophical premises, the mysterious personality of Christ. His notion is substantially different from that of later orthodoxy. It is closer to the doctrine of the Arians than that of Athanasius. It must disappear from the Church with the belief in eons, and to make way for the teaching of the essential divinity of Christ. Soon it will no longer be understood; [101] it is interpreted in the orthodox sense; and even today, there are theologians who understand it in the Christology of the council of Niceae. It is an optical illusion. We do not believe that a deep study of the texts can lead to conclusions other than that which we just described.

French Theses Added

2011-05-02T20:55:00.000-05:00

The following French these have been added to the electronic books:

Heldt, Ernest. L'idée de la foi dans les écrits de St. Paul, dans l'épître aux Hébreux et dans celles de S. Pierre et de S. Jacques. 1850.

Jundt, Charles. Examen critique sur l'auteur de l'Epître aux Hebreux. 1834.

Redslob, Jules-Auguste. Melchisédec: Etude exegetique et historique sur les passages Genese XIV,18-20; Psaume CX,4, et Hebreux VII,1-10. 1869.

Sarrus, Alfred. Jésus-Christ: Etude exegetique sur sa personne et son oeuvre d'après l'Epître aux Hébreux. 1861.

Scherdlin, Daniel Eugène. Specimen hermeneuticum in locum ad Hebr. IX., 13-14. 1859.

Milligan on the Priesthood of Christ

2011-05-02T15:10:00.001-05:00

Milligan, W. “The Melchizedek or Heavenly Priesthood of Our Lord. Part I.” Expositor. Third Series, 8 (1888): 277-96.

Milligan, W. “The Melchizedek or Heavenly Priesthood of Our Lord. Part II.” Expositor. Third Series, 8 (1888): 337-59.

In part one Milligan explores the question, when did the real priesthood of Christ begin. This question cannot be resolved without first exploring what it means for Jesus to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. This conception is taken from the central verse of Psalm 110. The author identifies two prerequisites for that Jesus fulfilled for priesthood: 1) He is called of God; 2) His ability to sympathize with humanity.

Our understanding of Jesus’ priesthood is based upon our understanding of Melchizedek’s priesthood: 1) As king of righteousness and king of priest, he embodies the two greatest blessings to humanity; 2) He is free from all limitations of space and time; he has no beginning or end and is without genealogy; 3) His priesthood existed prior to the Jewish priesthood before there was any distinction between Jew and Gentile; hence his priesthood is more universal; 4) His priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood as is evidenced by the fact that he received tithes from Abraham (and thus Levi through him); 5) He pronounced his blessing upon Abraham and hence the Levitical priesthood.

These considerations demonstrate that Jesus could not have been priest before his glorification since he could not fulfill the conditions of the Melchizedek priesthood in a material human body. Nor could he have belonged to the Aaronic priesthood on earth since he was from the tribe of Judah. Nor could Jesus have acted as an Aaronic priest in heaven since the author of Hebrews says that the Aaronic priesthood had nothing to do with the heavenly sanctuary.

But a difficulty arises. If Jesus became a priest only after his resurrection, how could he offer himself upon the cross which was a priestly act? Milligan resolves this difficulty by appealing to John 12:32. He takes υψωθω to mean “lifted on high” and the preposition εκ to mean “out of” – Jesus was lifted on high out of the earth. Hence, Jesus’ glorification begins not with his resurrection but his crucifixion. The crucifixion and glorification go together in John’s Gospel. Milligan claims that the same idea is found in Hebrews. He says, “The Crucifixion breaks the bond to earth; it is the introduction to the full reign of spiritual and heavenly power” (290). The incarnation and earthly life of Jesus was the preparation for his work upon the cross. He learned obedience and was made perfect for his role as priest.

He concludes by highlighting the main characteristics of the heavenly high priesthood: 1) It is one and unchangeable; 2) It is spiritual, i.e., it could cleanse the conscience; 3) It is universal; 4) It is everlasting.

In part two Milligan discusses Jesus’ priestly work of offering, intercession, and benediction. He begins by reiterating his main conclusion: that Jesus’ crucifixion was the beginning of his priesthood after the order of Melchizedek “because it broke the bond by which He had been bound to earth, because it was the introduction to the full reign of spiritual and heavenly power” (338).

Jesus’ offering was one of life, not death. Jesus is raised to a higher state of existence and this begins before his death and it continues afterward. Milligan explains that it was not the sacrifice of the animal that brought atonement for sin, but atonement occurred only after the blood was offered and sprinkled on the mercy seat. The blood, he argues, was not seen as death, but the life. Likewise, Christ’s blood, as shed, is the life given to God for men, and as offered, the life of Christ given to men. The offering of Christ on the cross was not the finish, but the beginning of his work. His life “was liberated on the cross, that His true offering might be made by the surrender of that life to God in a perpetual service of love, obedience, and praise” (344).

Milligan identifies several characteristics of the offering of Christ. As an offering of life, 1) His offering accomplishes all the separate offerings of the law (e.g., the sin-, peace-, or burnt-offerings); 2) His offering is complete, embracing in its efficacy the whole life of man (labor, suffering, temptation, death etc.); 3) His offering is everlasting; 4) His offering is made once for all and cannot be repeated.

Christ’s second priestly work is intercession which is accomplished by one who is already at the right hand of God in his heavenly abode. Milligan uses John 17 as an example of the type of intercessory prayer Jesus is doing. Finally, Christ’s third priestly work is benediction or blessing.

While it is possible that the author of Hebrews saw the crucifixion and glorification as one event, I do not find Milligan’s solution persuasive. He interprets Hebrews through the lens of the Gospel of John, but Hebrews should be interpreted on its own terms. Nowhere do I see Hebrews say that the crucifixion broke the bonds of earth.

Hebrews Carnival April 2011

2011-04-30T23:59:00.009-05:00

Jeremy Thompson concludes his posts on Harold Attridge's Essays on John and Hebrews with an Evaluation.

Steven Coxhead reads the Theme of Judgment in Ezekiel 7 in the Light of Hebrews 10:26-31.

William Mounce explores the translation of predicate adjectives in Hebrews 13:4.

Ken Schenck meditates upon Hebrews 3-4: The Rest of God.

In another post Ken lists what he would say if he were Introducing Hebrews without taking sides.

Ken is also beginning a series of posts on the CEB translation of Hebrews. His first post begins with Hebrews 1:1-4.

Joel Watts talks about Hebrews and Long Ago Imagery in Hebrews 1:1-3.

Joel also remarks that Hebrews says Yes to the question: Is It Impossible to restore repentance?

The Seeking Disciple explains that the Christian's assurance depends upon Jesus, The Anchor For Our Soul.

Justin Taylor has a chart on the Difference Between Jesus and the Levitical High Priests.

Dave Spotts give daily devotional thoughts on lectionary readings. This month included readings from Hebrews: 1:1-14; 2:1-18; 3:1-19; 4:1-16; 5:1-14; 6:1-20; 7:1-22; 7:23-8:13; 9:1-28; 10:1-18; 10:19-39; 11:1-29; 12:1-24; 13:1-21.

New Articles on Hebrews

2011-04-28T21:35:00.001-05:00

I am going to try to post about new articles on Hebrews as I become aware of them. So far, at least two new articles on Hebrews have appeared:

Allen, David L. "The Authorship of Hebrews: Historical Survey of the Lukan Theory." Criswell Theological Review ns 8.2 (2011): 3-18.

Thanks to Charles Savelle for the tip.

Scott Mackie also informed that he has a new article published:

Mackie, Scott D. “Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Journal of Theological Studies ns 62 (2011): 77-117. Abstract.

2010 Articles on Hebrews

2011-04-28T21:25:00.001-05:00

Here are the articles on Hebrews that came out in 2010, that I know about:

Ackerman, David A. “The High Priesthood of Jesus and the Sanctification of Believers in Hebrews 7-10.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45.1 (Spring 2010): 226-45.

Bing, Charles C. “Does Fire in Hebrews Refer to Hell?” Bibliotheca sacra 167 (2010): 342-57.

Clivaz, Claire. “A New NT Papyrus: P126 (PSI 1497).” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 158-162.

Jennings, Mark A. “The Veil and the High Priestly Robes of the Incarnation: Understanding the Context of Heb 10:20.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 37.1 (2010): 85-97.

Jipp, Joshua W. “The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena in Hebrews 1.5-14.” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 557-75.

Johnson, Elliott. “Does Hebrews Have a Covenant Theology?” Master’s Seminary Journal 21.1 (2010): 31-54.

Mason, Eric F. “Emerging Voices on the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 37.1 (2010): 3-6.

Mason, Eric F. “The Epistle (Not Necessarily) to the ‘Hebrews’: A Call to Renunciation of Judaism or Encouragement to Christian Commitment?” Perspectives in Religious Studies 37.1 (2010): 7-20.

Mason, Eric F. "Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Points of Comparison." Perspectives in Religious Studies 37.4 (2010): 457-79.

Moffitt, David M. “Unveiling Jesus’ Flesh: A Fresh Assessment of the Relationship Between the Veil and Jesus’ Flesh in Hebrews 10:20.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 37.1 (2010): 71-84.

Nash, Stephanie. “An Example of the Traditional Bible Study Model Based on Hebrews 11:1-12:2.” Review and Expositor 107 (2010): 219-27.

Peeler, Amy L. B. “The Ethos of God in Hebrews.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 37.1 (2010): 37-51.

Randles, Viv. "Jeremiah 2:4-13; Hebrews 13:1-8, 15-16." Expository Times 121 (2010): 513-14.

Small, Brian C. “The Use of Rhetorical Topoi in the Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 37.1 (2010): 53-69.

Steele, Carol. “Hebrews 1:1-4.” Interpretation 64.3 (2010): 290-92.

Tait, Michael. “The Search for Valid Orders: The Melchidek Christology in Hebrews.” Churchman 124.2 (2010): 127-42.

Toit, Andrie du. “τα προς τον θεον in Romans and Hebrews: Towards Understanding an Enigmatic Phrase.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 101.2 (2010): 241-51.

Whitfield, Bryan J. “The Three Joshuas of Hebrews 3 and 4.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 37.1 (2010): 21-35.

Hebrews at the 2011 SBL International Meeting

2011-04-21T22:03:00.002-05:00

Unfortunately I am unable to attend the International Meeting of the SBL this year. Here is the schedule for the sessions on Hebrews:

6-5
Epistle to the Hebrews
7/06/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Theme: Hebrews 13 and Its Relationship to the Rest of the Book
David M. Moffitt, Duke University, Presiding

David M. Allen, Queen's Foundation, Birmingham
What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13? (30 min)

Susan Docherty, Newman University College Birmingham UK
The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13 (30 min)

Discussion (15 min)
Break (30 min)

James W. Thompson, Abilene Christian University
Insider Ethics for Outsiders: Identity and Ethics in Hebrews 13 (30 min)

Joseph R. Dodson, Ouachita Baptist University
Ethical Exhortations in the Letter to the Hebrews and the Writings of Seneca (30 min)

Discussion (15 min)

6-32
Epistle to the Hebrews
7/06/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Eric F. Mason, Judson University (Elgin, Illinois), Presiding

Edward Adams, King's College - London
'No Lasting City' and the Eternity of Rome (Hebrews 13.14) (30 min)

Cynthia Long Westfall, McMaster Divinity College and Bryan R. Dyer, McMaster Divinity College
Scared to Death: Clues to the Circumstance of the First Readers of the Book of Hebrews (30 min)

Discussion (15 min)
Break (30 min)

David M. Moffitt, Duke University
Christ’s Performance of God’s Will in Hebrews 10: Fulfilling the Psalmist’s Desire in Ps 40 (30 min)

Eric F. Mason, Judson University (Elgin, Illinois)
A Chiastic Approach to the Affirmations about the Son in Heb 1:1-4 and the Biblical Quotations of Heb 1:5-14 (30 min)

Discussion (15 min)

Review of Albert Vanhoye's, A Different Priest

2011-04-20T08:00:00.008-05:00

Albert Vanhoye. A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by Leo Arnold. Series Rhetorica Semitica. Miami: Convivium Press, 2011. Paperback, 450 pages.

Vanhoye was Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Biblical Institute in Rome and Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. He was appointed Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006. Vanhoye is one of the most prolific authors on the book of Hebrews. His seminal work on the literary structure of Hebrews in 1963 is still influential today. He has produced many other books and articles on Hebrews.

This commentary is part of the Rhetorica Semitica Series and was produced in collaboration with the International Society for the Study of Biblical and Semitic Rhetoric. As expected, then, Vanhoye subjects the book of Hebrews to rhetorical analysis. He believes that Hebrews is a homily that was delivered to several communities by an itinerant preacher (19). The book preserves one instantiation of this sermon to a specific community, as indicated by the epistolary ending of 13:22–25 which was attached to the homily. Vanhoye claims that Hebrews utilizes biblical or Semitic rhetoric which is vastly different from Classical Greco-Roman rhetoric. He notes some differences: 1) In Greco-Roman rhetoric one announces the subject and then treats the themes in the order that they were announced. Hebrews, by contrast, because of its penchant for chiastic structures treats the themes in reverse order. 2) Greco-Roman rhetoric recommends the avoidance of verbal repetitions. Hebrews, by contrast, frequently uses verbal repetition to mark out literary units by the process of inclusion (20). 3) Greco-Roman rhetoric places the most important elements at the beginning and end of a composition, and the less important ones in the middle. Hebrews employs a concentric structure which places the most important elements in the middle (440–41). Hebrews also makes frequent use of synonymous and antithetical parallelism (441). Vanhoye claims that Hebrews does not conform to any of the three genres of classical rhetoric (i.e., forensic, deliberative, epideictic).

Chapter 1 presents a general outline of the composition. Vanhoye proposes the following structure: The sermon begins with an exordium (1:1–4) and concludes with a final invocation and doxology (13:20–21), and a dispatch note (13:19, 22–25). The main body is divided into five parts (1:5–2:18; 3:1–5:10; 5:11–10:39; 11:1–12:13; 12:14–13:18). Each part is preceded by an announcement of the subject (56–57). Vanhoye’s literary skill is on display in this chapter as he shows how key words help to set off boundary divisions in the text while at the same time indicate how the different sections relate to one another. One may quibble with the specific divisions such as his breakdown of chapters 8–10, or whether 12:14 really marks the beginning of the fifth part of the discourse, but his analysis gives a good sense of the overall argument of the book.

Hebrews begins with a presentation of traditional Christology. Jesus was glorified as the Son of God after his suffering in solidarity with humanity (chapters 1–2). Jesus thus became the ideal mediator between God and humanity (2:17). The author then deals with his priestly Christology at length. First, he shows the continuity with the Old Testament by demonstrating that Jesus was faithful like Moses (3:1–2) and that his priesthood has similarities to the Aaronic priesthood (5:1–10). Second, he highlights the differences and demonstrates the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood in the great doctrinal section of 7:1–10:18. Doctrine and ethics are not distinct from one another as the author intersperses his exposition with hortatory passages. The great doctrinal section prepares the way for the final chapters which are primarily exhortation.

Vanhoye disputes those who would argue that the epistolary section begins at 13:1. While he acknowledges that the change of rhythm at the beginning of chapter 13 is indisputable, he argues that this chapter is an integral part of the author’s argument (54–56). I tend to see 12:29 as the ending of the sermon proper with some general exhortations and comments attached to the end. 12:29 seems to me to be a good way to end a sermon, and the concluding section (12:25–29) begins with a warning to heed “Him who is speaking” (τὸν λαλοῦντα) which corresponds nicely with the opening exordium which declares that “God has spoken” (ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας), thus forming an inclusio.

Vanhoye proceeds immediately to a section by section analysis of Hebrews. One will look in vain for a treatment of standard introductory issues such as authorship, recipients, provenance, date, occasion, and the like, as usually found in commentaries. Each section of Hebrews is subject to a three-fold analysis: Composition, Biblical Context, and Interpretation (these last two elements are sometimes combined). Under Composition Vanhoye does a detailed analysis of the rhetorical structure and other literary issues. Under Biblical Context he treats intertextual issues, analyzing how Hebrews relates to the rest of the biblical canon. Here is where he deals with the numerous quotations and allusions in Hebrews. Under Interpretation he presents a sense of the overall flow of thought in the section treated and deals with critical issues as they arise. This part is more like a running exposition rather than a verse-by-verse analysis. It is impossible of course to cover the entire commentary in this review, so I will highlight certain key passages to give a sense of the types of exegetical decisions and interpretive comments that he makes.

At 1:6 when the author of Hebrews speaks about the introduction of the firstborn into the world, Vanhoye argues that the author is not referring to the incarnation, but to the resurrection and glorification of Christ (81). Commentators are divided over whether the passage refers to Jesus’ incarnation, exaltation, or second coming. In the quotation of Ps 44 LXX in 1:8–9 he views ὁ θεός as a title referring to the divinity of Christ. The phrase Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός does not mean “your throne is God.” In its original context it was used hyperbolically of the Israelite king, but when “[a]pplied to the risen Christ, the statement loses its hyperbolic character and becomes the expression of genuine reality, for the reign of Christ is not situated on the earthly level but on the fully divine one” (84).

At 2:3 Vanhoye believes that the beginning of the announcement of salvation began, not with the public ministry of Jesus, but after his resurrection, for it was then that God made him Lord and Christ (97). However, the title “Lord” is applied to the earthly Jesus in 7:14, so Vanhoye may not be right about this.

At 3:1 Vanhoye appeals to Malachi 2:7 stating that the title “Apostle” is equivalent to the Greek word aggelos, messenger. Since the author had already demonstrated how Jesus was superior to the angels in chapter 1, he tried to avoid confusion by using an equivalent term (125).

Vanhoye argues that 4:10 is not a gnomic statement about the believer in general, but that it refers specifically to Jesus (142). Vanhoye is certainly in the minority with this view, but notable scholars such as Harold Attridge and David deSilva hold out for the possibility of a Christological reading of the passage. A Christological reading of this passage is certainly consistent with other passages in Hebrews that talk about Christ’s entry into heaven (6:20; 9:12, 24).

On 5:2 Vanhoye makes the following interesting statement about the verb μετριοπαθεῖν: “The preacher did not want to ascribe compassion for sinners to the high priests of the Old Testament, which is nowhere found in it; he reserved that compassion for the new high priest; to the high priests of old he merely ascribed something approaching it” (161).

On 5:7 Vanhoye correctly states that εὐλαβείας refers to Jesus’ piety and not to Jesus’ fear of death (165). How was Jesus’ prayer heard? Vanhoye states that “the will of God consisted in granting Jesus the most perfect reply possible to his prayer: complete and definitive victory over death, by means of death itself” (166).

I found Vanhoye’s treatment of 6:4–6 disappointing. He seems to suggest that the persons in view in this passage are genuine Christians, although he never explicitly states this. These persons experience a “culpable fall” but “the author does not specify the nature of this fall” (189). Vanhoye seems to view this passage as a rhetorical device (190), but it is not clear to me whether he believes that “falling away” is a real or hypothetical possibility. In light of the history of interpretation of this most controversial of passages, I would have expected a much fuller treatment of this passage.

At 7:3 Vanhoye interestingly remarks that Melchizedek is not a prefiguration of the preexistent Son of God, nor the incarnate Son of God, but “is the prefiguration of the risen Christ, for the resurrection is a new creation, in which neither human father, nor human mother, nor genealogy have any part” (210).

At 7:11 Vanhoye states that the verb ἀνίστασθαι suggests an allusion to the resurrection (213). I have not found many scholars who have supported this contention, but a few notable scholars have allowed for this possibility (Craig Koester, Luke Timothy Johnson, Peter O’Brien). At 7:16 Vanhoye remarks that the “power of an indestructible life” occurred at the moment of Jesus’ resurrection (214).

In 7:26 the expression κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν has been taken either with the previous adjectives to refer to ethical separation, or with what follows to refer to spatial separation. Vanhoye takes the latter view, applying it to the glorified Christ. He explains that “In his earthly life, Christ was not ‘separated from sinners’, he accepted contact with them and even sought it out, for he had ‘not come to call the just, but sinners’” (219). At 7:27 Vanhoye makes the interesting comment that the author employs a different word for offering a sacrifice, ἀναφέρειν, which is more appropriate in a passage describing the glorified Christ (220).

On 8:2 Vanhoye believes that the “sanctuary” and the “tent” refer to two distinct things and not to the same reality (242–43). At 9:11 he will go on to argue that the “tent” refers to the glorified body of Jesus (276–77). While some scholars take “tent” in a metaphorical sense, Vanhoye appears to be unique by attributing it to the glorified body of Jesus. Most scholars seem to take it to refer to the heavenly forecourt or to the sanctuary as a whole.

In 9:14 the expression διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου has been variously interpreted as a reference to: 1) Christ’s internal disposition, 2) Christ’s divine nature, or 3) the Holy Spirit. Vanhoye rejects the first two options and favors the third (282–83). His view, that the expression is used as a contrast to the fire of the altar in the sacrifices of the Old Testament, has found few followers (283–84).

Vanhoye argues that διαθήκη has the sense of “testament” in 9:15–17 (267). The author has exploited the multivalency of this Greek term (289). Vanhoye points out that the notion of “inheritance” was prevalent in both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants (267). Christ’s death not only procured forgiveness of sins, it obtained an eternal inheritance. Vanhoye remarks, “Christ has not only saved and redeemed us, he has acquired inestimably good things for us by his death. In the perspective of the New Testament, the action of ‘saving’ and of ‘redeeming’ corresponds to the departure from Egypt, obtaining ‘the inheritance’ corresponds to the entry into ‘the land of promise’” (290–91).

At 12:2 Vanhoye notes that the phrase ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς can be construed in one of two ways: 1) Jesus renounced the joy and chose the cross; 2) Jesus suffered the cross in order to obtain the joy. Both interpretations can find correlations with other passages in Hebrews and so Vanhoye leaves the matter undecided (368).

At 12:14 Vanhoye takes the view that “seeing the Lord” refers to Christ, and not God (387). At 12:24 Vanhoye rejects the interpretation that sees Abel’s blood as crying out for vengeance, while Christ’s blood brings mercy. He states, “This interpretation is attractive, unfortunately, it does not fit the immediate context, which does not speak of mercy, but of authority and severity” (395).

At 12:25 Vanhoye takes the minority view that “he who warned on earth” refers to Moses, while “he who warns from heaven” refers to Christ (396). Vanhoye even argues that the “voice” in 12:26 refers to Christ and not God. He explains, “It is the glorified Christ that the author ascribed, at the beginning of his homily, the final upheaval of earth and the heavens: ‘like a garment you will roll them up’ (Heb 1,12). Creator of heaven and earth as Son of God (1:1), the glorified Christ will be the eschatological judge of ‘the universe’ (Acts 17,31)” (396).

Finally at 13:10 Vanhoye argues that the “altar” does not refer to the Eucharistic table, but to the cross of Jesus, while the “eating” alludes to the Eucharistic table. The logic of 13:10–12 is hard to follow, but Vanhoye explains it succinctly: “[S]ince Jesus died in a situation that corresponds to the prohibition in Leviticus (Lev 6,23; 16,27), ‘those who pay worship at the tent do not have the right’ to ‘eat from this altar’, that is, they do not have the right to take part in the sacrificial meal associated with the cross, the ‘altar’ of the sacrifice of Christ. Attachment to former observances in worship in incompatible with sharing in the ‘Supper of the Lord’ (1Cor 11,20)” (415).

While Vanhoye’s commentary does not lack for erudition, the commentary is designed for a more popular audience. Footnotes are sparse and interaction with secondary literature or ancient sources is kept to a minimum. Greek and Hebrew are used sparingly and always given in transliteration. The one-page bibliography contains a highly selective listing of a few commentaries in various foreign languages. The commentary does contain an index of authors, but it would have been helpful also to include an index of scriptures used.

I did find the author’s treatment of passages a bit uneven. While some passages were dealt with in greater detail, other passages were treated more sparingly. For example, while Vanhoye devotes about a page to the textual variant in 9:11, he never even mentions the important textual variant at 2:9. While Vanhoye’s treatment of 9:11–14 encompasses about 18 pages, he devotes little more than one page to the highly controverted passage of 6:4–6.

Vanhoye’s most important contribution in this commentary is his analysis of the rhetorical structure of Hebrews. While this information can be found in some of Vanhoye’s other works, this commentary allows us to see how Vanhoye uses the rhetorical structure of the book to shape his interpretation of the book. This commentary is useful for helping one to get a sense of the overall flow of Hebrews’ argument. Vanhoye’s articulation of the differences between biblical and classical rhetoric is also a helpful corrective. Naturally, if one is looking for a more detailed analysis of the Greek text and an exploration of the various interpretive options on key passages, one should turn to other more critical commentaries.

Review on Vanhoye, A Different Priest, Forthcoming

2011-04-13T12:34:00.002-05:00

I want to thank Rafael Luciani and Alicia Torres of Convivium Press for a complimentary copy of Albert Vanhoye's book, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews. I will try to post a review of the book in short order.

Here is the blurb from the back cover:

"The first part, which only examines one theme, 'the Name of Christ', offers a general and contemporary Christology. The next two parts offer a priestly Christology, firstly more general and then more specific. Finally, the last two parts show the result of this for the Christian life, lived out in faith, hope and charity. The author of this work, has worked for many years on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and, notably, has taught it at the Biblical Institute and published a great number of specialist articles and Books on it, and now brings one of the most contemporary authoritative commentaries to a wider audience, contributing with the understanding of the unique Priesthood of Jesus Christ for the first Christian communities. In this work a detailed analysis of the text known as the Epistle to the Hebrews enables us to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that this is the full text of a splendid Christian preaching, which constantly conforms to the rules of Semitic rhetoric, including various genres of parallelism, synonymis [sic], antithesis and complementarity, and obeying a concentrically symmetrical schema."

Hebrews Carnival March 2011

2011-03-31T23:59:00.011-05:00

The month of February saw zero(!) posts on the book of Hebrews. But in the month of March activity regarding the book of Hebrews has picked up:

Daniel Fabricatore has A note on παροξυσμός in Hebrews 10:24.

Charles Savelle comments on Hebrews 12:1 and Hebrews 12:2 and Hebrews 12:3.

Michael Patton bemoans The Unfortunate Translations of Hebrews 12:17.

Iver Larsen responds with his own interpretation of Repentance in Hebrews 12:17.

Joel Watts responds to a question on Hebrews 6:5 - Of the Age to Come.

Nijay Gupta offers brief reviews of The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology and Peter O'Brien's The Letter to the Hebrews.

Tony Siew meditates on Hebrews 12:26 and other passages in light of the earthquake in Japan.

Jeremy Thompson has a brief review on Harold Attridge's collection of Essays on John and Hebrews. He provides information on the author and contents.

Ebrard's Commentary on Hebrews

2011-03-16T03:17:00.001-05:00

Ebrard, John H. A. Biblical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in Continuation of the Work of Olshausen. Translated by John Fulton. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1853.

Johannes Heinrich August Ebrard (1818–1888) was professor of theology at Zürich (1844) and Erlangen (1847-1861).

Ebrard’s commentary begins with a brief introduction setting Hebrews within the larger biblical story and a consideration of the occasion that gave rise to its writing. Traditional introductory matters are relegated to an appendix in the back of the commentary. Ebrard does not consider Hebrews to be an ordinary epistle, but more along the lines of a theological treatise. Nevertheless, it is addressed to a specific group of readers, more likely to a circle of individuals rather than to an entire church. The audience was comprised of Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem. They belonged to a later generation that had not witnessed the ministry of Jesus. Ebrard supposes that this group had been excluded from the temple and the temple worship.

The epistle was written sometime after Paul’s arrest in 58 and before the beginning of the Jewish War in 66. The book still speaks of the sacrificial ritual in the present tense. The church had already experienced some hardships: certain leaders had already been martyred, they had experienced the loss of possessions, and some believers had been imprisoned (13:7; 10:34). Ebrard narrows the writing of the epistle to either the summer of 64 with the breakout of the Neronian persecution or in 62-63 after the death of James (likely the one mentioned in 13:7). It is likely that Timothy was imprisoned (13:23) with Paul when he visited him at Rome and this supposition also supports a date around 62-64.

The difference in style from Paul’s letters led some church fathers to conjecture that Hebrews was translated from Aramaic into Greek, but Ebrard rightly notes that the Greek style is so fine that it most likely was composed in Greek originally. Ebrard weighs the external and internal evidence for authorship. The eastern church generally regarded Hebrews as Pauline, while the western church did not. The contrasting testimonies do not cancel each out, though; the testimony of the eastern church should be weighed more. Ebrard next considers the internal evidence of doctrine, diction, and style and concludes that while the spirit and doctrine of the epistle is Pauline, the diction suggests it does not come from Paul. After weighing various theories of authorship Ebrard concludes that “Luke worked out the epistle for Paul, and as in his name, not however in Rome, where perhaps he himself might have been involved in the procedure against Paul, but in another place in Italy, somewhere in the neighborhood of Theophilus. When the work was finished, the news reached him that Timothy had been set free in Rome” (426).

The commentary itself is a verse-by-verse exposition. The commentary demands considerable technical skill on the part of its readers since ancient languages are not translated. Ebrard’s interpretation of some key passages will give us a glimpse into the kinds of exegetical decisions he makes:

In 1:3 ἀπαύγασμα denotes the light that has radiated from another light, but becomes an independent light. In 2:5-9 Ebrard interprets Ps 8 anthropologically—all things are not yet subjected to humanity. At 2:9 he prefers the more difficult reading of χωρὶς θεοῦ. At 2:16 ἐπιλαμβάνεται means “to assist” and not “to assume the nature of.” In 3:3 ὁ κατασκευάσας refers to Christ as “the founder of the household to which Moses belonged as part or member.” At 3:5 τῶν λαληθησομένων refers to the revelations that God intended to give after the time of Moses. In 4:10 Ebrard takes the minority view that the expression ὁ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ refers not to the believer in general, but to Jesus. At 5:7 Ebrard construes the passage as follows: “He prayed to be preserved from the death which threatened him, and was heard and saved from the fear of death.”

On the controversial passage of 6:4-6 Ebrard believes that the passage “declares the possibility that a regenerate person may fall away.” In 7:26 the expression κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν means that Christ was untouched by sin, and does not refer to his departure from the world. In 9:14 διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου refers to Jesus’ own spirit, that is, his disposition of mind or heart. At 9:16-17 διαθήκη means “covenant” and not “testament.” At 10:20 Ebrard construes the passage to mean that the killing of Jesus’ body corresponded symbolically to the rending of the veil. At 12:2 the expression ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς indicates the heavenly joy as the reward for enduring the cross. At 13:10 the “altar” refers to the holy supper.

Forster on the Authorship and Apostolic Authority of Hebrews

2011-03-15T17:10:00.002-05:00

Forster, Charles. The Apostolical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews: An Enquiry, in Which the Received Title of the Greek Epistle Is Vindicated, against the Cavils of Objectors, Ancient and Modern, from Origen to Sir J. D. Michaëlis, Chiefly upon Grounds of Internal Evidence Hitherto Unnoticed: Comprizing a Comparative Analysis of the Style and Structure of this Epistle, and of the Undisputed Epistles of St. Paul, Tending to Throw Light upon Their Interpretation. London: James Duncan, 1836.

This monograph is probably the most detailed defense for Pauline authorship of Hebrews in any language. Forster hoped to resolve the question of Pauline authorship once and for all by a thorough examination of the internal evidence. In this goal, of course, he ultimately fails since the majority of scholars today do not regard Paul as the author of Hebrews.

In section 1 Forster identifies the distinctive usage of individual words that Hebrews and Paul’s epistles hold in common, but are not found in the rest of the NT or LXX. In section 2 Forster examines the distinctive usage of καταργεω in Paul and Hebrews. Sections 3-5 set forth a series of tables listing, words distinctive to Hebrews and Paul among the NT writings; words that are distinctive to Hebrews and Paul, but not found in the rest of the NT or LXX; and words that occasionally occur elsewhere in the NT, but not in the same manner or frequency of occurrence. For each word, Forster also lists other verbal agreements of words found in the same contexts. Section 6 then proceeds to examine some of these parallel passages in greater detail. It must be admitted that the verbal correspondences that Forster adduces are quite impressive. He has succeeded in demonstrating the numerous affinities that Hebrews has with Paul.

With section 7 Forster begins to examine the manner of Paul’s writing and its affinity with Hebrews. In this chapter he notes the tendency of Paul to use the same phrase over and over again. The example used in this chapter is the metaphorical use of the word “riches,” which is also found in Hebrews. In section 8 another stylistic similarity noted is the tendency to go off on tangents to explain the meaning of a particular word. He adduces examples both in Paul’s letters and Hebrews. Section 9 examines the usage of paronomasia, or play upon words, in both Paul and Hebrews. Here, I ask, whether this feature is really something distinctive between Paul and Hebrews. Section 10 examines the similarities in the frequency and length of OT quotations. He notes some quotations that are common to both Paul and Hebrews. What Forster fails to note, however, is that the manner of introducing quotations differs greatly between Paul and Hebrews. I think this is one of the strongest indicators that Paul did not write Hebrews. In section 11 Forster examines the similarity of the usage of key-texts in Paul and Hebrews. He concludes this section with tables illustrating the usage of these key-texts. Section 12 continues with additional charts showing the harmony of parallel passages between Paul and Hebrews. The chart proceeds sequentially through Hebrews and shows the parallels in the Pauline texts in the other columns.

While Forster has demonstrated numerous affinities between Hebrews and Paul, he has failed to consider the numerous differences that exist. The various similarities may be attributed to the possibility that the book was written by a close acquaintance of Paul’s who was influenced in some measure by his thoughts and manner of speaking. Another weakness of this type of study is that the Greek of Paul and Hebrews was considered only in light of other NT writings and the LXX. The NT is such a small body of literature compared to the vast corpus of Greek literature, that any linguistic arguments based on the NT alone can only be considered tentative and not conclusive.

Forster reexamines the external evidence in section 13. He begins by examining the possible quotations of Hebrews in the apostolic fathers (particularly, Polycarp, Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius). The fact that the apostolic fathers quote from or allude to Hebrews, suggests to Forster the apostolic authority of Hebrews. The allusions that Forster adduces have varying degrees of persuasiveness; not all of the examples he adduces are clear allusions to Hebrews. He then examines the testimonies of the early church fathers (Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) regarding the authorship of Hebrews. Here again, Forster fails to account for the contrary evidence, particularly of the western church fathers who did not regard Hebrews as Pauline. In section 14 Forster argues that 2 Pet 3:15-16 alludes to Paul’s authorship of the book of Hebrews. Forster also tries to show numerous literary parallels between Hebrews and the two Petrine epistles, thus demonstrating that Peter was aware of and influenced by the book of Hebrews. One interpretation that I found intriguing in this chapter is that Forster interprets the expression “crowned with glory and honor” in 2:9 to describe an event prior to Jesus’ passion and death. Most commentators take this as something that was conferred upon Jesus after his death. Forster appeals to 2 Pet 1:17-18, which speaks of Jesus receiving “glory and honor” from God at his transfiguration. This is an ingenious interpretation, but it is hard to see how Peter is really commenting on the book of Hebrews at this point. The expression “glory and honor” could have been a common expression used within the early church. The book closes with some useful appendices and indices.

August Tholuck's Commentary on Hebrews

2011-03-14T21:21:00.001-05:00

Tholuck, A. Kommentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer. Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1836. ET: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. Translated by James Hamilton. Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1842.

Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck (1799-1877) was instructor (1821) and professor (1823) of theology at the University of Berlin and the University of Halle (1826).

In his commentary Tholuck begins with the usual introductory issues. He first examines the external and internal evidence for Pauline authorship. In the eastern tradition the prevailing opinion was in favor of Pauline authorship, although some doubted it. By contrast, in the western church the prevailing opinion was against Pauline authorship. From the fourth century on, however, both the western and eastern churches were in agreement about Pauline authorship, although some doubts still remained in the west. Tholuck concludes that the external evidence is indecisive in determining Pauline authorship.

Tholuck next examines the internal evidence. Individual passages (2:3; 13:23-24) are indecisive for determining Pauline authorship. No essential difference exists between the doctrine of Hebrews and Paul. Nevertheless, some differences exist: Hebrews never mentions the importance of the resurrection of Christ, Paul does not discuss Jesus’ high priesthood, and the idea of faith in Hebrews differs from that of Paul’s. Once again, the evidence is not decisive since the many similarities that do exist between Hebrews and Paul may be attributed to the supposition that an acquaintance of Paul wrote Hebrews. When examining the language and style of Hebrews, however, Tholuck concludes that they point away from Pauline authorship. The form of the quotations from the OT (Hebrews universally cites the LXX; Paul does not) and the citation formulas used also speak against Pauline authorship. Finally, the external arrangement of Hebrews (e.g., the fact that it has no superscription or greeting) also militates against Pauline authorship.

Tholuck continues his discussion of authorship by tracing the history of interpretation on authorship. From the fourth century onward Pauline authorship was generally affirmed, and it was not until the Reformation that Pauline authorship was again questioned (e.g., by Erasmus, Luther, Calvin). When considering other candidates for the authorship of Hebrews (Luke, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Silas, Apollos), Tholuck finally settles for Apollos. The description of Apollos in Acts 18:24 fits well with what we would expect of the author of Hebrews.

The recipients of the epistle were most likely Jewish Christians living in Palestine as is evident by its attention to Jewish worship and its lack of any allusions to Gentile Christians. Hebrews was originally written in Greek and not translated from Aramaic, as is attested by its excellent Greek style, and by the fact that the author quotes the LXX and bases his arguments on the Greek text. Greek would have been widely known even in Palestine. Hebrews was probably written shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

The goal of the epistle is paraenetic: the recipients were wavering in their faith and in danger of lapsing back into Judaism. Therefore, to encourage them in the faith, the author shows that the new covenant was a completion of the old covenant. Tholuck concludes his introduction with a lengthy discussion of the canonicity and authority of Hebrews and an overview of the history of interpretation on Hebrews from the patristic era to the early nineteenth century.

The commentary itself proceeds in a verse-by-verse manner. The commentary demands high technical skill on the part of the reader as foreign language sources (Hebrew, Greek, Latin etc.) remain untranslated. The commentary is quite fulsome in some places but surprisingly brief in others places. It is impossible, of course, to give a detailed account the entire commentary, so I have chosen some representative comments on key passages:

The introduction to the quotation in 1:6 refers to the exaltation of Christ. Jesus is twice addressed as God in 1:8-9. On 2:5-9 Tholuck interprets the psalm strictly christologically. 2:16 does not refer to Jesus’ assumption of human nature as was the traditional view from the time of the church fathers. In 3:2 the expression τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτὸν refers to God’s appointment of Jesus. 5:7 is an allusion to the scene in Gethsemane. The subject of Jesus’ prayer was to be delivered from suffering; he was heard in the fact that he accepted that suffering as conqueror.

Tholuck explains 6:4-6 as follows: He who outwardly is thoroughly instructed in Christianity, and has inwardly had all the experiences connected with a life of faith, and then, not from weakness, but willingly falls away, and that the truth which he formerly possessed he now holds for a lie, and thereby profanes the Christ without him, and blasphemes the Christ within him, for this person there is, subjectively, no renewal of a change of mind, and, objectively, no new sacrifice for sins.

In 7:26 the expression “separated from sinners” does not refer to Jesus’ sinlessness but his separation from humanity by virtue of his exaltation into heaven. In 9:14 the expression “through eternal spirit” refers to the operations of the Holy Spirit in Jesus; it was the impulse for his self-sacrifice. In 9:16-17 Tholuck takes διαθήκη to mean “testament” and not “covenant.”

In 11:26 the “reproach of Christ” refers to Moses’ suffering after the example of Christ and does not imply that Moses had prophetic insight into the future suffering of Christ. In 12:2 the expression ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶ refers to the prize for which Jesus endured the shame of the cross, and not to what he gave up for the cross. In 12:14 κύριον more likely refers to God, not Jesus. In 12:24 the contrast is that Abel’s blood cried to God’s justice for the avenging of innocence, while Jesus’ blood to the grace of God for the guilty.

Interpretive Cruxes in Hebrews

2011-03-13T22:14:00.005-05:00

Hebrews is a notoriously difficult book to interpret. Difficulties abound surrounding the circumstances of the book. The identification of the author and recipients and their situation remains a mystery. The date and provenance of the book remain unknown. The integrity of the book has been called into question: Is chapter 13 original to the book or was it added later? In addition to these problems, the book is replete with exegetical difficulties. The following is a list of interpretive cruxes in the book of Hebrews.

Interpretive Cruxesin Hebrews

Hebrews is a notoriously difficult book to interpret. Difficulties abound surrounding thecircumstances of the book. Theidentification of the author and recipients and their situation remains amystery. The date and provenance of thebook remain unknown. The integrity ofthe book has been called into question: Is chapter 13 original to the book orwas it added later? In addition to theseproblems, the book is replete with exegetical difficulties. The following is a list of interpretivecruxes in the book of Hebrews.

1) 1:3 – Should ἀπαύγασμα betaken in the active or passive sense?

2) 1:4 – What is the greater“name” Jesus inherits?

3) 1:5 – What does σήμερον refer to?

4) 1:6 – What is themeaning of: ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην?

5) 1:8-9 – Is ὁ θεός to be taken as a vocative or nominative?

6) 1:9 – What doesthe “anointing” refer to? Who are the μετόχους?

7) 2:5-9 – Is Psalm 8to be taken christologically or anthropologically?

8) 2:9 – Should thereading be χάριτι θεοῦ or χωρὶς θεοῦ /?

9) 2:11 – What does ἐξ ἑνὸςrefer to?

10) 2:16 – What isthe meaning of ἐπιλαμβάνεται?What is the subject of the verb?

11) 2:17 – Does ἱλάσκεσθαι mean “propitiate”or “expiate”?

12) 3:2 – What is themeaning of τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτὸν?

13) 3:3 – Who is ὁ κατασκευάσας?

14) 3:5 – What does εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων refer to?

15) 3:14 – What isthe meaning of μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ /?

16) 4:10 – Who is ὁ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ /?

17) 4:15 – What isthe meaning of: πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθ’ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας a`marti,aj?

18) 5:7 – What didJesus pray for? How was his prayerheard? What does εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας mean?

19) 6:1 – What does τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον refer to?

20) 6:4-6 – Does thispassage indicate that one can lose one’s salvation?

21) 6:19 – What doesthe anchor refer to?

22) 7:3 – Does theauthor think that Melchizedek is some kind of angelic/suprahuman being?

23) 7:26 – What isthe meaning of κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν? Does it go with what precedes or whatfollows?

24) 8:1 – What does κεφάλαιον mean?

25) 8:2 – Does“sanctuary” and “tent” refer to the same thing, or two different things?

26) 9:4 – Does theauthor misplace the location of the altar of incense?

27) 9:11 – Should thereading be τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν or τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν?

28) 9:11 – What isthe “tent” through which Jesus enters?

29) 9:14 – What isthe meaning of: διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου?

30) 9:15-17 – Does διαθήκης mean“covenant,” “testament,” or both?

31) 9:23 – Do theheavenly things need cleansing?

32) 10:20 – What isthe meaning of: διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ /?

33) 11:26 – What doesτὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ refer to?

34) 12:2 – What does ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶςrefer to?

35) 12:14 – Does κύριον refer to God or Jesus?

36) 12:17 – What didEsau seek: the blessing or repentance?

37) 12:23 – To whom doesἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς refer?

38) 12:24 – What isthe meaning of: αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν Ἅβελ?

39) 12:25 – Who isthe one who warns on earth, and warns from heaven?

40) 13:9 – What doesthe “foods” refer to?

41) 13:10 – What doesthe “altar” refer to? Who are those whoofficiate in the tent?

42) 13:21 – Does thedoxology refer back to Jesus or to God or to both?

43) 13:24 – Is theauthor writing to or from Rome (or Italy)?

44) When does Christbecome high priest? When does he become Heirof all things?

Psalm 102 as an Address to the Son

2011-03-12T22:29:00.001-06:00

Gurney, Joseph John. “On the Testimony of the Apostle Paul, That the Psalmist Addresses the Son of God, as the Creator of the Universe.” Pages 169-182 in Biblical Notes and Dissertations, Chiefly Intended to Confirm and Illustrate the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ; with Some Remarks on the Practical Importance of That Doctrine. London: Rivington, 1833.

In this chapter Gurney argues that the words of Psalm 102 were addressed to the Son of God (1:10-12) and therefore prove that he was the creator of the heavens and the earth. His argument is twofold:

1) The construction of verses 1:7-12 demonstrates that the Son is contrasted with the angels. This is demonstrated by the μεν . . . δε construction. The copula και links the two quotations from Ps 45 and Ps 102 as referring to the Son. Therefore, the quotation of Ps 102 does not refer to the angels as some commentators are wont to do (Peirce; Michaelis). It is clear that the quotation of Ps 102 is addressed to the Son as verse 1:8 indicates: προς δε τον υιον. The preposition προς does not mean “concerning.”

2) The tenor of the argument also supports the contention that the psalm is addressed to the Son. The whole book of Hebrews argues for the superiority of the Christian religion to that of Jewish law. The audience was tempted to return to their Jewish faith and the observance of the law. One of the things that may have contributed to this is the belief that the law was mediated by angels. Here the author demonstrates the superiority of the gospel to the law by showing how Jesus is superior to the angels. The whole of chapter 1 argues for the superiority of the Son to the angels: he receives a superior name to the angels. The name encompasses both the offices and attributes of Christ. His office is superior: the angels are ministers; he is the royal Son of God. His attributes are superior: he receives worship from the angels. He is also the one who created the heavens and the earth.

God Made the Worlds by His Son

2011-03-12T21:48:00.001-06:00

Gurney, Joseph John. “God Made the Worlds by His Son.” Pages 163-68 in Biblical Notes and Dissertations, Chiefly Intended to Confirm and Illustrate the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ; with Some Remarks on the Practical Importance of That Doctrine. London: Rivington, 1833.

In this brief chapter Gurney deals with the relative clause in Hebrews 1:2: δι ου και τους αιωνας εποιησεν. He objects to one translation: “for whom also he constituted the ages.” He makes two points:

1) δια with the genitive case never refers to the final cause. This would require the accusative case. Instead, here it indicates agency: “by” or “through.”

2) αιωνας can be rendered as “ages” but it may also refer to the world or universe as it does in other Pauline passages (1 Tim 1:17; 1 Cor 2:7). Elsewhere in Hebrews (11:3) αιωνας clearly signifies the world or universe, and so it is likely that is the same meaning in 1:2. The Greek αιωνας corresponds to the Hebrew עלמ.

Gurney on the Canonical Authority of Hebrews

2011-03-12T20:37:00.001-06:00

Gurney, Joseph John. “On the Canonical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 1-39 in Biblical Notes and Dissertations, Chiefly Intended to Confirm and Illustrate the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ; with Some Remarks on the Practical Importance of That Doctrine. London: Rivington, 1833.

Joseph John Gurney (1788-1847) was a banker in Norwich, England and an evangelical minister of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

Many believe that the canonical authority of Hebrews rests on the question of whether Paul was the author of this epistle. Gurney thus proceeds to argue for Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

1) He states that 2 Peter 3:14-16 alludes to Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. First Peter was written to the diaspora Jews (1:1), as was 2 Peter (3:1). Gurney reasons that the epistle that Peter referred to was also written to Hebrews. He claims that the whole argument of Hebrews corresponds to what Peter is writing in 2 Peter 3. The “things hard to understand” (3:16) correlate to what Hebrews says in 5:11.

2) In the ecclesiastical tradition the Greek and eastern fathers are unanimous in affirming Pauline authorship. Beginning from the Alexandrian fathers (Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) Gurney lists numerous eastern fathers who affirmed Pauline authorship. Some of the Latin fathers (Caius, Tertullian, Irenaeus), however, did not affirm Pauline authorship. However, from the fourth century on, the western fathers (e.g., Jerome, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine) appear to be unanimous on Pauline authorship.

3) Gurney next considers the internal evidence: a) the few personal circumstances mentioned in Hebrews corresponds well with the history of Paul: the author displays intimate knowledge of the OT; he appears to be writing from Rome to Christians in Judaea (13:24); the mention of Timothy, who was a close associate of Paul’s (13:23); b) the author of Hebrews displays a similar disposition to that of Paul; c) the arrangement of the epistle into doctrinal and practical sections is similar to Paul’s writings [It should be noted that scholars today do not adhere to this simplistic structure of Hebrews anymore]; d) much of the theological language in Hebrews finds correlations with the Pauline writings.

Gurney next addresses the objection that Hebrews evinces a superior Greek style to that of Paul’s letters. Some early fathers tried to account for the differences: Hebrews was translated from Hebrew into Greek by Luke or Clement, or that someone else recorded the sentiments of Paul in his own language. Gurney rejects both of these explanations. Hebrews is not a translation: a) there is no ancient evidence of any Hebrew original; b) the author makes frequent use of paronomasia, or play on words; c) the author quotes and bases his arguments on the Greek translation of the OT; d) the writing evinces a fluid Greek style.

Nevertheless, Gurney argues that Hebrews stylistically shows similarities to Paul’s writings: a) the use of Hebraisms and Jewish idioms; b) the frequent separation of premises from conclusions with parenthetic discourse; c) similarities in certain peculiarities of grammatical construction; d) modes of expression peculiar to Paul are also found in Hebrews; e) the use of words which are common to Paul and Hebrews but found nowhere else in the NT. He argues that Paul was much more careful in the construction of this letter than in his other letters. He concludes that if Paul was the author then one cannot hesitate to ascribe the character of divine inspiration and canonical authority to the work.

Gurney argues, however, that independent of the question of authorship, Hebrews can be considered inspired and canonical. First, it was written during the apostolic age. Evidence for this includes: a) Clement of Rome appears to have made use of Hebrews; b) The early date can also be ascribed to the fact that the author appears to say that the sacrificial cult was still functioning at the time of the writing of Hebrews [this argument can no longer be sustained as scholars have found instances in which writers referred to sacrificial cultus in the present tense even after the destruction of the Temple]; c) The mention of Timothy; d) Its appearance in the earliest existing versions of the NT; e) the audience received their instructions from the immediate followers of Christ (2:3).

Second, the epistle was addressed to the Christian church in Palestine: a) The title “To the Hebrews” is found in all ancient versions, manuscripts, and editions. This is confirmed by the testimony of the early church fathers; b) The whole tenor and argument of the work evinces intimate knowledge of the Jewish law. The Jerusalem church was held in particular respect and authority by the rest of the Christian world, so it could only take a person endowed with divine inspiration to address such a church with such a doctrinal treatise.

Third, Hebrews’ inspiration and authority is grounded upon “its own internal excellence and scriptural weight” (36). Hebrews reveals truths not found in any other NT writing.

Francois Vidal on the Authenticity of Hebrews

2011-03-12T14:58:00.001-06:00

Vidal, Francois. De l’authenticité de l’épitre aux Hébreux. 1829.

In this work Vidal argues for the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. He believes that Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians living in Palestine. Hebrews was written to prevent these Christians from lapsing back into Judaism. Vidal sees two parts in the argument of Hebrews. The first part demonstrates the grandeur of Jesus Christ and the superiority of the new covenant over the old (1:1-10:18). The second part exhorts the audience to persevere in the profession of the Gospel (10:19-13:25).

Vidal examines the internal characteristics of Hebrews in the first part before turning to the historical witnesses in the second part. In the final section he examines the hypotheses which posit authors other than Paul.

In the first chapter Vidal highlights the characteristics which militate in favor of Pauline authorship:

1) In Hebrews there is a great knowledge of the religion of the Jews, which fits Paul perfectly.

2) The doctrine contained in Hebrews is the same that Paul constantly professes. Both use typology and the same terminology.

3) Hebrews uses the same train of thought and the same mode of reasoning as Paul; one also finds figures, expressions, and words which are distinctive of Paul. Both show similarities in argumentation and literary style.

4) The circumstances in Hebrews fit Paul perfectly. The epistle was written from Rome (13:24), where Paul was a prisoner. Timothy was with Paul in Rome.

In the second chapter Vidal addresses objections to Pauline authorship:

1) The omission of the name of the author. One possible explanation is that Paul left off his name because he was writing to Jews; since Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was despised by the Jews, Paul did not want his message rejected by the attachment of his name. Vidal also believes that Hebrews is not a simple letter, but a dissertation or treatise, and hence it is not surprising that he left off his name.

2) Heb 2:3 does not sound like Paul who claims he received his ministry from no man, but from Jesus Christ himself. Vidal, however, claims that Paul does not include himself among the “we” in this verse; this is a literary device.

3) The superiority of the style of Hebrews in comparison to Paul’s letters. Vidal responds that arguments based on style alone are difficult since an author’s style is at the mercy of the subjectivity of the reader. Nevertheless, Vidal contends that the style of Hebrews is not all that different from Paul’s. The superiority of style can be attributed to the fact that Paul is writing a treatise and not a simple letter; Paul was more cautious in laying out his thesis.

4) In Heb 13:23 the author expresses a desire to see the Hebrews, but why would he return to Jerusalem where he was arrested and imprisoned in the first place? Vidal believes that by this time Paul had already been acquitted and had nothing more to fear. In addition, Paul never let the threat of persecution or death hinder him from preaching the gospel.

In part 2 he considers the external criteria for authorship:

1) Peter, in his second epistle (3:15), cites the epistle to the Hebrews.

2) The Greek fathers and the Eastern Church universally advocated for Pauline authorship.

3) The Latin fathers were not so unanimous on Pauline authorship. But by the fourth century Pauline authorship was universally affirmed in the West as well.

In part 3 Vidal deals with the hypotheses of those who believe that the epistle was written by someone other than Paul. The alternative theories of authorship fall under three headings: 1) Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew by Paul but translated into Greek by someone else; 2) Hebrews was written at the direction of Paul, but was edited by someone else; 3) Hebrews was written by someone other than Paul. Vidal rejects that Hebrews was a translation from the Hebrew. The author bases his arguments upon the Greek text of the OT. Moreover, Greek was the dominant language at that time, even in Palestine. If the author had written in the name of Paul, this does not destroy Vidal’s thesis. It is known that Paul had made use of secretaries; Paul would have furnished him with the arguments and ideas but left the wording up to him. If the author wrote in his own name, then one must suppose an individual whose circumstances were similar to Paul’s (that he was at Rome, in prison, had Timothy as a companion etc.). Vidal rejects other conjectures for authorship. He rejects Luke and Clement based on stylistic differences, Barnabas because his circumstances do not fit those of the epistle, and Apollos because there is no ancient witness who posited him.

Vidal concludes with an affirmation of the authenticity, inspiration, and authority of Hebrews.

Henry Louis Laharpe on the Authenticity of Hebrews

2011-03-12T12:31:00.002-06:00

Laharpe, Henry Louis. Essai critique sur l’authenticité de l’épitre aux Hébreux. 1832.

Laharpe sets out to demonstrate the authenticity of the epistle to the Hebrews by arguing for the probability of Pauline authorship. Part 1 examines the internal evidence.

First, he examines the doctrine which Hebrews and Paul contain: 1) Christianity possesses a superiority over Judaism: a) The Gospel gives to humanity more light and religious knowledge than the Law; b) The Gospel is superior to the Law in that it offers more powerful motives and greater encouragement for the practice of piety and virtue; c) The Gospel has a superior efficacy to advance and assure the real and constant happiness of the human race; d) The Jewish dispensation is only a type or shadow of the Christian dispensation; e) The Mosaic dispensation is abolished because of its imperfection, but the Christian dispensation exists perpetually. 2) The doctrine of the person and expiatory mediation of Jesus: a) The doctrine of the mediator is presented in the same manner by Paul and Hebrews; b) the death of Christ is an expiatory sacrifice for sins by which sinners are reconciled to God.

Second, he argues that the didactic and hortatory method Hebrews uses is analogous to that of Paul’s: 1) The general disposition of Hebrews is similar to that ordinarily employed by Paul; 2) There is a similarity in the citation and application of the OT; 3) There is an analogy between Hebrews and Paul with respect to the manner in which certain reasons are in turn suspended and reprised.

Third, he compares the style and diction of Hebrews and Paul under the following headings: 1) Concordance of style and ideas: a) Concordance of ideas presented in the same manner, although with a slightly different style; b) Concordance of ideas with a more striking relation in diction; c) Concordance of passages in which there is only a slight difference in expression; d) Concordance of passages which present the same expressions; 2) Words which are found only in Paul and Hebrews, or which are employed by other authors of the NT in an entirely different sense; 3) Remarkable particularities in grammatical construction.

Fourth, he examines several statements in Hebrews which seems to throw proper light on the question of authorship: 1) The particular way Timothy is mentioned in 13:23; 2) The author was a prisoner for a short time (13:18-19); 3) The statement regarding bonds in 10:34 is naturally applied to Paul; 4) The salutation in 13:24 forms another probability in favor of Pauline authorship; 5) There is no reason to doubt that Paul could have written the statements in 2:3.

In part 2 Laharpe examines the external evidence on the question of authorship. In section 1 he examines the Alexandrian evidence of Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. Section two examines the witnesses of the Eastern Church, such as Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, and others. Section three looks at witnesses of the Western Church: Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Caius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine, and the Council of Carthage. Pauline authorship found opposition only in the Western Church, but eventually the tide of opinion turned in favor of Pauline authorship.

In part 3 Laharpe examines two particular questions regarding Hebrews: 1) What was the original language of the epistle? 2) Who were the addressees? He concludes that Hebrews was originally written in Greek (not Hebrew). It is likely that Paul would have used Greek even when writing to Hebrew Christians in Palestine, the OT quotations appear to have been drawn primarily from the LXX, and the Greek style all point to this conclusion. Laharpe then argues that Hebrews was written to the Church in Caesarea.

In part 4 the author draws together his conclusions. Hebrews’ doctrine is apostolic and shows remarkable similarities to the writings of Paul. The internal and external evidence points favorably towards Pauline authorship. The authenticity of Hebrews leads to the conclusion that this epistle possesses a full and complete canonical authority and that it is decisive in all matters that it treats: the divinity of Christ, the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, the necessity of expiation for sins by the blood of Christ, and the necessity of a more perfect sacrifice than that offered in the Law.

New Book by Albert Vanhoye

2011-02-24T22:04:00.000-06:00

This week I received a book by Cardinal Albert Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest: According to the New Testament. It is an English translation of a work that originally appeared in French in 1980. The book has three movements. Part one focuses on the Old Testament priests. Part two discusses the new priest, Jesus Christ. Part three then talks about a priestly people.

I noticed on Amazon that a new book by Vanhoye has just come out: A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews.

Description:
"The first part, which only examines one theme, the Name of Christ, offers a general and contemporary Christology. The next two parts offer a priestly Christology, firstly more general and then more specific. Finally, the last two parts show the result of this for the Christian life, lived out in faith, hope and charity. The author of this work has worked for many years on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and, notably, has taught it at the Biblical Institute and published a great number of specialist articles and books on it, and now brings one of the most contemporary authoritative commentaries to a wider audience, contributing with the understanding of the unique Priesthood of Jesus Christ for the first Christian communities. In this work, a detailed analysis of the text known as the Epistle to the Hebrews enables us to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that this is the full text of a splendid Christian preaching, which constantly conforms to the rules of Semitic rhetoric, including various genres of parallelism, synonymis, antithesis and complementarity, and obeying a concentrically symmetrical schema."

Vanhoye is one of the most prolific authors on Hebrews. He is best known for a landmark work on the structure of Hebrews, a work that is still influential today. His works have appeared in several different languages.

New Articles Added

2011-02-17T15:54:00.002-06:00

Bergh, Ronald H. van der. “A Textual Comparison of Hebrews 10:5b-7 and LXX Psalm 39:7-9.” Neotestamentica 42.2 (2008): 353-82.

Just, Arthur A. “Entering Holiness: Christology and Eucharist in Hebrews.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 69.1 (2005): 75-95.

Vander Beek, William L. “Hebrews: A ‘Doxology’ of the Word.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 16 (2005): 13-28.

Williams, Paul. “The Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Lutheran Theological Review 12 (1999-2000): 95-103. [This links includes the whole issue]

Hebrews Carnival January 2011

2011-01-31T23:59:00.014-06:00

Here is the blog activity on the book of Hebrews for the month of January:

Charles Savelle talks about The Implications of the New Covenant Sacrifice of Christ in Hebrews 9:23-28.

Keith Reich illustrates συγκρισις or comparison with an example from Hebrews 3:3-6.

Matt Capps is teaching a Book Study on the Book of Hebrews. He provides a short introduction.

David Ker discusses the meaning of αντί in Hebrews 12:2. See also the extensive discussion in the comments section.