Hebrews and the Odyssey

Jared Calaway tries his hand at a bit of midrashic interpretation of the Odyssey and the book of Hebrews with his posting entitled, "Polutropos: Much-Turned Speech in the Odyssey and Hebrews."

Dissertation Available

Timothy J. Winder's 2005 University of Leeds Ph.D. dissertation, "The Sacrificial Christology of Hebrews: A Jewish Christian Contribution to the Modern Debate about the Person of Christ" is now available for download at the EThOS dissertation site.

Newly Arrived from Windows Booksellers

My newest acquisition, which I found relatively inexpensively from Windows Booksellers, is Barry C. Joslin's book which explores Hebrews' theology of the law. This is what the blurb on the back of the book says:

This book seeks to fill a lacuna in studies of the Epistle to the Hebrews, namely, the writer's theology of the Mosaic Law, which is seen most clearly in the doctrinal center of the book, 7:1-10:18. Joslin concludes that for the writer of Hebrews the work of Christ has transformed the Law, and that this transformation involves both its fulfillment and internalization in the New Covenant; the Law has forever been affected christologically. As such, there are continuous and discontinuous aspects of the Law that turn on the hinge of Christ, the writer's chief 'hermeneutical principle'.

Joslin earned his Ph.D. in NT Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and is currently Assistant Professor of Christian Theology at Boyce College.

Lessons from Hebrews

Tony Siew continues his reflections on Hebrews in his post Lessons from Hebrews.

Ebrard's Commentary on Hebrews Online

Johann H. A. Ebrard's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews is available online in both PDF and HTML form. The page also includes links to several other works in French including commentaries and the Septuagint in parallel Greek and French columns.

Godet on Hebrews

Godet, Frederic. “The Note of Warning to the Judeo-Christian Churches.” Pages 307-39 in Studies on the Epistles of St. Paul. Translated by Annie Harwood Holmden. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889.

Frederic Godet (1812-1900) was a Swiss Protestant theologian who was professor of theology at Neuchâtel 1850-1887 and also held a pastorate there from 1851 to 1868. In 1873 he was one of the co-founders of the Evangelical Church of Neuchâtel. A nice biography of his life can be found here.

In this essay Godet sets out to answer three questions:
1) To what churches was this church addressed?
2) What was the object which the writer proposed to himself?
3) Who was the writer?

1) Godet believes that the superscription “To the Hebrews” was penned by the author himself! “Hebrews” refers to Judeo-Christians generally. Passages such as 5:11-12; 10:34; and 13:7 indicate that the epistle was addressed to one or more specific congregations. Godet notes that scholars have posited numerous locations for the audience: Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, Spain, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Palestine. Godet favors the last option declaring that there is no indication in the entirety of the letter that Gentiles are being addressed. As the readers had “an obstinate attachment to the worship of the visible sanctuary” (311), a location near Jerusalem is the most reasonable hypothesis. 2:3 suggests that they were converted by those who had personally heard Jesus, and 13:7 references the death of their leaders which accords well with what we know about James’ martyrdom in 62.

Godet then tries to refute alternative solutions. Hebrews 6:10 does not seem to apply to the Jerusalem church which was itself in deep poverty. However, the author may have been writing to a church elsewhere in Judea, or there may have been a few wealthy persons in the Jerusalem church, or it could be that even the poor in Jerusalem were generous in their giving.

Godet lists three things in favor of the hypothesis that the epistle was written to the church in Egypt: the “Alexandrine style” of the writer, the similarity of ideas to Philo, and the author’s penchant for quoting from the Septuagint. These facts, however, favor an Alexandrian origin, not a destination. Godet counters by arguing that the Alexandrian culture was rather widespread among the oriental Jews. Moreover, the church at Alexandria was far from being a purely Judeo-Christian group. Finally, he notes that Alexandrian teachers such as Clement and Origen never hint that Hebrews was written to the church at Alexandria.

Godet says that a Roman destination for the epistle was waning in favor in his day (It is interesting to note, then, that there are still strong advocates for this view to this day, 120 years after he wrote this). The support for a Roman destination is taken from 13:24 which says “they of Italy salute you.” Godet disputes this possibility: “does it seem probable that any Church of Italy . . . should have been so strongly tempted to fall back into Judaism, as those seem to have been for whom this Epistle was intended?” (315) Godet concludes, rather, that the epistle was written from Italy.

2) To answer the second question regarding the purpose of the writing, Godet proceeds to give an overview of the book. He divides the book into parts: the didactic (ch. 1-10) and the practical (ch. 11-13) with a concluding appendix (13:22-25). Of course, it has been demonstrated that the structure of Hebrews is far more complex than this simplistic outline.

Chapters 1-2 show the superiority of Christ to the angels. The comparison between Jesus and the angels was made because, from a Jewish point of view, the law was given through the agency of angels. Chapters 3-4 demonstrate the superiority of Jesus to Moses and Joshua. In the third section (5-10) the author demonstrates the superiority of Jesus and his priesthood to that of Aaron’s. The author also sets forth the substitution of the new covenant for the Sinai covenant.

In the practical part of the letter, Godet says this regarding chapter 11:

If we remember the tenacity with which the Churches addressed appear to have clung to the visible sanctuary at Jerusalem, and the value which they attached to the maintenance of their oneness with the chosen nation settled in the land of Canaan, we shall easily understand the scope of the writer’s observations in chap. xi., in which he held before them the picture of the life of faith and endurance led by the patriarchs and prophets. All these, each in his own manner, let go the seen that they might grasp the unseen. (324)

Chapter 12 deals with the duty of steadfast patience and chapter 13 with that of utter self-renunciation, to which the whole epistle had been leading. Godet believes this is the gist of the whole epistle:

At length (chap. xiii. 13) he speaks out, and demands the supreme act of sacrifice. . . . As Jesus was led forth in ignominy outside the walls of Jerusalem, bearing his cross, so the time is come for those believing Jews, who have cherished till now the bond of oneness with the Jewish nation and religion, to make the great surrender, and break with a bond which threatens to lead them to their ruin. “Break loose from Judaism. Be wholly His who is better to you than the angels, better than Moses or Joshua, better than Aaron and his priesthood. Be all for Jesus, in whom you possess the eternal reality of all the good things of which Judaism offers you only the shadow.” (325)

Thus, for Godet, the epistle was addressing the danger of these Christians of Jewish origin from lapsing back into Judaism. These Judeo-Christians had a great attachment to outward rites and ceremonial worship, which created a great hindrance in advancement in the Christian life. Other circumstances exacerbated their situation: the impending war with Rome, and the preaching of Paul among the Gentiles which downplayed the ceremonial law. Godet surmises that after Paul’s visit, messianic Jews were excluded from worship at the temple which inclined some to revert to Judaism. Other circumstances which contributed to their situation were the recent martyrdom of James and other early leaders, the continued refusal of the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and the delay of the parousia. All this leads Godet to conclude that the epistle was written around 65-66 CE. This date is confirmed by the reference to Timothy who was probably imprisoned with Paul in Rome, and was only released after Paul’s execution. Godet disputes the dating of the epistle to 80 or later by such scholars as Zahn, Holtmann, Harnack and Von Soden. Why would the author of Hebrews need to argue about the obsolescence of the old covenant, if the sacrificial rites of the old covenant had already ceased? I find this part of Godet’s argument rather compelling.

3) Godet notes that Pauline authorship was readily accepted in the East, but was not accepted in the West until the Synod of Carthage in 397 under the influence of Augustine. The Eastern Fathers, however, did recognize the difficulty of ascribing the letter to Paul as the letter does not evince his characteristic style, nor does he identify himself in the letter as was his custom. Clement surmises that the epistle was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek by Luke. In a brief history of interpretation, Godet identifies other candidates for authorship that have been proposed: Clement of Rome, Luke, Apollos, Barnabas, and Silas.

Godet rejects Pauline authorship due to the absence of an epistolary heading, its markedly different literary style, the fact that the author copies the Septuagint (whereas Paul corrected the Septuagint by the Hebrew), and by his citation practice. Moreover, there is a dramatic difference with respect to its “religious point of view” (333). Hebrews focuses on the redemptive work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, while Paul centers on the cross. In addition, 2:3 suggests that the author received the gospel secondhand, while Paul would have denied any such dependence on the other apostles (cf. Gal 1:11-17). Godet also rejects the theory that the epistle was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek: “it abounds in compound words which are essentially Greek, and have no analogues in Aramaic or in Hebrew, and it contains plays upon words such as could only occur in a composition originally Greek” (335).

Godet quickly dismisses Luke and Clement of Rome as authors due to literary style. He also dismisses Apollos since he could not claim to have learned the gospel from those who personally heard Jesus, nor is it likely that he would have written to Christians in Judea. Barnabas is a strong candidate for authorship: he was one of the early leaders of the church in Jerusalem; he was a Levite by birth and hence acquainted with the ceremonial law; he was a Hellenistic Jew from Cyprus and so was competent to write in excellent Greek; his description of his work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22) evokes the name the apostles gave him: “son of exhortation” (4:36); and there is at least some early patristic testimony to his authorship: Tertullian. Yet, he asks “how is it possible that a well-known and all but apostolic name, like that of Barnabas, should have been almost completely lost?” (337)

Godet then proposes Silas as a likely candidate for authorship. Silas was also a prominent member of the church of Jerusalem. He succeeded Barnabas as Paul’s traveling partner on his missionary journeys and helped form churches in Greece. He was also associated with the work of Peter (1 Peter 5:12). Thus, it was likely that he knew Timothy (cf. 13:23). Any similarities with Paul’s writings could also be easily accounted for due to his relationship with Paul. All that we can say about Godet’s advocacy for Silas is that it is possible, but his evidence is not decisive. The authorship of Hebrews remains as elusive as ever.

New Books on Hebrews 2008-2010

2008

Allen, David M. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-presentation (Mohr Siebeck).

Asumang, Annang. Unlocking the Book of Hebrews: A Spatial Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Wipf & Stock).

Bauckham, Richard J., ed. Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts (T & T Clark).

Ciccarelli, Michele. La sofferenza di Cristo nell'Epistola agli Ebrei: Analisi di una duplice dimensione della sofferenza: soffrire-consoffrire con gli uomini e soffrire-offrire a Dio. Associazione Biblica Italiana, Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica 49 (Bologna: Dehoniane).

Joslin, Barry C. Hebrews, Christ, and the Law: The Theology of the Mosaic Law in Hebrews 7:1-10:18 (Paternoster).

Marohl, Matthew J. Faithfulness and the Purpose of Hebrews: A Social Identity Approach (Pickwick).

Mason, Eric F. "You Are a Priest Forever": Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Brill).

McCruden, Kevin B. Solidarity Perfected: Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Walter de Gruyter).

Morrison, Michael D. Who Needs a New Covenant?: Rhetorical Function of the Covenant Motif in the Argument of Hebrews (Pickwick).

Rothschild, Clare K. Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon (Mohr Siebeck).

Seid, Timothy W. The Second Chance for God's People: Messages from Hebrews (Wipf & Stock).

Thomas, C. Adrian. A Case for Mixed-Audience with Reference to the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews (Peter Lang).

Thompson, James W. Hebrews. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Baker).

Whitlark, Jason A. Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of Reciprocity Systems in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Paternoster).

2009

Backhaus, Knut. Der Hebraerbrief. Regensburger Neues Testament (Friedrich Pustet).

Backhaus, Knut. Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebraerbrief (Mohr Siebeck).

Bauckham, Richard J., ed. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (Eerdmans).
-This book, along with the Bauckham volume above, is a spin-off from the Hebrews and Theology Conference at St. Andrews in the summer of 2006.

Belleville, Linda, Jon Laansma, and J. Ramsay Michaels. 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Tyndale).

Docherty, Susan E. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (Mohr Siebeck).

Fudge, Edward. Hebrews: Ancient Encouragement for Believers Today (Leafwood).

Lee, Brian. Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7-10 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Svendsen, Stefan Nordgaard. Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews (Mohr Siebeck).

2010

Allen, David L. Hebrews. New American Commentary (Broadman & Holman). Expected August 1.

Allen, David L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (Broadman & Holman). Expected June 1.

Attridge, Harold W. Essays on John and Hebrews (Mohr Siebeck).

Maxey, Lee Zachary. Rhetoric of Response: A Classical Rhetorical Reading of 10:32-12:31 (T & T Clark). Expected March 1.

O'Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Hebrews. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Expected March 15.

Further out, I know that Philip and Loveday Alexander have been contracted to apply their respective specialties in the Judaic and Greco-Roman backgrounds to a new ICC commentary on Hebrews. But they have not started working on the commentary yet, so this will be a few years.

Gareth Cockerill is writing the Hebrews commentary for the NICNT series.

Wolfgang Kraus is also writing a commentary for Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

These are the ones I know about. If you know of any more (any language), let me know.

Electronic Dissertation Arrival

Today I just downloaded John L. Terveen's 1986 University of Edinburgh dissertation "Jesus in Hebrews: An Exegetical Analysis of the References to Jesus' Earthly Life in the Epistle to the Hebrews" which just became available from the EThOS site. I ordered the dissertation a little over a month ago. Apparently, it takes them a while to get the dissertations from the universities and then to scan them. However, I can't complain; the price is right: free.

Aquinas on Hebrews 6:19-20

The blog Joe Versus the Volcano has a post on Aquinas, Hope and the Epistle of Hebrews.

Cornerstone Bible Commentary Review

Kevin Sam has a review of the new Tyndale Cornerstone Bible Commentary on the pastoral epistles and Hebrews. J. Ramsay Michaels authored the commentary on Hebrews. Someone from Tyndale was nice enough to send me an electronic copy of this commentary because it was not available last November when I attended the SBL conference. Of course I will purchase the book at some point in the future.

Hebrews in the Blogosphere

I have rewritten this post with some updates. Since returning from the regional conference this weekend there has been some considerable discussion on Hebrews in the blogosphere:

Better Bibles Blog has a couple of posts on Hebrews 1:3 and what the phrase "word of his power" means. See The Word of His Power and His Powerful Word. Be sure to read the considerable discussion. In response Bob MacDonald offers his own translation of Hebrews 1:1-4 on his post My insufficiency.

Michael Bird has a post on Hebrews 5:11-6:12 in Perseverance in Hebrews on Euangelion. James Gregory has posted a response on his eponymous blog, along with links to his earlier reflections on the passage. He includes a link to Ben Witherington's post on Christian Apostasy and Hebrews 6 from last year. I think that the passage is a real warning about the danger of apostasy. Otherwise, why would the author of Hebrews have bothered to say anything, if it wasn't a real possibility?

Tony Siew on his blog Revelation is Real has a post on Faith in Hebrews.

Newly Arrived From France

I arrived home today with a couple of delightful packages awaiting me, one of which contained Emile Guers' commentary on Hebrews entitled Etude sur l'Epitre aux Hebreux, dated 1862. I had just recently found out about the commentary and was fortunate to find a copy on the used book market.

The book contains an introduction dealing with internal and external proofs for the authorship of Hebrews (whom he believes is Paul), the language, readers, and goal and analysis of the epistle. The commentary itself is divided into two parts: the "essentially doctrinal" part which deals with the first ten chapters, and the "essentially practical" part containing the remainder of the book. It conclusion deals with "Judeo-Christianity and its principal manifestations combatted by the epistle to the Hebrews" which he delineates as legalism, formalism, and sacerdotalism or clericalism. It has three appendices on the Sabbath, the expiatory suffering of Christ, and a synoptic table comparing the two sacrifices with respect to their point of view and their results.

All in all, it is a fun addition to my collection.

Exegesis of Hebrews 2:16

Rounds, Nelson. “Exegesis of Hebrews II, 16.” Methodist Review 35 (1853): 301-04.

Strong, James. “Meaning of ἐπιλαμάνεται in Hebrews ii, 16.” Methodist Review 35 (1853): 453-55.

These two brief articles offer an exegesis of Hebrews 2:16 which reads Οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται.

Rounds notes that there are two possible meanings to the word ἐπιλαμβάνεται: 1) to take upon oneself or assume – Christ assumed human nature, not angelic; 2) to succor or save – Christ saved humans, not angels.

Rounds opts for the first option. He gives four reasons for this opinion: 1) the middle verb ἐπιλαμβάνεται in the NT means “to take,” but the purpose must be determined by the context – see Matt 14:31; Acts 21:33; 1 Tim 6:12, 19 – the last references have a reflexive meaning which is the characteristic meaning of the verb in the middle form; 2) to take the verb to mean “to save” obscures the main point of the chapter. Chapter 1 is devoted to the divine nature, and chapter 2 to the human nature of Christ. There must be an identity between the Savior and the saved: “the sanctifier and the sanctified” are one; 3) the author of Hebrews is talking about the holy angels, not the fallen ones. To say that Christ did not come to save the holy angels is a truism that hardly needs to be stated, but to say that Christ did not assume an angelic nature is to make an important theological point; 4) Christ did not come to “save” only the children of Abraham, but all humanity. But when ἐπιλαμβάνεται is understood to mean “assume” it makes perfectly good sense that Christ not only came to take on human nature, but that he was also of the seed of Abraham, that is, one of Abraham’s descendants.

James Strong disputes Rounds’ view: 1) the reflexive force does not belong to the verb in the NT, nor does classical usage distinguish between the active and middle voices. The meaning to take hold of to render assistance is common in the NT – see Luke 14:4; 2) ἐπιλαμβάνεται cannot have a historical present sense; the present tense clearly describes a continuous event extending to the time of the writing; 3) If ἐπιλαμβάνεται is construed as “assume” then one must supply an ellipsis before ἀγγέλων and σπέρματος, providing a word such as τὴν μορφήν or φύσιν – it would be an omission of a key word that would give sense to the passage. Nor can the genitives depend upon the verb in a transitive sense. The angels do not have to be “good” angels; the author is merely referencing the angels as an order of being, regardless of moral character. Likewise, “seed of Abraham” only refers to humanity in general to which the Jews belonged; 4) the scope of the argument requires the sense of “relieving” and not “assuming.” Rounds is correct that chapter two deals with the human nature of Christ. This is stated clearly in verses 14 and 15. Verse 16, which is introduced by γὰρ, gives the principle reason for this identification. Christ identified with humanity in order to save them. If the verb is construed as “assume” it hardly gives a reason for identifying with them, but merely repeats the same idea. Likewise, verse 17 draws the conclusion from 16; it is not merely a rehashing of the same thought.

Strong’s last two grammatical points seems to me to make it decisive that ἐπιλαμβάνεται must mean “to aid, succor, give help to.”

Newly Arrived from Germany...

My newest acquisition...

George Peck and the Exegesis of Hebrews 6:4-6

Peck, George. "An Exegesis of Heb. VI, 4-6." The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review 17 (1835): 221-30.

In his day George Peck (1797-1876) was a prominent clergman in the Methodist Episcopal Church in PA and NY. In addition to serving numerous pastorates and appointments as Presiding Elder (now called District Superintendents), he served as the editor of the Methodist Quarterly Review (1848-1851) and was a prolific author and editor of books. His books include The Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection Stated and Defended (1848); Sketches and Incidents; or, A Budget from the Saddle-bags of a Superannuated Itinerant (1844-1845); and The Methodist Episcopal Pulpit: A Collection of Original Sermons from Living Ministers of the M. E. Church (1848). A picture of his gravestone can be found here.

Hebrews 6:4-6 has been the source of no small controvery between Arminians and Calvinists. Arminians view the passage as an unequivocal assertion of the possibility and danger of falling from a state of grace. Calvinists, according to Peck, have placed a "variety of constructions" upon it to harmonize it with their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Peck notes the principal Calvinistic interpretations (221-222):

1) The "high attainments" mentioned in the passage do not really describe someone in a state of grace.

2) The passage truly describes someone in a state of grace, but the impossibility of renewal to repentance is not an absolute possibility, but only indicates the extreme difficulty of such a renewal.

3) The impossibility only refers to human abilities, but God can and does renew them.

4) The participle παραπεσοντας is given a conditional rendering: "if they shall fall away."

5) The passage talks about a real fall from a state of grace and the impossibility of their being renewed is to be taken literally and absolutely. But this passage does not prove that someone in a state of grace will fall away. God uses such threatenings, in part, to secure their final perseverance.

Peck quotes at length from Moses Stuart's commentary on Hebrews. Stuart was a staunch Calvinist himself, and he effectively refutes the first four interpretations, only to fall back on the fifth interpretation. Peck essentially uses a Calvinist to argue against Calvinists, so all he has to do is dismiss the final interpretation since Stuart has already done the "heavy lifting" for him.

Stuart argues that the adjective αδυνατον cannot have the meaning very difficult, but must be taken in an absolute sense. This is clear by the author's usage of αδυνατον in 6:18; 10:4; and 11:6. (222-223)

In a detailed exegesis of the participial clauses of verses 4 and 5, Stuart notes that there is a progression from one who has been taught the principles and doctrines of Christianity to one who has fully experienced the powers and influences of the world to come. Hence the passage refers to real Christians and not those who merely profess to be so. (223-225)

Peck also quotes from James MacKnight, another Calvinist, who rejects the conditional translation of παραπεσοντας. The participle is in the same tense as all the previous participles, the aorist tense, and so must be translated in the same way--in past time. (225)

Stuart concludes that the language of the passage demonstrates that the writer is "addressing those whom he takes to be real Christians." Moreover, Stuart admits that the penalty is a real threat that Christians could incur (227-228). So, it would seem that Stuart has "abandoned the Calvinistic views of the perserverance of the saints" (228). However, Stuart's interpretation founders on his Calvinistic presuppositions:

Whatever may be true in the Divine purposes, as to the final salvation of all those who are once truly regenerated . . . yet nothing can be plainer, than that sacred writers have every where addressed saints in the same manner as they would address those whom they considered as constantly exposed to fall away and perish for ever. Whatever theory may be adopted in explanation of this subject, as a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that Christians are to be earnestly and solemnly warned against the danger of apostasy, and consequent, final perdition. What else is the object of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, except a warning against apostasy? In this all agree. But this involves all the difficulties that can be raised by the metaphysical reasonings, in regard to the perseverance of the saints. For why should the apostle warn true Christians . . . against such defection and perdition? My answer would be: Because God treats Christians as free agents, as rational beings; because he guards them against defection, not by physical power, but by moral means, adapted to their natures, as free and rational agents. (228; bold face mine)

Peck has two responses to Stuart's reasoning. First, he turns Stuart's arguments against Universalism (given elsewhere) against him, since a Universalist could use the same reasoning to argue that God treats all people as free agents and rational beings and so he guards them from perdition, not by physical power, but by moral means, adapted to their natures, as free and rational agents--and in fact Universalists do employ such arguments. (228-229) Second, he rejects both the Calvinist and Universalist interpretations since the language employed in Hebrews is so solemn and severe that it would be hard to take it as merely a false alarm. The Calvinist position impugns God's truthfulness to such a degree that it undermines our confidence in God's trustworthiness, for if God can threaten that which He never will execute, what prevents Him from promising that which He will never fulfill? (230)

Exegesis of Hebrews 10:38

Burgess, William Penington. "Remarks on Hebrews X, 38." Methodist Review 9 (1826): 346-47.

In this article Burgess uses 10:38 to argue against the view of perseverance of the saints. The KJV renders the verse as follows: "The just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." The words "any man" have no justification from the Greek. Burgess supposes that the words have been inserted to preserve the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. However, The substantive δικαιος is the subject of both ζησεται and υποστειληται. Thus the passage clearly intends to show that it is possible for the just man to fall away.

Some, however, have argued that this is only a hypothetical statement; that in actuality no just man will ever draw back from the faith. To argue this is to put an absurd interpretation on this verse. Human governments enact laws to prevent the commission of crimes and to punish those who commit such crimes. It is a universal rule that such actions are not only possible, but in fact have been committed. It makes no sense for governments to pass laws that are impossible to break, for example, to prohibit someone from plucking the sun out of the sky. By analogy it makes no sense for scripture to make this claim if in fact it was impossible for the righteous man to fall away. This verse by itself is "enough to overturn altogether the doctrine of the absolute and infallible perseverance of the saints" (347). With this assessment I find myself in full agreement.

Exegesis of Hebrews 11:1

Anonymous. "Illustration of Hebrews XI. 1." Methodist Review 4 (1821): 133-35.

In this brief article the author simply argues that the word ὑποστασις must mean "confidence" rather than "substance" in Hebrews 11:1. He says, "surely faith . . . cannot be the substance of those divine realities for which the believer hopes in a future world" (133). Nor is the object of faith in view, since the author is giving a definition of faith itself. The word ὑποστασις is rendered "confidence" in such passages as 2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17 and Hebrews 3:14, and it makes perfectly good sense to translate it as "confidence" in Hebrews 11:1 as well. This argument seems to me to be quite sound.

Exegesis of Hebrews 7:3

Anonymous. "Remarks on Hebrews VII. 3." Methodist Review 3 (1820): 97-99.

I have not done much blogging lately, largely due to the fact that I have been busy grading papers and getting my paper ready for the Regional Conference. However, I make no apologies for this. I will not be a slave to my blog; I will post things when I have the time to do so. Anyway, I have also been continuing to track down articles on Hebrews. Lately I have come across a number of 19th century articles including some articles from the old Methodist Review. I prefer, when dealing with a subject, to read the secondary literature in chronological order, as far as possible, since many scholars reference earlier works. I find it useful to have already read the earlier material so that I know what the scholar is talking about!

I plan to blog about some of these early Methodist articles in my next few postings and then continue to work my way forward with more recent materials. I begin with this brief, anonymous article on the exegesis of Hebrews 7:3

The author has a curious interpretation of this verse, which quite frankly I have not heard before. Rather than interpreting this verse as referring to the lineage and lifespan of Melchizedek, the author applies this verse to the Levitical priesthood. It is best to quote the author at this point:

[H]e, Melchizedek, was without father, without mother, in the order of the Levitical priesthood. Without descent from the loins of Levi: Having neither beginning of days nor end of life; that is, he neither began nor ended his life or office in the regular line of the priesthood; but, in all these respects being made like unto the Son of God, whose descent was from Judah not from Levi, abideth a priest continually, . . . having neither successor nor predecessor in the sacred office. (98)

If the author of Hebrews was really intending to refer to the Levitical priesthood in this passage, this seems to me to be very odd language to use. Rather, I think, the author is cleverly using midrashic exegesis to argue that, since there is no mention of Melchizedek's lineage, birth, or death, he must not have had any lineage, nor did he experience birth or death. Hence, Melchizedek's priesthood is perpetual, since he never experienced death (what became of Melchizedek the author never ventures to surmise).

Now, the fact that Jesus did have a lineage from Judah (7:14) could be problematic for the analogy to be applied to Jesus. But I think the author of Hebrews must have Jesus' non-earthly or eternal existence in view, since he later says that Jesus became a priest according to the requirement of an "indestructable life" (7:16). Jesus "abides forever" (7:24) and "always lives" to make intercession (7:25). Moreover, passages such as 1:8, 1:12 and 13:8, which suggest the eternality of Jesus, must also be kept in view.

Exegesis of Hebrews 11:6

Polycarp engages in a little exegesis of Hebrews 11:6 in his blog The Church of Jesus Christ. He argues that the εστιν of verse 6 should be translated as "he is the I AM." I do not find the translation particularly convincing. I think that if the author of Hebrews wanted to allude to Exodus 3:14 he would have used the first person singular ειμι to make the allusion more apparent.

Recent Acquisitions

As you may suspect I am quite intrigued with the Book of Hebrews. Consequently, I have tried to get my hands on (literally) everything I can on the book of Hebrews. My collection of books on Hebrews is quite extensive ranging from Jean Mestrezat's collection of French sermons on the Epistle to the Hebrews, dating from 1653-1655 (my oldest books), to the most recent commentary on Hebrews by James W. Thompson in the Baker Paideia series. My collection, which contains many rare titles, is divided into three sections (somewhat arbitrarily) of monographs & studies, scholarly commentaries, and popular commentaries & expositions. Unfortunately, I have fallen behind on the more recent monographs on Hebrews due to my reduced income in recent years and the exorbitant cost of many of these books (especially from overseas presses). Nevertheless, I still regularly get new books on Hebrews. The following is a sampling of some of my newest acquisitions (i.e., in the last two months):

A very rare title is Eduard Karl Aug. Riehm, Der Lehrbegriff des Hebraerbriefes, a massive monograph (two volumes bound in one) on Hebrews dating from 1858-1859.

Another rare scholarly title is that by J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, a prominent biblical scholar of the nineteenth century. The fifth volume of his Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments (1873) contains his study on Hebrews.

Two very similar type works are volume 4, part 1 of Henry Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary and volume 4 of The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (Marcus Dods authored the section on Hebrews). Both works are reprints of nineteenth century exegetical works based on the Greek text with accompanying commentary.

A very recent monograph is Guido Telscher's Opfer aus Barmherzigkeit: Hebr 9,11-28 im Kontext biblischer Suhnetheologie in the Forschung zur Bibel series (2007).

Review & Expositor, the Baptist theological journal, has dedicated two issues to the book of Hebrews. The earlier issue, volume 82.3 from the Summer of 1985, contains a collection of expository essays on Hebrews by various scholars. It is no longer in print, but I was able to find a used copy through the used book market. Still in print and available from the publisher is volume 102.2 from the Spring of 2005. This collection of essays take a more thematic approach to Hebrews.

I was also able to obtain two rare collections of essays: the first is by the Rev. A. Welch, Minister Emeritus of Whitevale United Presbyterian Church in Glasgow. His book, The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews and Other Papers (1898), contains two essays on Hebrews: the first, as the title suggests, deals with the authorship of Hebrews, and the second is on Melchizedek, his priesthood and personality. The second book is Ruth Hoppin's Priscilla: Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and Other Essays (1969). This book is the precursor to Hoppin's later monograph on the authorship of Hebrews.

An older monograph, largely based on the Book of Hebrews, is William Milligan's, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of Our Lord (1908).

I have also procured a number of more popular studies on Hebrews:

Burris A. Jenkins, Heroes of Faith (1896) is a brief study on chapter 11.

W. Douglas Moffat, The Epistle to the Hebrews or the Calling in "a Son" (1905) is a small exposition from the Our Bible Hour Series.

Edward B. Annable, onetime teacher of Hobe Sound Bible College, produced a small booklet entitled The Epistle to the Hebrews (1970s ?)

Paul Muller, Der Hebraerbrief, a small exposition on Hebrews from 1970.

Wallace Wartick, onetime professor at Ozark Bible College in Joplin, Missouri, wrote a study guide entitled Twenty-six Lessons on Hebrews (1979).

William G. Johnsson, who was professor of New Testament at Andrews University, has written a few books on Hebrews including In Absolute Confidence: The Book of Hebrews Speaks to Our Day (1979) and the Hebrews volume for the Knox Preaching Guides (1980).

Forrest Hicks produced a small booklet, The Epistle of Hebrews: A Verse by Verse Exposition (1985), which expounds on Hebrews in outline form.

Three of the books are more recent popular commentaries on Hebrews: George R. Knight (professor of church history at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University), Exploring Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary (2003); David Hocking, The Messiah of Israel: Studies in Hebrews (2007); and Daniel H. King, Sr., The Book of Hebrews in the Truth Commentaries series (2008).

Finally, today I received two new books. The first is a reprint of Horatius Bonar's The Rent Veil, which is a series of devotional essays based on Hebrews. The second book, freshly arrived from Australia, is The Shadow and the Substance: A Commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews by Ian Pennicook, who is the NSW Director of New Creation Teaching Ministry and the Head of Theology at Tabor College's Syndney campus. His book is a popular commentary on Hebrews, originally printed in 1985, but reprinted in 2004.

These books are representative of my fun, eclectic, and comprehensive collection of books on Hebrews.