Hebrews Carnival June 2013

Henry Neufeld has some good thoughts on Approach[ing] the Throne of Grace with Confidence.  He also has posted A Rhetorical Outline of the Book of Hebrews by David Reed.  He also makes Some Comments on Hebrews Outlines.  He also discusses an example of the use of The Old Testament in Hebrews.

James McGrath discusses Fatalism and Despair in Hebrews 6.  He also continues to be puzzled about Hebrews in his post, On Earth as it is in Heaven? He also queries, What is The Point of Hebrews?  He also discusses the Yom Kippur symbolism in Hebrews 9: A Bloodbath.

Susan Rieske informs us that Ben Ribbens successfully defended his dissertation, "Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews" at Wheaton College.

Michael Kruger announced that D. A. Carson will be teaching a one-week intensive seminar (July 8-12) on the "Exposition of Hebrews" at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte. Carson is supposedly slated to do the Hebrews commentary for the Baker Exegetical Commentary series.

Matt Capps announces that he Just Received His First Book Contract writing a 12-week study on Hebrews for Crossway's "Knowing the Bible" series.

New Article in Tyndale Bulletin

Apparently the newest issue of the Tyndale Bulletin has an article on Hebrews:

Philip Church. "The Temple in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in Hebrews." Tyndale Bulletin 64.1 (2013).

"Several Second Temple texts make no explicit mention of the temple, but it cannot be assumed that this silence indicates a lack of interest. While the Apocalypse of Weeks reveres Solomon’s temple and describes it in ways that indicate that it anticipates the eschatological temple, the Second Temple is ignored, implying a strong polemic against it. Hebrews makes no explicit mention of the Second Temple, but several texts reflect a critique of temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system. Hebrews claims that the temple and its associated rituals were a symbolic foreshadowing of the eschatological dwelling of God with his people in the last days, now come with the exaltation of Christ. Since the reality has now come, the readers can no longer be occupied with the symbols."

HT: Anthony Billington

Scholars Page Updated

I have added several new biographical blurbs on my Scholars page, which highlights prominent Hebrews scholars, both living and deceased.  I hope to add names to this list throughout the summer.  I have tried to provide links to pertinent pages for each of the scholars.  Unfortunately, sometimes the only page I can find is a Wikipedia page and so I have linked to that, but I certainly want to find websites that have more reliable information.  If you would like to offer suggestions for other scholars to add or pertinent web pages related to these scholars, you may contact me by the email on the sidebar underneath my picture.

Moore Review of Richardson, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith

Nicholas Moore provides an in-depth review of Christopher Richardson's book, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus' Faith as the Climax of Israel's History in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for Biblical and Early Christian Studies. Naturally, this review will be added to the book reviews page.

Four Reviews by Alan Mitchell

Alan Mitchell, author of the Sacra Pagina commentary on Hebrews, has written four short reviews of the following books in the March 7 issue of Religious Studies Review (you will have to scroll down for the reviews):

John Paul Heil. Hebrews: Chiastic Structure and Audience Response.

Mayjee Philip. Leviticus in Hebrews: A Transtextual Analysis of the Tabernacle Theme in the Letter to the Hebrews.

King L. She. The Use of Exodus in Hebrews.

Stefan N. Svendsen. Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews.

Hebrews in the Asbury Bible Commentary

Ken Schenck mentioned on his blog that the Asbury Bible Commentary is now available online.  (Ken and I graduated from Asbury the same year).  For the purposes of this blog, I will be adding a link to the commentary on Hebrews by John Walters.

Review of Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews

Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier. Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews: Profiles from the History of Interpretation. Library of New Testament Studies 423. London: T & T Clark International, 2012. Pp. xvi + 264.

First, I want to thank T & T Clark for a review copy of this book.

Jon Laansma begins with his introductory essay, “Hebrews: Yesterday, Today, and Future; An Illustrated Survey, Diagnosis, Prescription.” He indicates that this book is a collection of essays which represent a “selective history of interpretation” or history of effects (Wirkungsgeschichte), which he hopes will be valuable to biblical critics, theologians, philosophers of religion, church historians, and pastors (pp. 3–5).  He begins with a generalized survey of the interpretation of Hebrews in the modern period (pp. 6–14).  The survey deals more in methodological approaches and particular issues in Hebrews rather than with specific scholarly interpretations.  He notes the “overwhelmingly scientific (wissenschaftlich) character” of most of the work done on Hebrews and he lauds the “creativity, erudition, and ingenuity” of this research but concludes that there are few “assured results.”  Laansma notes that Hebrews has largely been on the periphery of the broader stream of historical critical work on the New Testament (pp. 14–25).  He believes that the marginalization of Hebrew in NT theology is a symptom of the modern trend to dichotomize between historical and theological disciplines.  The uncertainty of the circumstances surrounding its composition and its literary isolation makes it difficult to locate the book within the development of early Christianity.  Laansma suggests that the way forward is to take Hebrews seriously as Christian Scripture in which God speaks in and through the human authors.  As an alternative, but not replacement, of historical approaches, Laansma advocates the theological interpretation of Scripture (pp. 25–32).

Frances Young writes on the “Christological Ideas in the Greek Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews”—the only reprinted essay in the whole collection.  Young examines four early Greek commentaries on Hebrews in order to illustrate the differences between the Alexandrian (represented by Cyril of Alexandria) and Antiochene (represented by Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theodore of Mopsuestia) schools of interpretation regarding Christology.  Both schools presuppose Nicea and use Heb 1:3 as a proof text against Arianism (p. 34).  Both schools draw a distinction between the divine and human natures of Christ, but they do so in different ways.  Cyril (pp. 34–35).  Cyril tended to emphasize the unity of the natures of Christ, but downplays his human experiences (pp. 36–38, 43).  The Logos, being impassible and unchangeable, was not changed by the incarnation but united humanity to divinity; Jesus was incapable of sinning.  The Antiochenes, on the other hand, fully emphasized Jesus’ human experiences including his weaknesses, temptations, and sufferings, but they tended to create a greater division between the two natures of Christ (pp. 38–43).  Christ was tempted and suffered only in his human nature; his divine nature remained untouched.  Young concludes with two observations.  First, “the problem of Christology is most acute where it is approached with a priori ideas about the nature of God” (p. 44).  Second, “Christology should never be divorced from soteriology” (p. 46).

In “Irenaeus and Hebrews,” Jeffrey Bingham explores the possible usage of Hebrews by the Bishop of Lyons.  Bingham notes that Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus had quoted Hebrews in a work now lost (p. 48).  The apparent usage of Hebrews by Clement of Rome gives credibility to Eusebius’ statement (pp. 49–51).  The Shepherd of Hermas, also having a Roman provenance, may also have used Hebrews.  Both Clement and Hermas engaged in the interpretation of Hebrews, as Irenaeus also did (p. 51).  Bingham notes how modern scholars have tended to minimize the connection between Hebrews and Irenaeus, seeing at best incidental citations and allusions (pp. 52–54).  Bingham attempts to challenges these contentions.  He argues that Irenaeus’ “thought appears to be dependent in important degrees upon its language and teaching” (p. 54).  Bingham discerns allusions to Heb 1:2–3; 1:8–9; 3:5; 5:8–9; 5:14; 8:5; 11:4, 5–7, 8–9, 10, 13, 19; 3:14; and 13:12 in Adversus Haereses (pp. 55–71).  He concludes that allusions to Hebrews are present in Irenaeus’ writing in significant ways (p. 71).  He conjectures that Irenaeus may have used Hebrews more obliquely against the Gnostics and Marcionites because of its uncertain apostolicity (pp. 72–73).

In “‘Clothed with Spiritual Fire’: John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Letter to Hebrews,” Charles Kannengiesser gives a characterization of the golden-mouthed orator’s preaching.  Since the translation of the homilies into English over a hundred years ago, Kannengiesser notes that they await “an in-depth theological analysis” in terms of their “reception in the main traditions of the Church” (p. 74).  The 34 homilies were delivered in rather quick succession in 406 AD after he was exiled to Armenia by the Empress Eudoxia.  It is evident that these homilies were delivered to a real audience who would come for hundreds of miles to hear him. Chrysostom preached Hebrews as if it was addressed to the audience of his own day (pp. 74–77).  Kannengiesser traces the development of thought in the homilies.  The first three homilies focus on the first chapter of Hebrews.  In these homilies, “Chrysostom’s auditors were supposed to have absorbed . . . the fundamentals of Christian instruction, namely the mystery of Divine Trinity, an anti-Arian notion of divine creation, together with a luminous instruction concerning the radical transcendence of the Son of God as creator and saviour” (p. 78).  Homilies 4–11 are manifestly christological, focusing on Jesus as “the Captain of our salvation” and “the High priest of our profession” (pp. 78–79).  Homilies 12–18 spiritualizes for the audience the “burnt offerings and sacrifices” as voluntary poverty and generosity (pp. 80–81).  Homilies 19–32 focus on “the spiritual fire of loving and being loved more” (pp. 81).  The last two homilies sum up “the whole development of thought since Homily 19” (p. 82).  He concludes that “John Chrysostom became the creator of a new quality of theology, a theology completely non-academic, entirely invested in the social emergencies of his time, but intensely ‘mystical’—because it was a concentration of theological understanding, nourished by his ascetical devotion to the letter and spirit of scripture” (p. 82).

In “Thomas Aquinas and the Epistle to the Hebrews: ‘The Excellence of Christ,’” Daniel Keating deals primarily with Aquinas’ commentary on Hebrews.  Aquinas ascribes Pauline authorship to Hebrews (p. 84).  For Aquinas, Christ is the principal theme of Hebrews (p. 84).  Aquinas embraces the Chalcedonian definition of Christ as being one person with two natures, divine and human.  This Chalcedonian understanding of Christ becomes the lens by which Aquinas interprets the book of Hebrews.  He consistently applies a “two-nature exegesis” in his interpretation of Hebrews, showing how the text applies both to Christ’s divine and human natures (pp. 85–86).  In his prologue, Aquinas declares that the purpose of Hebrews is to reveal the excellence of Christ: first, it reveals the excellence of Christ himself, and second it reveals the excellence of his work (p. 88).  Aquinas analyzes the text of Hebrews as follows: Chapters 1–10 deal with the excellence of Christ in his person and work; chapters 11–13 show how the members of the body, the Church, are joined to the Christ, the Head, through faith (p. 88).  Keating proceeds to analyze Aquinas’ treatment of the first ten chapters of Hebrews.  Chapter 1 is principally concerned with the revelation of the divinity of Christ (pp. 88–91).  Chapter 2 focuses primarily on Christ’s incarnation and the fullness of his humanity (pp. 91–94).  Chapters 4–10 demonstrate the appropriateness of Christ’s office of priest as one who mediates between God and human beings (pp. 94–98). Keating concludes that “Aquinas’ application of a two-nature, one-person Chalcedonian framework is not an unwarranted imposition, but a penetrating light that helps to account for the various claims made about Christ in Hebrews itself” (p. 99).

Mickey Mattox examines “Christology in Martin Luther’s Lectures on Hebrews.”  According to Mattox, Luther’s Lectures on Hebrews plays a greater role in the twentieth century than it did in the sixteenth century, since they have only been rediscovered in 1899 (p. 100).  Luther’s lectures were delivered in 1517–1518.  Luther later translated the NT into German and the first edition of his NT appeared in 1522.  Luther affirmed Pauline authorship in the Lectures, but later rejected Pauline authorship in the preface to his translation of Hebrews (p. 103).  Mattox first summarizes some of the important conclusions found in Kenneth Hagen’s important study, A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther (pp. 105–8).  Hagen finds ‘testament’ to be central in Luther’s work.  Hagen demonstrates that Luther’s knowledge of the antecedent exegetical literature on Hebrews is impressive, and he was interested in emphasizing how Luther differed from this antecedent tradition (p. 105).  He noted that the antecedent tradition identified the superiority of Christ as the main point of the book, but that they saw development and continuity between the old covenant the new; the difference between the two is the advent of Christ (pp. 106–7).  According to Hagen, Luther “radicalizes the superiority of Christ over his Old Testament predecessors in an exclusive way”; he makes a distinction between the Law of God and the Gospel of Christ.  The difference, however, is not with reference to God, but with the response of the human; when a person hears the Word of God as Law, it becomes old; when a person hears it as Gospel, it is new (p. 107).  Hagen also believes that Luther’s emphasis on the humanity of Christ “mutes the speculative Trinitarian side of the exegetical conversation as it is found among the medievals” (p. 108).  Mattox proceeds to examine specific passages in Luther’s lectures on the first two chapters of Hebrews: 1:2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9; 2:7, 9 (pp. 109–18).  Mattox concludes that 1) “Luther simultaneously reads Hebrews Christologically, and reads his Christology out of Hebrews”; 2) Luther’s Christological interpretation does not stand in tension with or contradict antecedent Trinitarian readings; and 3) Luther stands in solidarity with the Chalcedonian Christology of the Catholic tradition (pp. 118–19).

In “The Perfect Priest: Calvin on the Christ of Hebrews,” Michael Allen makes three claims regarding Calvin’s interaction with Hebrews.  First, “Calvin’s theology majors on the importance of history in its consideration of the economy of salvation, and this theme is drawn largely from Hebrews” (p. 122).  Calvin emphasizes both discontinuity and continuity of the old and new covenants.  In his polemics against the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church, he emphasizes the once-for-all-ness of Christ’s sacrifice (p. 123).  He also claims that only the prophetic office continues in the Church, not the royal or priestly offices.  In opposition to the Anabaptists, Calvin emphasizes the continuity of the people of God through all of biblical history (pp. 124–25).  Second, “Calvin develops the theme of perfection in Hebrews by clarifying the meaning of Christ’s ‘full divinity’” (p. 122).  Calvin clarifies the Chalecdonian formulation on the Trinity by describing Christ as autotheos: in his divine essence Christ is self-existent, but in his person as the Son, he derives his beginning from the Father (pp. 126–28, 130).  Calvin finds affirmation of this contention in Hebrews (pp. 129–30).  Third, “Calvin also expands the theme of perfection in Hebrews by elucidating what is meant by Christ’s ‘full humanity’” (p. 122).  Calvin emphasizes the maturation of Christ’s humanity; it was a gradual, but sinless development (p. 131).  His humanity, involving both his trust in God and obedience, were important for humanity’s redemption and as a pattern for Christians to follow (pp. 132–33).  Allen concludes that there are “close conceptual ties between themes found in Hebrews and [Calvin’s] own dogmatic distinctives” (p. 133).

Kelly Kapic explores “Typology, the Messiah, and John Owen’s Theological Reading of Hebrews” in the next chapter.  The publication of Owen’s massive commentary, originally four volumes, extended from 1668 until 1684.  Kapic exclaims that “this massive feat blends biblical scholarship, theological reflection, and pastoral concern unlike anything else I know of in the history of commentaries on Hebrews” (p. 136).  Owen evinces greater erudition than the great reformers but he still adheres to the integrity and authority of the biblical text (pp. 136–37).  Owen’s orderly approach to the explication of the text anticipates modern commentary approaches (p. 137–38).  Kapic explains that Owen’s scholarship forms a bridge between pre-critical scholarship and developing modern approaches (p. 138).  In contrast to the prevailing view, Owen denied that Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, but he did believe that Hebrews based its quotations upon the Hebrew OT and not the LXX.  On page 139, Kapic outlines three of Owen’s hermeneutical principles.  Owen believed that it was necessary to draw theological understanding from the text of Scripture (p. 140).  Owen believed that Hebrews was principally about Jesus being the Messiah who fulfilled the promises about one who would come to bring redemption to humanity (p. 141).  It was critical to understand the Messiah in light of the OT; the entirety of the OT bears witness to the promised Messiah (pp. 141–43).  Kapic explains that “Hebrews, according to Owen, uses a distinctive kind of Christological typology to illuminate the person and work of Jesus” (p. 144).  Kapic proceeds to explain Owen’s principles for interpreting typology, giving two illustrations from Heb 1:5 and 9:13 (pp. 144–53).  He concludes with a helpful summation of Owen’s principles on page 153.

In “The Identity of the Son: Karl Barth’s Exegesis of Hebrews 1.1–4 (and Similar Passages),” Bruce McCormack concentrates on Barth’s interpretation of the exordium of Hebrews.  According to McCormack, Barth interprets the exordium in light of his understanding of the prologue of John (p. 156).  McCormack explains that, for Barth, John 1:1 “does not refer to an eternal Word abstracted from the humanity He would assume in time but to Jesus Christ and, therefore, to a Word whose identity is given through the relation in which He stands to Jesus of Nazareth” (p. 157).  When John referred to the Logos, he not only referred to the Logos asarkos, but also to the humanity to be assumed (p. 157).  After briefly examining the exordium (pp. 159–60), McCormack notes a tension: In Heb 1:2, Jesus is appointed as the son in proctology, but he enters into the fullness of his Sonship only at His eschatological enthronement mentioned in 1:3–4.  McCormack surveys and critiques three options for resolving this tension.  John Webster, representing the traditional approach, “identifies the Son with ‘the Logos’ of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the eternally generated second ‘person’ of the Trinity.  The Son is thus a Logos asarkos whose identity is complete in itself, without reference to the humanity He would assume in time” (p. 160).  The second option, proposed by Richard Bauckham, equates the Son of 1:2 directly with Jesus Christ (pp. 162–63).  Kenneth Schenck represents the third option which states that Christ did not exist as a hypostatized person, but only existed in the eternal purposes of God (p. 164–65).  McCormack finds each of these options lacking and turns to the fourth option, proposed by Barth: the exordium refers to “a Logos asarkos whose identity is already teleologically determined for incarnation” (p. 170).  He later explains that “Jesus Christ is the motivating basis of creation precisely as the concretization in God, the hypostatic realization of His electing purposes” (pp. 170–71).

Daniel J. Treier and Christopher Atwood contribute the next essay, “The Living Word Versus the Proof Text? Hebrews in Modern Systematic Theology.”  Their goal is “to probe the reasons for and implications of [the] relative paucity of Hebrews’ modern dogmatic influence” (p. 173).  They quickly survey the use of Hebrews in representative systematic theologies from a variety of theological traditions.  In particular, they survey in roughly chronological order the works of Charles Hodge, Augustus Hopkins Strong, John Miley, Franz Pieper, Louis Berkhof, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Geoffrey Wainwright, Carl F. H. Henry, Thomas Finger, Thomas Oden, J. Rodman Williams, Stanley Grenz, Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, James Williams McClendon Jr., Donald Bloesch, and Robert Jenson (pp. 174–86).  They conclude that these theologians tend to appeal to Hebrews through citation or proof-texting.  On occasion, they might provide a longer discussion to justify their theological assertions (p. 186).  Next, Treier and Atwood outline the material contribution of Hebrews to systematic theology.  They move sequentially through the book of Hebrews highlighting how Hebrews might contribute to the whole scope of theology: theology proper, Christology, angelology, anthropology, harmatiology, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, as well as theologies of revelation, scripture, prayer, sacred space, suffering, and so forth (pp. 187–92).  Finally, they outline the formal contribution of Hebrews to systematic theology.  They offer seven theses focused around the tension between proof-texting and the Living Word.

The final three essays offer responses by two biblical scholars and one theologian.  The first of these essays, “Hebrews and the History of Its Interpretation: A Biblical Scholar’s Response,” is given by Harold W. Attridge.  He briefly highlights the significance of each article while occasionally offering a critique or suggestions for further avenues of investigation.  He gives particular attention to the articles by Laansma, McCormack, and Treier and Atwood.  In response to Laansma, Attridge notes that the enterprise of the history of interpretation and theological approaches to Scripture has been in process for the last several decades (pp. 202–3).  He critiques the article by Treier and Atwood for only focusing on systematic theologies produced by Protestants.  Attridge wonders whether similar results would be obtained by examining Catholic systematic theologies (p. 209).  Attridge also suggests that we consider the author of Hebrews as a creative theologian in his own right (pp. 209–10).  Attention should be given to the author’s own exegetical and midrashic techniques used in the interpretation of Scripture (pp. 210–12).

Donald Hagner offers the second response in his essay, “Hebrews: A Book for Today—A Biblical Scholar’s Response.”  Hagner begins by offering some general observations why Hebrews, generally speaking, has been neglected by scholars in the modern era: its mode of argumentation seems strange and its subject matter appears arcane.  Moreover, Hebrews differs significantly from other NT books (pp. 213–15).  Hagner then gives specific comments about the essays collected in this volume.  He arranges his comments under four headings of themes that have emerged in the course of the book: a) Analogy of Faith and the Meaning of Texts; b) Intertextuality and Canonical Readings; c) The Unity of Salvation History and the Centrality of Christology; and d) Scripture as God’s Message to the Present (Theological Interpretation).  Hagner is of the conviction that theological interpretation should be used alongside historical-critical interpretation in order to temper the latter.

Kathryn Greene-McCreight offers the final response in her essay, “Hebrews: Yesterday, Today, and Future—A Theologian’s Response.”  Her essay is the most critical of the three.  She fails to see how this selective history of interpretation contributes to the editors’ stated objective of making contributions to an understanding of the theological interpretation of Scripture (p. 225).  She is particularly critical of Hagner’s essay.  She is convinced that theological interpretation and historical-critical methods are incompatible with one another (p. 227).  She also finds it problematic that theological interpretation approaches the texts with its own presuppositions (p. 231).  She also reminds us that historical approaches to Scripture are unavoidable since the stories contained in them are located within space and time (p. 233–34).  Positively, she notes the importance of the Rule of Faith in theological exegesis.  The Rule of Faith does rule out certain interpretations but it does not mandate any specific ones. (p. 234–35).  She states that the “Rule of Faith allows for a specifically Christian epistemology, which historical criticisms do not” (p. 236), and hence is an appropriate guide for our interpretation of Scripture (p. 237).

This book offers a fascinating set of essays on the history of the theological interpretation of Hebrews.  I noted in several places how observations of the text of Hebrews by modern scholars were in fact anticipated much earlier by these earlier interpreters.  Naturally, the articles varied in terms of quality and usefulness.  Young’s analysis of the Greek commentaries was excellent, as was Keating’s analysis of Aquinas’ commentary.  Laansma’s survey of the history of interpretation in the modern period was too generalized to be of much use, but his diagnosis of the place of Hebrews in modern scholarly research was very helpful.  Bingham’s article was not entirely persuasive to me, but at least he shows the significant possibility that Irenaeus may have used Hebrews in his theological reflection.  Kannengiesser provided a useful introduction to Chrysostom’s homilies but he could have provided more clarity on Chrysostom’s sometimes strange interpretation of the text.  Mattox provides a useful introduction to Luther’s lectures, as does Kapic for Owen’s commentary.  In places Allen could have provide a better connection between Calvin’s interpretation of Hebrews and his theological reflections.  McCormack’s essay was particularly challenging for me, but he provides a helpful overview of four approaches to the exordium of Hebrews.  Treier and Atwood provide a programmatic essay on how Hebrews can contribute to systematic theology.  The final essays by Attridge, Hagner, and Greene-McCreight all raise in different ways questions about the relationship of the history of interpretation and the theological interpretation of Scripture.

Review of Jobes, Letters to the Church

Andrew Bowden has a brief review of Karen Jobes, Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles.  See the Book Reviews page for other reviews of the book, including my own.

Hebrews Carnival May 2013

Gene Green gives some brief recommendations on commentaries on Hebrews (as well as other NT books).

James McGrath has some ramblings about "He Learned Obedience" in Hebrews 4.  He also has some musings on Christ's Elementary Word in Hebrews 6.

Matthew Montonini draws attention to a George B. Caird Video Clip which briefly shows Caird lecturing on the book of Hebrews.  Caird was originally slated to write the replacement volume on Hebrews for the ICC series, but he died before completing it.  Since then, the volume has been assigned to Philip and Loveday Alexander.  The first volume is expected to come out this fall.

Review of Kuma, Centrality of Blood in Hebrews

Hermann V. A. Kuma. The Centrality of Αιμα (Blood) in the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: An Exegetical and Philological Study. Lewiston, N.Y. : Edwin Mellen Press, 2012. Pp. x + 422.

First, I would like to thank Edwin Mellen Press for a review copy of this book.

According to the blurb in the back of the book, “Dr. Hermann V. A. Kuma is the Director of Multi-Ethnic Ministries at the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Manhasset, New York, and is an ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  Dr. Kuma holds a Ph.D. in New Testament Language and Literature from the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan.”  This book is ostensibly based on his doctoral dissertation submitted to the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary.

Chapter 1 briefly introduces the purpose and methodology of his study (pp. 1–4).  He states that the problem is that despite the centrality of the theme of blood in Hebrews, there never has been a thorough study of this theme.  He seeks to rectify this problem by investigating thoroughly the role and significance of blood in the theological argument in Hebrews using a philological and exegetical approach.  He, however, never states his thesis in the introduction leaving the reader wondering what his argument will be and the particular contribution his study will make.

Chapter 2 contains a review of literature on the topic of blood.  In the first part he surveys literature from the late nineteenth century up until the mid-twentieth century (pp. 6–34).  He discerns three major schools of thought regarding the blood of Christ.  The first views the shedding of Christ’s blood as the releasing of life for the benefit of others.  The second views the shedding of Christ’s blood as referring to the death of Christ in its soteriological or redemptive significance.  The third group sees more ambivalence or ambiguity in the meaning of blood, as it may denote both life and death.  Kuma claims that this third view becomes the prevailing view after the 1950s thus putting an end to this aspect of the blood debate.  The second part surveys general studies on blood in the NT after the 1950s (pp. 35–51), while the third part surveys studies more specific to Hebrews since the 1950s (pp. 51–78).  These studies note the more multifaceted nature of the symbolism of blood terminology (p. 50).  The terminology of blood is linked to various themes in Hebrews, but most seem to further some understanding of the Christology or soteriology of the book (pp. 76–78).  Kuma does not really explain how these earlier studies are inadequate other than that they were limited in scope and thus there is a need for a more comprehensive investigation of the topic (pp. 78–81).  Once again, Kuma leaves the reader wondering what his specific contribution to the discussion will be.

Chapter 3 deals with the significance of blood in ancient near eastern and Old Testament contexts.  Kuma begins by briefly surveying the significance of blood in ancient near eastern contexts (pp. 83–96).  Kuma concludes that sacrifices were intended for food for the sustenance of the anthropomorphic deities (p. 168), but blood itself plays no significant role in sacrificial rituals (p. 94, 168).  Understandably, this section was relatively brief, given the scope of Kuma’s project, but I think a more in-depth exploration of sacrifice in ancient near eastern contexts is warranted if he is going to make a broad claim about the role of blood in these sacrifices.  By contrast, blood plays a significant role in the OT cultus.  Kuma briefly discusses the role of blood in pre-Israelite stories (that is, in the primeval history; pp. 97–100).  Surprisingly, Kuma gives little attention to the prohibition of eating of blood in Gen 9:4.  He then examines, in turn, the role of blood in the ritual impurity of bodily emissions in Lev 15 (pp. 100–106), in the prohibition against eating blood in Lev 17 (pp. 106–18), in the Day of Atonement ritual and the various other blood sacrifices (pp. 118–41), in rites of purification and consecration (pp. 142–46), and in covenantal ceremonies (pp. 147–63).  He also briefly discusses the problem of bloodshed and blood-guiltiness in the OT (pp. 163–66), and the view of blood by the eighth-century prophets (pp. 166–68).  Blood thus plays a multifaceted role within the life of ancient Israel.  Blood was symbolic of both life and death, and it could defile or cleanse (p. 172).  The shedding of blood was the means of atonement and was at the heart of the sacrificial system, consecration rites, and covenant-making ceremonies.

In chapter 4 Kuma examines the use of blood language in the context of the NT world (pp. 175–242).  He broadly surveys blood language in the Jewish Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, Qumran literature, Philo, Josephus, Rabbinic literature, the Greco-Roman context, and in the NT itself.  In the conclusion, he oddly restricts the use of blood language to five major categories, even though he had identified other usages (p. 243):

            1) Blood is used in the sense of life/death/murder.

            2) Blood is used in the context of cult.

            3) Blood is used to designate humanity.

            4) Blood is used in the symbolic context.

            5) Blood is used purely in the physiological sense.

In his survey, he also identified blood as referring to family relationships, but perhaps he is subsuming this category under “humanity.”  Likewise, Kuma identifies blood language in contexts of ritual defilement or pollution, but perhaps he has subsumed this category under “cult.”  The general pattern of usage is also found in the NT, but derives its origin in the OT (pp. 243–44).  Kuma asserts that the author of Hebrews found the multivalency of blood language a convenient “medium for expressing and encapsulating the work of Christ in the epistle” (p. 244).  Since Kuma covers so much ground in such a few pages, his analysis of blood language strikes one as a bit superficial, and surely some of the passages he cites could fall under more than one category.  For example, the murder of another human being certainly brings defilement, and the use of blood in cultic context surely has in view a more literal physiological sense as well.

Kuma’s study culminates in chapter 5 where he investigates the use of blood terminology in Hebrews.  After giving a brief overview of the argument of Hebrews (pp. 245–52), Kuma proceeds to the heart of his project: giving a detailed analysis of every passage that is pertinent to the study of blood terminology in Hebrews (2:14; 9:7; 9:12; 9:13–14; 9:18–22; 9:23; 9:24–28; 10:4; 10:19–25; 10:29; 11:28; 12:4; 12:24; 13:11–12; 13:20–21).  For each passage Kuma provides the Greek text with his own original English translation.  He then discusses exegetical considerations for each passage before concluding with a discussion on the significance of “blood” in the text.  In his summation, Kuma says that blood “constitutes the medium of power” (p. 346).  It gives access to God, sanctifies/consecrates, cleanses/purifies, inaugurates the new covenant, effects perfection and brings about “decisive purgation” (αφεσις; 9:22).  The author also demonstrates the superiority of Christ’s blood to the blood of animals, and he makes a strong connection between blood and life (pp. 346–47).  According to Kuma, “the death of Christ is not the focus of the author of Hebrews.  His chief interest is life, which is the result of Christ’s death” (p. 347). 

Chapter 9 concludes with a summary of his results and some implications for future study (pp. 351–62).  End matter includes a bibliography and an authors’ index.  One particular weakness of Kuma’s study is his heavy dependence on English-language works.  For example, Kuma does not utilize any of the major German commentaries and he uses only a handful of German and French articles.  An index of biblical and extra-biblical passages would also be helpful.  Edwin Mellen press only sent me a “review” copy, so I am not sure if the various typos throughout the text are corrected in a more final edition.  One prominent error is that in the introduction and conclusion, Kuma claims that are 31 verses containing the word “blood” in Hebrews, whereas in the main body of the book, he states there are 21 verses.

Although Kuma is not the best stylist, his book is still very readable and the presentation of his argument is very clear.  He provides summaries throughout the book to help the reader draw together the results from his longer, more detailed discussions.  Kuma’s book appears to be the most comprehensive treatment of blood language in Hebrews.  He provides a literature review of the major discussions of blood in the NT and Hebrews and he has gathered together numerous passages from comparative literature.  I found his distinction between ancient near eastern and Old Testament attitudes towards blood very helpful.  His highlighting the multivalent meanings of blood in Hebrews and comparative literature is also useful.  While one may not agree with all of Kuma’s exegetical decisions, since sometimes he adopts a minority opinion on certain passages, readers should derive some benefit from perusing his monograph.

Review of Lamp, The Greening of Hebrews?

Jeffrey S. Lamp. The Greening of Hebrews?: Ecological Readings in the Letter to the Hebrews. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012. Pp. xii + 134.

First, I want to thank James Stock of Wipf and Stock Publishers for a review copy of this book.

With our emerging consciousness of the importance of environmental stewardship, it is no surprise that an emerging field within biblical studies is ecological hermeneutics.  The Society of Biblical Literature held a series of Consultations on Ecological Hermeneutics in 2004–2006, out of which was published Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics (edited by Norman C. Habel and Peter Trudinger).  Another collection of essays, Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Perspectives, emerged from a collaborative research project at the University of Exeter (the book was published in 2010).  David Horrell, professor at Exeter and one of the editors of the preceding volume, is one of the leading voices in ecological hermeneutics, publishing in 2010 two books on the topic: The Bible and the Environment: Towards a Critical Ecological Biblical Theology and Greening Paul: Rereading the Apostle in an Age of Ecological Crisis.  To this growing body of literature Jeffrey Lamp, Professor of New Testament at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa Oklahoma, has contributed this ecological reading of the book of Hebrews.

In the introduction Lamp indicates that the book began as a series of papers given at SBL conferences.  I personally had attended some of these paper presentations.  Lamp states that given the uncertainty surrounding the circumstances of the writing of Hebrews, it gives him the freedom to engage the text itself (pp. 2–3).  Ecological hermeneutics is intentionally an ideological reading of texts that seeks to hear the suppressed voice of Earth “in, through, or even against the text” (p. 3).  Lamp chose to do ecological hermeneutics on Hebrews because it seems to give greater significance to the heavenly realm as over against the earthly realm.  He states “if an ecological hermeneutic . . . can produce plausible readings that argue for the integrity and intrinsic value of Earth in such a presentation, then it may reasonably do so in less apparently hostile biblical texts” (p. 4).

On pages 4–5 Lamp lays out a definition and six principles of ecological hermeneutics that emerged out of the Earth Bible Project.  Since then, these principles have undergone revision.  Lamp lays out three criteria that will guide his reading of Hebrews: 1) Suspicion: traditional readings of the text are inherently anthropocentric; humans sees themselves as a separate order of being with respect to the non-human order of creation; 2) Identification: seeking to empathize with the non-human created order; humans must recognized kinship with the earth; 3) Retrieval: seeking to discern how creation speaks in the text (p. 6).  His criterion of suspicion will be tempered by three other methodological approaches: the use of intertextuality, consideration of the canonical context, and limited theological readings (p. 7).  Lamp rigorously applies these criteria in the studies that follow.  Lamp concludes the introduction by laying out the contours of the book.  The book is neither a commentary, nor a systematic theology or ethic of creation care, nor an exercise in traditional exegesis, but simply a series of seven studies that will employ the ecological hermeneutic (pp. 8–9).

Chapter 2 is entitled “Creational Christology: Recovering the Christological Voice of Creation (Hebrews 1:2–3a).”  Lamp begins with the criterion of suspicion: the voice of Earth has been ignored by both the biblical author and later interpreters.  Creation is merely a datum in the author’s christological formulation (pp. 11–12).  He then applies the criterion of identification: the quotation of Ps 8 in chapter 2 suggests that the Son shares the same material substance as human beings who were birthed from the Earth; hence the incarnation is one of the strongest affirmations of the intrinsic worth of human beings and creation (pp. 12–13). Lastly, he applies the criterion of retrieval: creation can teach us about the person and work of the Son.  The depiction of Wisdom in Wisdom of Solomon 7:22–8:1 shares similarities with the depiction of the Son in Hebrews 1:2–3a.  The relationship of these two passages to one another suggests the following: a) Earth and humans have a common origin in the agency of the Son and hence is also an object of divine benevolence as human beings are; b) the incarnation embodies the common experience of Earth and humans, including the common experience of suffering; c) Earth and humans share a common destiny of redemption from death and decay (pp. 13–20).  Honoring the world which Christ creates and sustains is an appropriate means of honoring the Son.  What is not entirely clear to me from Lamp’s discussion is why Christ’s incarnation is necessary for human beings to identify with creation.  It seems to me this connection can be made directly from the creation stories in Genesis without appeal to Christ’s incarnation.  What the incarnation does accomplish is to affirm the value of human beings and the rest of the created order.

Chapter 3, “What’s With Cutting up All Those Animals?,” attempts to read the sacrifice of Christ in Hebrews from the perspective of the animals. Lamp briefly surveys the biblical depiction of animals and concludes that the portrait is an ambivalent one (pp. 22–24).  The biblical witness values animals as the objects of care and concern, but also affirms the superiority of human beings over animals.  Humans exploit animals for food and sacrifice.  In discussing the inadequacy of animal sacrifices in Hebrews 9:11–10:18, the author differs from the OT prophets in his critique of the sacrificial cultus (pp. 24–27).  The prophets’ critique was not that the sacrifices were ineffectual but that the people failed to live in obedience to God’s commandments; God prefers obedience over sacrifice.  Hebrews, however, charges that sacrifices were in fact ineffective to accomplish forgiveness of sins and cleansing of conscience.  Lamp claims that Hebrews has an anthropological and christological bias when discussing the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice to the animal sacrifices of the old covenant (p. 27–28).  The voice of the animal world may be heard in three ways.  First, the animals may “respond in the protest that they are the innocent victims in the human drama of sin and redemption, and to critique them is to diminish them for their role in a system not of their own device” (p. 22; see pp. 28–30).  Second, animals are also objects of Christ’s redemptive work.  Christ’ sacrifice makes the shedding of animal blood unnecessary (pp. 30–31).  But animals are also redeemed in a larger sense as part of the created order when Christ will redeem all things (p. 31).  Third, since animals are co-recipients of redemption with human beings, then human beings have the ethical obligation to treat animals with dignity (pp. 32–35).

This chapter raises many questions for me.  Since the author’s anthropological and christological bias has led him to argue that Christ’s blood is superior to animal blood, might the animals protest that Christ’s blood is no more precious than animal blood?  And if so, what does this do to our understanding of the redemptive value of Christ’s death?  Does Lamp see any qualitative difference between humanity and animals?  Do animals have souls?  Will they experience an afterlife?  Are they redeemed in the same way that humans are redeemed?  While Lamp says that he does not intend to give an exhaustive treatment of animal ethics (p. 33), if animals are equal in dignity to human beings, what kinds of implications might follow?  Should Christians become vegetarians or even vegans?  Should Christians refrain from using insecticides?  Is it unethical to hold animals in captivity in zoos, aquariums, and game farms?  Is it wrong to use animals as pack animals or to plow a field?  Should scientists stop using animals as test subjects?

Chapter 4 is entitled, “The Promise of God’s Rest (Hebrews 4:1–11): Joshua, Jesus, Sabbath, and the Care of the Land.”  Lamp uses the criterion of suspicion to reveal a number of biases that the author of Hebrews (and his interpreters) has about the land in 4:1–11.  First, the author has “restricted the consideration of the land to the possession of the land only” and not for the care of the land (p. 39).  The promise of God’s rest is not fulfilled in the possession of the land, but in the Son.  Second, there is a spiritualization of the promise of the land; there is “a reinterpretation of the promise of the land that denies any place to the literal fulfillment of the promise in terms of geography” (p. 39). A third bias is found in a minority interpretation of Heb 4 that discerns a literal fulfillment of the promise as possession of the land, but that this fulfillment only serves “anthropologically determined ends” and does not consider the land in its own right (p. 41).

While the author of Hebrews has used the concept of Sabbath to remove the significance of the land from consideration in the promise of rest, Lamp tries to reverse this interpretive move by using the Sabbath as the point of identification with the land.  Lamp appeals to OT passages that deal with the relationship of land and Sabbath.  The land belongs to God but is given in trust to the Israelites who are to work the land in accordance with Sabbath regulations, that is, the land is supposed to experience the benefits of Sabbath rest, and this rest is brought into connection with the Sabbath rest experienced by the Israelites (p. 43).  Lamp further notes that the “Sabbath establishes a context for human care for the land, and human righteousness and sinfulness have consequences for the land” (p. 45).  His final move is to bring in the servant passages of Second Isaiah, which speak of the renewal of the land preceding the appearance of the servant, to suggest that when the author of Hebrews says that the Sabbath rest of God is found in the Son, that the land is also included in this rest (pp. 45–46).  Lamp suggests several ways in which the voice of the land can be retrieved (pp. 46–49).  According to Lamp, the land calls us “to live out our identification with the land and so expand our understanding of the promise of God’s rest to include the land, and indeed, the whole of creation” (p. 50).

In chapter 5, “A Whispered Voice in the Choir,” Lamp attempts to move toward an ecological pneumatology in Hebrews.  After briefly surveying all the passages in Hebrews that mentions the Holy Spirit (pp. 52–56), Lamp concludes that Hebrews has an anthropocentric bias.  This bias favors Christology over pneumatology, and in particular, by showing how Christ’s saving work benefits humanity.  Moreover, all the references to the Spirit are used in support of the christological and soteriological emphases of the discourse (p. 58).  They key passage for Lamp is 9:14, which contains the phrase “through eternal spirit.”  He believes this phrase refers to the Holy Spirit, rather than to Christ’s divinity, or the realm or mode in which Christ’s sacrifice was made (p. 59).  The phrase suggests that the presence and power of the Spirit sanctifies Jesus for his dual ministry as priest and sacrifice (p. 60).  Since Christ’s sacrifice involves the physicality and materiality of his body and blood, and since his offering is made in connection with the Holy Spirit, then “a connection between human beings and Earth is forged” (p. 61).  Hence, the relationship between the Son and Spirit does not only bring redemptive benefits for human beings but for all material creation (p. 62).  In order to hear the voice of Earth, one must recover the biblical emphasis of the role of the Holy Spirit in creation (pp. 63–65).  Lamp declares, that the “Spirit, by virtue of its presence in all phases of creation . . . is central to the redemptive work of Christ that entails all of creation” (p. 66).

Chapter 6 is entitled, “‘He Has Prepared a City for Them’ (Hebrews 11:16): Escapist Eschatology or Ecological Expedience?”  According to Lamp, Heb 11:8–16 has been used to justify an “escapist eschatology that minimizes attention on the present order and its afflictions in favor of a rather singular focus on the world to come” (p. 69).  The dangers of such an idea are that it can lead to disregard care for the created order in the present and to the exploitation of creation for economic gains (p. 70).  Lamp finds two trajectories in the eschatology of Hebrews.  The first is the trajectory of “rest” (4:1–11; 10:19–25; 12:22–24); in these passages earthly realities are usually spiritualized into heavenly realities (pp. 71–72).  The second trajectory (1:10–12; 11:8–16; 12:18–29) deals with the “transience of the created order” (p. 72).  Creation is thus viewed as something from which one escapes and is something that will eventually be destroyed (p. 76).  With the help of the work of N. T. Wright, Lamp turns to the allusion to the resurrection in 11:17–19 to attempt to bring about an identification of humanity with creation (pp. 76–79).  He explains that “the resurrection of Jesus is that which connects the present order to its redemption in the future.  It does so by bringing together heaven and earth in the glorified man Jesus and through the encroachment of the coming kingdom into the present.  But because human beings are connected to the man Jesus by virtue of a shared humanity, which includes a shared connection with creation, human beings are further identified with an Earth that is not to be abandoned but is rather awaiting its full redemption in the future” (pp. 78–79).  The voice of Earth may declare that 11:8–16, then, is not inconsistent with an ecological agenda, and Hebrews itself has some balancing passages (p. 79–81).  Moreover, the concept of a “resident alien” does not preclude one from living beneficially in the present.  After all, resident aliens do have a vested interest in the lands in which they live (p. 81).

Chapter 7, entitled “‘We Have an Altar’ (Hebrews 13:10),” is concerned with the reclamation of the Eucharist for ecological responsibility.  Lamp discerns a non-Eucharistic bias in Hebrews which suppresses liturgical traditions that might have proved useful for an ecological agenda.  Lamp turns to the interpretation of the controversial passage of Heb 13:10.  He notes that many scholars deny that there is any connection with the Eucharist in this passage and some scholars even discern an anti-Eucharistic emphasis (pp. 86–90).  Lamp supposes that a latent anti-sacramentalism has led some scholars to reject any Eucharistic interpretation of this passage.  Of course, one could respond: perhaps scholars do not see a Eucharistic reference in this passage because it simply is not there and those scholars who do discern a reference to the Eucharist do so from a pro-sacramental bias.  At any rate, Lamp is heavily dependent upon the work of Denis Edwards who develops “an ecological theology of the Eucharist” (p. 91) in order to forge an identification of humanity with the created order.  Lamp then turns to the discussion of Melchizedek in Heb 7.  The author of Hebrews has omitted any reference to the bread and wine that Melchizedek brought out to Abraham in Gen 14, thus revealing his bias against the Eucharist (pp. 92–93).  However, patristic writers have claimed that the bread and wine was a prefiguring of the Eucharistic meal.  Hence, according to Lamp, the employment of the story of Melchizedek “forces the Eucharist into consideration in the minds of a church so powerfully shaped by Eucharistic devotion” (p 95).  In order to hear the voice of Earth, Lamp suggests that instead of applying traditional historical-critical exegesis, we resort to a “history of effects” approach to 13:10, which in the history of the church has had powerful influence on Eucharistic consciousness.  Moreover, the “history of effects” approach would also appeal to the patristic interpretations, which see a Eucharistic prefiguration in the Melchizedek story (pp. 95–97).  Earth’s voice might also urge us “to integrate a more conscious identification with Earth in our practice of Eucharistic devotion, with the result that such an identification might shape a more robust ecological awareness as part of a Eucharistically-shaped life in the world” (p. 97).  Lamp once again turns to the work of Edwards to indicate how this might be accomplished (pp. 97–98).  In a footnote on page 110, Lamp also indicates that the same approach applied in this chapter could also be applied to show how baptism also brings about a human identification with the Earth.

Chapter 8 is entitled, “Creational Christology Redux: Angels, Torah, Son, and Creation (Hebrews 2:1–4).”  In his examination of Heb 1, Lamp again concludes that the author has a bias against the Earth (pp. 102–6).  First, the author chooses “to pursue a christological rather than a creational agenda” (p 103).  Second, in the catena, the author contrasts the transitory nature of the created order with the eternal nature of the Son, hence relegating the importance of the Earth “as an entity of intrinsic worth and consideration in itself” (p. 105).  Third, the author shows the superiority of the Son over Torah, which in Second Temple Judaism was associated with Wisdom which was the agent of creation in the OT (p. 106).  For Lamp, Wisdom again functions as the means to bring together humanity and creation.  Since Jesus is identified with Wisdom, and his wisdom is superior to the wisdom of the Torah, then as superior Wisdom, Jesus provides the appropriate means for caring for the Earth (pp. 106–7).  In order to retrieve the voice of Earth, Lamp examines the larger context of the quotation in 1:7 of Ps 104:4.  Psalm 104 is a hymn of celebration of creation and God’s work as creator and sustainer (p. 109).  The voice of Earth urges us to consider the full message of the psalm: “first, to convince us that God indeed finds joy in the creation brought into being by the creative and sustaining agency of the Son, and secondly, to adopt the stance of the psalmist in assuring that God continues to find pleasure in creation as faithful human beings praise God for creation and seek God’s guidance in battling the degradation of the ecosystems God has established on the Earth” (p. 111).

Chapter 9 is the conclusion which sums up the results of this study.  The end matter includes a bibliography and indexes of authors and ancient documents.

I am certainly sympathetic to Lamp’s project.  I do not endorse an ideology that believes that since God will soon bring about a new earth, we should then be unconcerned about taking care of the environment.  The earth, though vast, does not have limitless resources.  If we consume and pollute all of our planet’s natural resources, we really have no other viable options for sustaining life.  God has entrusted humanity to be stewards of the earth.  In many ways, humans have been poor stewards as we have, often unwittingly, done irreparable harm to our planet.  But now that we have become more aware of our impact upon our world, we should seek ways to become better stewards of our planet.  And so I am all for doing things like the conservation of natural resources, recycling, the preservation of endangered species, the pursuit of cleaner forms of energy, and the like.

One can certainly admire Lamp’s ingenuity; he has managed to take passages that have nothing to do with environmental care and turned them into texts that support an ecological agenda.  However, one does wonder if biblical texts can be made to support any agenda if the interpreter has enough ingenuity.  Environmental and ecological matters are very much a modern concern and we should be careful about retrojecting these ideas back into ancient texts or expect that ancient authors would have the same concerns that we have.  It is perhaps, then, a bit unfair when Lamp accuses the author of Hebrews of having a bias against the Earth or against animals.  The author had other purposes for his writing and he certainly did not have the ecological consciousness that a modern person has.  Perhaps this is the way that the criterion of suspicion works: the interpreter assumes that the author of the texts one is studying has an agenda that is hostile to one’s own biased agenda.  Lamp was certainly quite creative in finding ways to get around what he perceives is the author’s inherent bias against ecological concerns.  There are certainly other biblical texts that are more conducive than Hebrews in supporting an ecological agenda.  At best, I believe, Lamp has shown that at least Hebrews is not inconsistent or opposed to an ecological agenda.  Lamp has certainly provided some provocative essays on this important trend of the ecological interpretation of Scripture.