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.
