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.
