Hebrews 6:4-12 is one of the difficult in the Bible because it deals with a very sensitive problem: If someone recants their faith and completely turns their back on God, can they still be “saved”? It does not take very long to find a website attributing the doctrine of Eternal Security (Perseverance of the Saints) to be a doctrine hatched in the pit of Hell, or another website declaring that Eternal Security is the central theme of God’s gospel of Grace.
Part of the emotionalism of this issue is that everybody knows someone who attended church, was involved in the ministry of the church, gave of their money and time, and may have even publicly claimed to be a believer. But now, for whatever reason, they have walked as far from God as they can get, denying that they were even saved. Some pastors have been caught in sin and now have left the ministry, perhaps even denying God What about them? Were they “saved”? Are they now “saved” even if they are in a state of denial?
Presuppositions about theology often drive interpretations about this passage. Once we start talking about heavy doctrines like election, predestination, and preservation of the saints people tend to get antsy. To make a very long theological story short, Arminians tend to believe that a person can lose their salvation if they do not “persevere until the end” while the Calvinists tend to believe that a person who is truly saved will always be saved, regardless of any post-conversion behavior. There is a lot behind those two historic positions, in fact, they are logical conclusions drawn from some presuppositions in their respective views of salvation.
A real problem for reading this text is that our personal experience clouds our thinking. We all know someone that seemed saved, but they now appear to have walked away from their faith. Alternatively, we all know at least one prodigal son who has returned to the father and repented of their time during which they appear to have rejected the faith. These stories are rather emotional since these are real people whom we love.
While both sides of this “once saved always saved” discussion must deal with this passage, that is not exactly what the author of Hebrews has in mind. He does not address church discipline or post-reformation theology. In fact, he is neither Calvinist nor Arminian, nor is he a holiness preacher or a post-Enlightenment liberal. To a large extent our post-Reformation questions might obscure what the writer of Hebrews was trying to communicate to his original readers.
The writer of Hebrews is a Jewish Christian addressing other Jewish Christians who are about to endure a time of terrible persecution. Does the writer of Hebrews consider it possible that his readers could deny their faith publicly, declare that they are faithful Jews, and still consider themselves Christians in secret?
Is it possible to check our Reformation Theology at the door before reading Hebrews? Or is that something we should even attempt?
One of the problems with reading Hebrews is identifying the date and recipient of the letter. I am convinced the recipients were in Rome, living just before the Neroian persecutions. I think the standard arguments for this position are solid, although I realize there are other possibilities. Karen Jobes (Letters to the Church) argues the book does not capitalize on the destruction of the Temple as a “proof” that the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New, implying a pre-A.D. 70 date. In addition, the church has “not yet suffered to the point of shedding blood” (12:4). If the recipients are in Rome, then the letter must refer to a time prior to Nero’s persecution of Christians (A.D.64), but after Caligula expelled Jews (A.D. 49).
Given this context, the recipients struggle with the promises of Christian faith. If Jesus is the true sacrifice and the fulfillment of the promises of the Hebrew Bible, why have they suffered so much? As J. W. Thompson says in his Hebrews commentary, the book is written to “reorient a community that has been disoriented by the chasm between Christian confession of triumph and the reality of suffering it has experienced.”
This is not apologetics in the modern sense, it does not argue against Judaism, nor does it state that Judaism was bad or wrong in any way. Rather, the writer constructs a positive argument for Jesus’ superiority to various elements of Judaism; he is superior because he is the fulfillment of these things. (He is the substance to which the shadow pointed).
If I am right about the context of the book and the recipients have suffered for their faith already (and are about to suffer even more so under Nero), then the readers may very well have struggled with the shame of suffering in a culture which did not see suffering as a virtue. Within a Jewish context, suffering is sometimes seen as a result of sin, or at the very least, a lack of blessing from God. We only need to look at the discussion in the book of Job to see that there was a lively discussion of why humans suffer. If Christians are right and Jesus has triumphed, then why are his followers not blessed? Why are they suffering?
Within a Greco-Roman context, Christians were not seen as successful because they suffered. Roman thinking was very much based on honor and shame, of one suffered shame and humiliation in public, one cannot be described as successful!
The book therefore addresses a very real problem. If Jesus is already seated at the right hand of the Father, why is it that Christians suffer shame and persecution? Christians are not “of this world,” they are part of the real, unshakeable reality which is not of this world at all.
The theological dissonance which the book of Hebrews addresses is certainly applicable to Christians living in the persecuted world. They may ask, like the recipients of Hebrews, “what good is being faithful”? There are many examples of faithful Christians who suffer frequent shame and humiliation. I am not sure it has come to this in American, where we considered a Red Cup oppressive. But it is true Christianity is becoming a minority voice in American and evangelical Christianity may soon have little or no impact on culture.
How does Hebrews help the Christian who suffers in an anti-Christian world?
O’Brien, Peter T. Hebrews. Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. 630 pp. Hb; $52. This book is no longer available from the publisher.
Peter T. O’Brien is emeritus professor at Moore College in Sydney, Australia. He has already contributed major commentaries on Colossians and Philemon in the WBC (1982), Philippians in the NIGTC (1991), and Ephesians in the PNTC (1999). Unfortunately, this commentary was withdrawn after the publisher concluded allegations of plagiarism were credible.
Introductory Material. An introduction to Hebrews covers topics not necessary for other New Testament books. O’Brien’s 43-page introduction deals with authorship first, beginning with the traditional view Paul was the author, then examining the evidence for Barnabas or Apollos as authors before settling on an unknown author as the most satisfying solution.
Most commentaries on Hebrews devote a significant section to the situation of the readers, destination, and date. After examining the possibility the readers were Gentile, he concludes that the preponderance of metaphors drawn from the Jewish religious system favor a Jewish Christian readership who are “apparently in danger of returning to a ‘reliance on the cultic structures of the old covenant’” (12). These readers were either in Rome or Jerusalem. O’Brien briefly surveys the evidence for the early church’s view that the recipients were in Jerusalem and concludes the readers most likely lived in Rome, “even if it remains a hypothesis” (14). While not ruling out any date between about A. D. 60 and 90, “much of the evidence supports some time before 70.” This date is based on allusions to Claudius’s expulsion of Christians and the present activity of the Temple. In addition, he finds the lack of ecclesiastical structure in the book an indication of an earlier date.
O’Brien argues the genre of the book is “synagogue homily” akin to Paul’s sermon in Acts 13 and was intended to be read aloud in before a congregation. Like Paul’s sermon, Hebrews can “exhortation,” and both frequently use the pronoun “we.” Both use the “language of speaking and hearing” (20). The “skillful oscillation between exposition and exhortation” in the book creates a pattern “that allows the speaker to drive home his points immediately without losing the hearers” (21).
Despite general agreement that Hebrews is a literary masterpiece, there is little agreement on the major divisions of the book. The book is often divided into sections based on themes (F. F. Bruce, for example), but this method struggles to take into account the rhetorical features of the book. Koester’s Anchor Bible commentary identifies sections of the book as exordium (1:1–2:4), proposition (2:5–9), arguments (2:10–12:27), a peroration (12:28–13:21), an epistolary postscript (13:22–25). Rhetorical analyses of the book have been helpful, but the book does not consistently conform to Greco-Roman rhetorical forms. Perhaps a better method for identifying the structure of the book is a literary analysis. Albert Vanhoye has pioneered this influential approach to the book. He divided the book into five units based on the use of literary devices (hook words, the repetitions of words or phrases): The name superior to angels (1:5–2:18); Christ’s faithfulness and compassion (3:1–5:10); the central exposition on sacrifice (5:11–10:39); faith and endurance (11:1–12:13); the peaceful fruit of justice (12:14–13:19). As influential as Vanhoye’s proposal has been, O’Brien finds Hebrews to be more linear than Vanhoye’s complicated chiasm permits.
A final method for identifying the structure of a book is discourse analysis. This method has been gaining popularity in recent years. George Guthrie examined the book using the method of discourse analysis while being “sensitive to literary and oratorical conventions of the first century” (29). Discourse analysis observes shifts between “cohesion fields” such as genre, topic, temporal indicators, spatial indicators, actor, subject, verb tense, mood, person, number, reference, and lexical items. This means a shift from exposition or exhortation, for example, is a marker for the reader in the author’s overall argument. O’Brien finds Guthrie’s structure a helpful visualization of the book of Hebrews, although he differs from it in some details. O’Brien compares Guthrie’s discourse analysis with Cynthia Long Westfall, who organizes the book “around the structures of mood and voice, as expressed by performatives, that is, hortatory subjunctives” (33).
O’Brien includes a section in his introduction placing Hebrews in the first-century world. The influence of Graeco-Roman culture is found primarily in its “elegant language and elevated rhetoric” and the book’s use of the categories of honor and shame (36). Most commentaries on Hebrews discuss the influence of Philo of Alexandria on the writer of Hebrews. O’Brien states there is now “considerable doubt as to whether the author of Hebrews knew the writings of Philo” (37). This is also the case for the influence of Gnosticism on the book since Gnostic literature postdates Hebrews, and “there is virtually no first-century evidence for a Gnostic redeemer myth” (38). While O’Brien thinks Hebrews includes apocalyptic elements comparable to the Dead Sea Scrolls, he recognizes scholarship is not in agreement as to the function of apocalyptic in Second Temple Judaism in general or Hebrews in particular. While there are some similarities between Hebrews and the literature of the Qumran community, there are “striking linguistic and conceptual differences” (40).
Finally, in the introduction, O’Brien comments on the origins of Christianity and the book of Hebrews. This is necessary because scholarship on Hebrews often suggests the author drew on either Pauline theology or Jewish Christianity as represented by the apostles represented by 1 Peter or the preaching of Hellenists such as Stephen. After examining the usual evidence for a Pauline influence, O’Brien concludes that “the author of Hebrews drew his ideas from Paul, this is unlikely” (41), but he also rejects any dependence on 1 Peter or the speech of Stephen in Acts 7.
Hebrews does have similarities to other New Testament books, but ultimately “these affinities show that Hebrews is located within the mainstream of early Christian tradition” (43).
The Commentary. The body of the commentary follows the same pattern as the other Pillar commentaries. After the NIV 2011 translation of the text, O’Brien sets the context of the pericope and proceeds through the text in a phrase-by-phrase fashion. The main text deals with English text. All Greek appears in the footnotes. While he occasionally interacts with scholarship in the main text, much of this is relegated to the footnotes. This makes for a readable commentary. There is one excursus on Christ as Divine Wisdom (53-4). Although it is labeled “Note 1,” there is no other note in the book.
Since Logos Bible Software provided me with a review copy of this book, I will comment on the usability of the book in the Logos Library. I used a laptop and an iPad to read the book. All of the tools Logos provides are available for this book. The in-line search feature can be used to find all occurrences of any given word in the main text and footnotes. For example, there are 127 references to Philo and three references to Nero. These searches are “fuzzy,” meaning a search for “eschatology” hits eschatological as well. Logos can display a single line of context for an in-line search but also a paragraph or article. All biblical texts are linked in the commentary. Hovering over the text will float the scripture in a window, and clicking will align linked Bibles to the text selected. This works for non-canonical texts as well. Since I have Philo in my library, I can click on a reference and go to the text. This works for Josephus and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha as well.
Conclusion. O’Brien’s commentary is an excellent contribution to studying the book of Hebrews. It does not present any radical views on the controversial introductory issues, and in many ways, it is quite traditional. O’Brien’s exegetical insights are important, and the book should be one of the “first off the shelf” for pastors and Bible teachers for years to come.
NB: Thanks to Logos Bible Software / Faithlife for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
There was one other bit of Logos Bible Software news I wanted to pass along. Logos is preparing an English translation of Ceslas Spicq’s two-volume commentary L’Épitre aux Hébreux (1952-53)If you have done any work in Hebrews, you know Spicq’s commentary is constantly cited. His detailed discussion on the relationship between Hebrews and Philo is foundational for later studies.
Logos has listed the translation of Spicq’s commentary as a “pre-pub” special. This means if you pre-order the book, it is only $39.95. But Logos does not produce the book until they have sufficient interest. Spicq’s Hebrews commentary is “almost there,” but there are not quite enough pre-orders to begin work. The book is very difficult to find and expensive to purchase even if you do find a copy for sale, so $39.95 is a reasonable price for the first English translation. Anyone working in Hebrews should invest in this book and encourage Logos to produce more original translations like this.
Logos is also working on Aquinas’ Commentary on Jeremiahand Isaiah but there are other important works I would love to see translated to English, such as Adolf Jülicher, Die gleichnisreden Jesu (Mohr Siebeck, 1888). Ideally, it would be fantastic if Logos could not only publish the electronic version of these books, but also a short-run print version (perhaps through Wipf & Stock) so traditional libraries can add them tot heir collections.
Any other suggestions for Logos as a publisher of translated works?
Bateman IV. Herbert W. Interpreting the General Letters: An Exegetical Handbook. Handbooks for New Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids, Mich. Kregel, 2013. 315 pp. Pb; $29.99. Link.
Herb Bateman’s Interpreting the General Letters joins series editor John Harvey’s Interpreting the Pauline Letters in this exegetical handbook series. When I reviewed Harvey’s volume a year ago, my main criticism was the brevity of the book. That is not a problem for Bateman’s book, since he has 100 more pages and considerably less material to cover.
The outline of the two books is similar. After a three chapter survey of the genre, background, and theology of the books, this Handbook provides an exegetical method, from translation to interpretation and finally communication. Since this book is intended as a textbook for classroom use, each chapter opens with an “at a glance” summary and a concluding review highlighting key points. Like other books in the series, the book concludes with a glossary of key terms.
In chapter 1, Bateman provides an overview of the genre of letter writing in the ancient world. Since this is a topic worthy of a monograph, Bateman must be brief. Nevertheless, this is a good introduction to a complex topic. He gives several examples of letters from approximately the same time as the General Epistles, to commendation letters, one conciliatory letter and two commanding letters. As is often observed, even though the canonical letters are longer than most Greco-Roman letters, the form is quite similar. Bateman briefly looks various “rules” for letter writing from Isocrates (436-338 B.C.E.), Pseudo-Demetrius (first century B.C.E.) and Pseudo-Libanius (fourth century C.E.) The General Epistles roughly follow the patterns set in these famous manuals, although they sometimes mix genre.
The second chapter gives an overview of Greco-Roman history from Alexander the Great through the Maccabean and Roman periods. While this background is interesting and well-written, it might be too broad for a book on the General Epistles. Part of the reason for the lengthy historical narrative is Bateman’s thesis that Jude was written to Jewish Christian believers in Judea just prior to the rebellion in A.D. 66. The “godless ones” who have “secretly slipped in” are best understood in Bateman’s view in the light of the Jewish War not antinomians. This chapter also compares James to Wisdom Literature and briefly introduces Greco-Roman household codes as background to 1 Peter.
In order to introduce the theology of the General epistles, Bateman begins with an overarching biblical theology of the “strategic plan of God.” This section is a slightly slimmed version of progressive dispensationalism found in his Jesus the Messiah. Despite using the term dispensation, this presentation of God’s plan should not be dismissed out of hand. This is not the same kind of dispensationalism found in the Scofield Reference Bible or popular novels. Bateman presents a way of conceptualizing salvation history consistent with other narrative approaches to biblical theology.
His view of the kingdom is common in current discussions (the cross inaugurates the Kingdom; the second coming consummates the kingdom). He does an excellent job contextualizing this material to the General epistles, illustrating the “era of fulfillment” and “era of consummation” from these letters as much as possible. “In short,” Bateman says, “the corporate followers of Jesus have been transferred into the kingdom, live on earth as God’s redeemed community in anticipation of Jesus’ return and rule on earth, and model kingdom living for all other people so that they will be drawn to God” (118). After this overarching biblical theology, he offers a short, one page summary of the theological contributions of each book.
In chapter 4 (“Preparing to Interpret”), Bateman begins to outline his exegetical method. First the exegete must translate the text. This is a basic overview of how to approach a paragraph in Greek, identifying verbs and clauses. Second, while working through a portion of Greek text, the exegete begins to identify interpretive issues. Comparing English translations sometimes brings these issues to light. Rendering the tense of a verb may vary, as will any idiomatic Greek in the pericope. The final step at this stage is to isolate any textual issues in the pericope. Here Bateman gives a fifteen page introduction to textual criticism.
Once the sense of the Greek text is understood, the exegete moves to interpret the text, beginning with the structure of the passage. Bateman defines independent and dependent clauses and shows how these clauses function in a sentence. He works through 1 Peter 1:3-11 in order to demonstrate the usefulness of an analysis of the structure of the passage. By way of syntax and style, Bateman has in mind features like inclusio, chiasm, etc. He briefly highlights the style of the four writers in this section.
Most beginning exegetes find the syntax, grammar, and structural exercises boring and most want to rush right into word studies. Bateman states the goal in a word study is to “determine the author’s intended meaning of a symbol in his specific literary context” (199). By establishing a range of possibilities, the interpreter is in a better position to hear how the original audience might have understood the word. While he does suggest a study of the use of the word in classical, Septuagint, and Koine contexts, this may be “too much work” for the busy pastor (unless they are using Logos or Accordance!) Bateman does not instruct the student on the use of word-books or “theological dictionaries” (TDNT and the like).
Finally, chapter six deals with how to communicate exegetically, using 3 John as an example). If the exegete has done the work, then determining the “central idea” of the pericope is the next step. Ideally this is done for the larger passage by grouping summaries topically and creating an exegetical outline for the whole passage. But an exegetical outline is rarely preachable. If the goal of exegesis is “communicating homiletically,” then an additional step is necessary. Bateman gives his “homiletical outline” and a few examples of illustrations “sprinkled throughout the sermon” (237). Since this is more or less how I prepare a sermon, I feel at home in this section of the chapter. It is possible this “Haddon Robinson” style of delivery will not resonate with the more narrative style popular among preachers today.
Chapter seven offers two examples of the method outlined in the previous three chapters. Here Bateman shows how to go “from exegesis to exposition.” He selects Jude vv. 5-7 and Hebrews 10:19-25. Again, I find his method and results comforting since they are near enough to my own. But I wonder about application of the text: How can the exegete “bridge the gap”? I am not sure Bateman does this well. For example, Jude 5-7, his final point is “do not join in the Zealot insurrection against Rome” (269). While this might be an accurate statement of Jude’s intention for writing the letter, how does that “preach” to a congregation today? That final step in the journey from exegesis to sermon seems missing in this book.
In the final section of the book, Bateman offers a list of resources for studying the General Epistles. Some of these are general works on historical and textual issues. Bateman has a very useful chart describing several commentary series (296—302). Here he gives the stated purpose of the series along with the published volumes on the General Epistles in the series with dates. There is some evaluation in this chart, describing the series as technical, critical or popular; conservative or moderate liberal, etc. The series in this list are recent and in most cases still being completed or publishing replacement volumes for older ones, such as the International Critical Commentary. The balance of the chapter is a list of other commentaries or monographs on the book without comment. Some of these monographs are in technical dissertation series and are not readily available for most pastors (WUNT, for example). There are a few unpublished dissertations in the list as well. This list might have been improved with a ranking of the best exegetical commentary or best popular expositional commentary, etc.
Conclusion. Bateman’s book is an excellent introduction to these often ignored letters. It is conservative, since he accepts the traditional views on most issues. There is very little interaction with challenges to the traditional authors of these letters. There is a brief discussion of Pseudonymity in his chapter on genre, but he does not discuss any specific the problems for the traditional view on these letters. Despite my criticism above, this is a very useful handbook, explaining and modeling the exegetical method.
In fact, the Exegetical Handbook series is ideal textbook for classroom use. Two more volumes are planned, David Turner on the Gospels and Acts and Marvin Pate on the Apocalypse. There are three volumes available in the Old Testament series (Pentateuch, Historical Books and Psalms). I look forward to the rest of the series.
Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Part of the emotionalism of this issue is that everybody knows someone who attended church, was involved in the ministry of the church, gave of their money and time, and may have even publicly claimed to be a believer. But now, for whatever reason, they have walked as far from God as they can get, denying that they were even saved. Some pastors have been caught in sin and now have left the ministry, perhaps even denying God What about them? Were they “saved”? Are they now “saved” even if they are in a state of denial?
A real problem for reading this text is that our personal experience clouds our thinking. We all know someone that seemed saved, but they now appear to have walked away from their faith. Alternatively, we all know at least one prodigal son who has returned to the father and repented of their time during which they appear to have rejected the faith. These stories are rather emotional since these are real people whom we love.
