God has spoken in his Son. A biblical theology of Hebrews

The series New Studies in Biblical Theology is a series I can heartily recommend. Key issues in the discipline of biblical theology are addressed to learn Christians to understand the Bible better. In this series Peter T. O’Brien, formerly Vice-Prin-cipal of and Senior Research Fello0w in New Testament at Moore College, Sydney has written a monograph on the epistle to the Hebrews.

O’Brien characterizes this New Testament epistle as a sermon sent as a letter. It is a hortatory letter which urges its readers to endure in their pursuit of the promised reward. They are written that they can find the power of this endurance in their new covenant relationship with the Son.

In this context the superiority of Christ above angels and above the high priests of the old covenant is addressed. Texts and themes of the Old testament and especially the Aaronic priesthood and the ritual of the Day of Atonement are shown to be fulfilled and surpassed in Jesus Christ and his work.

Important is the remark that only after his sufferings were completed at the cross that Jesus was perfected and fit to serve as an eternal high priest in heaven before God. So it is completely wrong to suggest that in the epistle to the Hebrews Jesus’ death is only a preparatory to the atonement. Jesus’ work as high priest in heaven cannot be separated from his once for all sacrifice on the cross.

Peter T. O’Brien, God has spoken in his Son. A biblical theology of Hebrews, NSBT 39 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2016) paperback 256 pp., $24,99 (ISBN 978-0-8308-2640-7)

An excellent commentary on Hebrews

The New International Greek Testament Commentary is a series of high academic quality. Already a couple of years ago Paul Ellingworth wrote in this series an excellent commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. In 2015 a paperback edition was published. The commentary of Ellingworth starts with a broad introduction in in which the circumstances in which Hebrews was written, its canonization, structure, theology and purpose are analyzed.

Although already in the Early Church the letter was ascribed to Paul, Ellingworth rightly follows Origin who stated that only God knows who has written this epistle. Following Luther Ellingworth thinks that Apollos is the most likely candidate, although his authorship cannot be proven.

I agree with Ellingworth that we must assume that most of the readers of Hebrews were converted Jews who formed a part of a greater Christian community. It is more likely to under-stand the phrase ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας as referring to people who left Italy. Supposing that the readers of Hebrews were a predominantly but not exclusively Jewish-Christian group but not including all member of the Christian community Rome must be preferred as the place where the readers lived.

Ellingworth prefers to date Hebrews before the fall of Jeru-salem in 70. Although the use of the present time when des-cribed the sacrificial system could be rhetorical and just be related to rituals described in the Old Testament, is seems almost impossible that the author would not have alluded to the destruction of the Temple when he wrote after 70.

The final admission of Hebrews into the canon was linked with that of its attribution to Paul. Initially the western church understood Hebrews to teach that those who had sinned after baptism could not be forgiven and readmitted in the church. That delayed its canonical status in the West. 
Finally both the Eastern and Western parts of the church accepted its canonicity being convinced of its apostolic con-tent. In the West the positive views of Jerome and even more Augustin played a decisive part, although Augustin became more and more reluctant about Pauline authorship.

The background of Hebrews is primarily the Old Testament in the form of the Septuagint. In several places his argument depend on the Septuagint. The author is convinced that the Old Testament speaks about Christ and sees it as his central task to discover with clues provided in the Old Testament itself to clarify the meaning of Christ’s person and work and that in order to encourage his readers to persevere in the faith they profess.

Regarding the relationship to the first century Jewish philo-sopher Philo of Alexandria Ellingworth makes the cautionary remark that the author of Hebrews is first and foremost a Christian, secondarily a Christian steeped in the Old Testa-ment, and no doubt in the third place a man affected by lin-guistic habits and intellectual traditions similar to those which contributed to Philo’s development. 
A direct influence of Philo on the author of Hebrews is very unlikely, because the writings of Philo cannot have been so familiar and influential on the author of Hebrews just a decade or two after their publication. More than Ellingworth I would unite the first points he observes. I think that Ellingworth is right when he says that the presentation of Melchizedek in Hebrews may have been stimulated by the ideas about him in Qumran and elsewhere.

The structure of Hebrews can be made by analyzing its content or on formal grounds. Ellingworth prefers the latter approach, because it points to features which lie clearly present on the surfaced of the text. Writing about the theology of Hebrews Ellingworth states that in Hebrews the historical and theological continuity of the people of God before and after the ministry of Christ on earth is stressed very empha-tically. The most distinctive feature of the christological lan-guage of Hebrews is its use of the name Jesus. 
There are thirteen occurrences and in most of them (Hebrews 4:14 and 10:10 are exceptions) it is used alone. Where Jesus is used alone, except in Hebrews 13:12, it occurs at the end of a clause. Ellingworth does not mention it, but I am sure that this use of the name Jesus does not only point to the cen-trality of Jesus for the message of Hebrews, but also of the great privilege of the New Testament believers. In distinction to believers under the Old Testament dispensation they know the personal name of the Messiah and Son of God and may address him by using this name.

The conclusion of Ellingworth is that Hebrews was written to a predominantly Jewish-Christian community living in Rome where Judaism (but not Christianity) was well established and officially tolerated. There was the constant temptation to de-emphasize, conceal, neglect and abandon the distinctively Christian features of their faith. Nowhere does the author of Hebrews states that his readers apostatize but is a real danger. 
It is true that the readmission to the church of Christians who denied the faith in times of persecution or the question of the final perseverance of the saints is not the concern of the author of Hebrews when he wrote this letter of encourage-ment and warning with its sermonic elements. Nevertheless these questions must be answered on the level of systematic theology and then the question is whether in Hebrews seeds are to be found for the readmission of lapsed Christians to the church and for the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints. I would answer both questions positively. 
The give arguments for it would require at least an article of moderate length and it is not the place to do that here. I can point to the commentaries of man like John Calvin, John Owen, John Brown and Philip E. Hughes.With regard to the perseverance of the saints I can also point to the contri-butions of Buist. M. Fanning and Randall C. Gleason in Herbert W. Bateman IV (ed.), Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2007).

Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1993), paperback xcviii + 764 p., $62,-- (ISBN 978-0-8028-7407-8 )

A Review of Two Theologies of the New Testament

Introduction

When Christian people hear about biblical theology, most of them understand this expres­­sion to mean theology that has the Bible as its ultimate standard and source. In this sense all theology ought to be biblical. In theology as an academic discipline, bibli­cal theology has a somewhat different meaning. In theology as an academic discipline this part of the theology stands between exegesis and systematic theology.

Exegesis is the exposition of Scripture. Its focus is the single text or a single passage. Systematic theology reflects on the Bible as a whole. Under­stan­ding and recapitulating the content of the Bible is done in community with the church of all ages. Systematic theology is always confessional in character. The doctrinal content of the Bible is underlined.

Biblical theology focuses on the content of biblical revelation from the view point of its un­folding in history. The history of revelation or redemption is one of the leading viewpoints in biblical theology as an academic discipline. Biblical theology asks calls attention to the indi­vi­dual biblical witnesses and treats biblical themes in the context of the history of revelation and redemption. The emphasis falls on the diversity of the individual biblical witnesses within the greater unity of the Bible as a whole.

In biblical theology the great distinction is between theology of the Old and the New Testament. When we speak about the theology of the Old and New Testament the under­lying presupposition is, that the writings of the Old and New Testament, although diverse in character and each having its own accents and distinctive, ulti-mately form a con­sistent and coherent unity.

At the same time I must say that quite a lot of scholars, who have written an Old or New Testament theology, only accept the canon for pragmatic reasons. Then we are not writing biblical theology, but the history of religion. Actually, theology, in the strict and real sense of the word, is only possible, when the Bible is accepted as the infallible and inerrant Word of the living God.

I stress, that we cannot draw exact distinctions between exegesis, biblical theology and syste­matic theology. In fact, it is a spectrum and besides that, we must reckon with the so called hermeneutical spiral. It is a great misunderstanding if we think that exegesis and biblical theology can be done in a neutral way. The exegetes and scholars who suggest that neutrality is possible in biblical theology are unaware they are the most dogmatic scholars we have come across.

Finally, I state emphatically, that biblical theology can never replace systematic theology. The Bible as a whole confronts us with questions, which can never be solved solely by an appeal to biblical texts. I think about ques-tions with regard to the relation­ship between time and eternity and the relationship between the Creator and his creation. That was the reason that already some years ago, Carl Truman wrote an article with the somewhat provo­cative title ‘A Revolutionary Balancing Act Or: Why our theology need to be a little less biblical?’

When theologians want to restrict themselves to biblical theology at the expanse of systematic theology, you always see that they have an anti-metaphysical bias. They do not want to speak about God in himself, but only about God in his relationship to his creatures. But this is a very important dogmatic decision with far reaching conse-quences.

You use to see in that case, that the narratives of the Bible are in a certain sense read as dogmatic treatises. Because in the biblical narratives God reacts to the actions of man in many cases, the conclusion is drawn that you cannot speak about the immutability of God. But what actually is the case, is that the genre of narrative is not really taken seriously. I must add that when we take the Biblical narratives as a whole, their clear message is that God is completely in control of all history. History is his story. The whole reality depends on him and he himself is independent. In theology we have the term the aseitas Dei.

Having tried to make you aware of the limitations of biblical theology, I am convinced that studying the content of the Bible focusing on the history of redemption and on the specific con-tribution of each book of the Bible and each writer of the Bible to the complete revelation, can be very fruitful.

So after these important remarks by way of introduction, now I call your attention to two theologies of the New Testament that were published in the last years. The first one consists of two volumes and is written by the American New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III. The second is written by Udo Schnelle, an outstanding German New Testament scholar.

The Indelible Image

Witherington has given his two volume study the title The Indelible Image. By means of the concept of the image of God Witherington explains the relationship between theology and ethics in the New Testament. The first volume treats the individual witnesses of the New Testament and the second the collective witness. Witherington states that in quite a several of the studies of New Testament theology, ethics are not given its due emphasis. He wants to remedy this fault.

Witherington does not mention it, but in former days actually no separation was made between systematic theology and ethics. Gisbertus Voetius, the father of the Dutch Further Reformation, can serve as a good example here. Many of the disputations of Voetius centered around questions related to the practice of piety. The fostering of piety was seen as the end of (systematic) theology. So Witherington is not that new in his treatment, as he perhaps suggests.

Whiterington has a high view of the authority and historical reliability of the New Testament. He stresses that theology and history must not be seen as each others rival. The gospels must be seen both as theological and historical writings. In the case of the gospel of John the word ‘theological’ must be underlined and in the case of the synoptic gospels the words ‘writing of ‘historical’.

All four gospels are based on what eyewitnesses saw or heard. Witherington is convinced that also in the case of the fourth gospel, we are confronted with real history. Witherington also defends the historical reliability of Acts. In painting the portrait of early Chris-tianity, Luke gives a selection of the facts, but not an idealized story that is far from highly unrealistic. 
It is remarkable that in the gospels Matthew and John, both written by persons who belonged to the circle of the Twelve, the frequency of the use of the name of Father is much higher than in the other gospels. Among the synoptic gospels, Matthew in this respect most closely resembles the gospel of John.

The unity of the New Testament writings is seen in the way they speak about the person and the work of Christ. In almost all writing of the New Testament Jesus is called either Lord, Christ or/and Son of God. Only in 3 John do we not find any of these three words/expres­sions. But the reason is simple - its content as a letter of exhortation and its shortness. Jesus is everywhere portrayed as the one in whom redemption is found. He is the Savior.

Jesus himself and his activity and teaching while he was on earth, are the fountain of the expressions of faith with regard to his person. Witherington rightly makes this statement without denying that compared to the self revelation of Christ when he was on earth there is in the New Testament a further development in the pre-sentation of the person of Christ after his exaltation and after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

The witness of the writers of the New Testament not only when they record the teaching of Jesus when he was on earth, but also when they are instructed by the resurrected and glorified Christ, confronts us with the real Christ. We cannot make a distinction between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history, but only between Jesus Christ when he was on earth and Jesus Christ as he is in heaven.

Wirtherington’s finding that according to Paul the gospel does not annihilate the order of creation but intensifies it, is very important. Homosexual behavior cannot be reconciled with the bearing of the image of Christ. Homosexual orientation – just as all sinful desires - can be seen as a result of the fall of man. Persons who have this orientation must be called to self denial in the light of the order of creation and the gospel of Christ and never be given the impression that homosexuality can be allowed under certain conditions. Witherington denies that Paul or other New Testament witnesses can be seen as defenders of the view of sinless perfection. There are mature believers, but also a mature believer has reasons to confess his sins and shortcomings.

According to the new perspective, justification has only to do with the boundaries of the community of faith. It is an ecclesiological and not a soteriological doctrine. The new perspective denies the rightness of the view of the Reformation on justification. Withe-rington cannot be seen as a defender of the new perspective on Paul, but he does not sufficiently highlight the great importance of the message of justification in Paul’s writings. Rightly he states that Paul and James do not really contradict each other with regard to justification and faith. They each use both the word ‘justification’ and the word ‘faith’ in different ways.

As you understand, I think that the two volumes of Witherington are very valuable. They are goldmines full of useful information and useful insights. Honestly I must point to what I consider as a very serious defect, a defect that is seen again and again in the way Witherington presents the message of the New Testament.

Witherington is a thoroughgoing Arminian. He denies the particular nature of the atonement, although nowhere in the New Testament it is ever said to unbelievers/persons outside the Christian church that Christ died for them. A complete Savior is preached and must be preached to unbelievers, both Jews and gentiles.

Not just a blessing connected with the work of Christ (Christ died for you) but Christ himself must be presented to unbelievers. The message that we will never be separated from the love of God in Christ, because Christ died for us and prays for us, is a message of consolation for believers. It makes clear to them the depth and the total character of Christ’s love for them.

Witherington cannot give a satisfying explanation about the sayings in the New Testament about election and predestination. Final election depends in his view of man’s faith. But in the New Testament we read just the reverse. This is the main reason that I bring attention to another work in the field of New Testament Theology published within the last couple of years.

Theology of the New Testament

The study of Udo Schnelle, originally written in German and translated in English, has its own defects and shortcomings, but Schnelle makes clear that in the New Testament faith is seen as a gift of God. Faith completely rests on God’s grace and that is the reason that the fountain of faith is personal election. Especially in John’s gospel and the Pauline epistles the unconditional and personal nature of election is stressed.

It is impossible for the language of election to refer only to the election of the congregation and not the election of individuals. It contrary to the central tenets of the witness of Paul, that the final salvation of believers depends on his own perseverance and is not guaranteed by the predestination and covenant loyalty of God.

The study of Schnelle can also be praised for other reasons. The fact that the history of Jesus and his church is not treated in a neutral way in the New Testament, does not mean that the information cannot be seen as reliable. All writing of history is selective and is done out of a certain perspective. Schnelle underlines that Jesus himself, while he was on earth knew that he had a unique relationship to God and had a unique place in the history of salvation.

I would make an even stronger statement, but as such we can agree with Schnelle. He emphasizes the continuity between what happened before and after Easter. He is convinced that the resurrect­tion of Christ is real history and not a myth. Schnelle has no patience with the view that originally there was a low Christology and that a high Christology points to a later date in development of presentation of the person of Christ.

At the same time we must say that Schnelle does not have a very high view of Scripture. He thinks that the gospel of John can only be accepted in a very small measure as a source of historical information. He thinks that the Pastoral Epistles and the epistle to the Ephesians were not written by Paul. His argument is not only the style in which these letters are written but also their theological content are different.

He thinks that Paul cannot have written these letters, because both the Pastoral Epistles and the letter to the Ephesians are less charismatic than Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians. This is a circular argument. The emphasis on the gifts of the Spirits in the two letters to the Corinthians is related to the problem in the congregation of Corinth. Besides that, it is perhaps no coincidence that in later letters this problem is not so acute.

The extra ordinary gifts of the Spirit became more and more accidental. The differences in style can related to differences in content. In addition, we know that Paul made use of secretaries. Perhaps he gave them more freedom in the framing of his later letters. The fact that Schnelle thinks that there is a real disagreement between Paul and James, must perhaps, at least partly, related to his Lutheran background.

With regard to his view of Scripture, we have to prefer Witherington, but it is a remarkable that Schnelle although he has a lower view of Scripture, does much more justice to the full implications of the New Testament teaching of grace defending the personal and unconditional character of God’s election. So finally, I think that we can learn from both of them and must at the same time read their studies with critical discernment.

Udo Schelle, Theology of the New Testament, trans. M. Eugene Boring, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2009; ISBN 978-0-8010-3604-0; hb. 910 pp.

Ben Witherington III, The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament: Volume One. The Individual Witnesses, IVP Academic, Downers Grove, Illinois 2009; ISBN 978-978-8308-3861-5; hb. 856 pp.

Ben Witherington III, The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament: Volume Two. The Collective Witness, IVP Academic, Downers Grove, Illinois 2010; ISBN 978-978-8308-3862-2; 838 pp.

Theology of the New Testament

Udo Schelle, Theology of the New Testament, trans. M. Eugene Boring, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2009; ISBN 978-0-8010-3604-0; hb. 910 pp.; price $59,99;

  

The study of Udo Schnelle, originally written in German and trans-lated in English, has its own defects and shortcomings, but Schnelle makes clear that in the New Testament faith is seen as a gift of God. Faith completely rest on God’s grace and that is the reason that the fountain of faith is personal election.

Especially in the gospel of John and the letters of Paul the uncon-ditional and personal nature of election is stressed. Schreiner stresses that it is impossible to see the language of election only referring to the election of the congregation and that the fact whether you are a living member, finally depends on your own perseverance and is not guaranteed by the predestination and covenant loyalty of God himself.

The study of Schnelle can be praised also for other reasons. The fact that history of Jesus and his church is not treated in a neutral way in the New Testament, does not mean that the information cannot be seen a reliable. All writing of history is selective and is done out of a certain perspective.

Schnelle underlines that Jesus himself, while he was on earth knew that he had a unique relation to God and had a unique place in the history of salvation. I would make an even stronger state-ment, but as such we can agree with Schnelle. He emphasizes the continuity between what happened before and after Eastern.

Schnelle is convinced that the resurrection of Christ is a real history and not a myth. Schnelle has no patience with the view that originally there was a low Christology and that a high Christology points to a late date in development of presentation of the person of Christ.

At the same time we must say that Schnelle has not a very high view on Scripture. He thinks that the gospel of John can only in a very small measure be accepted as a source of historical information. He thinks that the Pastoral Epistles and the epistle to the Ephesians were not written by Paul.
Schnelle's argument is not only the style in which these letters are written by also their theological content. He thinks that Paul cannot have written these letters, because both the Pastoral Epistles and the letter to the Ephesians are less charismatic than Paul’s correspondence with Corinthe.

This is a circle argument. The emphasis on the gifts of the Spirits in the two letters to Corinthe is related to the problem in the congregation of Corinth. Besides that it is perhaps no coincidence that in later letter this problem was not so acute. The extra ordinary gifts of the Spirit became more and more accidental.

The differences in style can related to differences in content. Besides that we know that Paul made use of secretaries. Perhaps he gave them more freedom in the framing of his later letters. The fact that Schnelle thinks that there a real disagreement between Paul and James, must perhaps, at least partly, related to his Lutheran background

In his view on the Scriptures we must certainly not follow Schnelle, but the remarkable things that in his New Testament theology he does much more justice to full implications of the New Testament teaching of grace defending the personal and uncon-ditional character of God’s election than quite a lot of New Testament scholars of evangelical persuasion. So finally, I think that we can learn from both of them and must at the same time read their studies with critical discernment.