Critics of Biblical Studies often charge that the discipline attends only to the minuscule, the pedantic, the trendy, the inane, thereby sucking the life out of the faith of wandering souls who dare enter its ranks. Commentaries, with their discussions of questions that never arrive at any definitive answers, and dissertations, with subject matter so narrow that only their authors will ever care to read them, stand as chief examples of these failings. But books such as D. Stephen Long’s Hebrews (a volume in WJK’s Belief series) and David M. Moffitt’s Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (a “lightly revised” version of his 2010 Duke dissertation) refute such sweeping judgments. In my opinion, both exhibit an ancient and recently revived commitment to studying the Bible not simply for the intellectual curiosity of academia but ultimately for the life of the church.
Hebrews (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible)
Westminster John Knox Press
288 pages
$40.29
In Atonement and the Logic of the Resurrection, Moffitt’s ecclesial commitment only explicitly surfaces in his acknowledgements (“it is my sincere hope that [this work] will be of benefit to both the church and the academy”), but implicitly it courses throughout the book; his argument makes a real difference for the interpretation of Scripture and therefore matters for the church. This claim is no small one, as he seeks to provide “a substantive re-reading” of the letter that acknowledges the presence and the necessity of Jesus’ resurrection. Readers who haven’t pored over Hebrews lately, much less interacted with recent waves of biblical scholarship concerning this epistle, might question the boldness of Moffitt’s claim. After all, why would anyone need to argue for the centrality of the resurrection for any book of the New Testament? Doesn’t each one affirm Jesus’ resurrection? Actually, the Epistle to the Hebrews explicitly mentions Jesus’ resurrection only once (13:20: “The God of peace, who led up the great shepherd of the sheep from the dead by the blood of the eternal covenant, our Lord Jesus Christ”), which leads the majority of interpreters, clearly catalogued by Moffitt in his opening chapter, to claim that “the category of Jesus’ heavenly exaltation leads the author of Hebrews to downplay that of Jesus’ resurrection.”
Moffitt employs a three-pronged argument to defeat this assumption. First, he collects examples from various forms of Second Temple literature and traditions which exhibit an eschatological hope that humanity will one day inhabit a place of glory above the angels when they take possession of the renewed creation. Hebrews’ resonance with many of the themes of this literature leads Moffitt to claim, “When God crowned [Jesus] with glory and honor, he became the first human being to retain all the glory that Adam lost.”
With this argument, Moffitt provides an enlightening answer to the oft-posed query of why the author of Hebrews begins by comparing Jesus to the angels. His answer? Jesus is human, while the angels are spirits. Therefore, based on the promises to Adam and Abraham and the hope for the fulfillment of those promises, Hebrews conceives of Jesus as the first human to be afforded a place of honor over the fiery angelic spirits. If Jesus is the inaugurator of this hope, he had to have a human body to be distinguished above the angels. Thus the hints toward a bodily resurrection begin.
Next, Moffitt needs to show how his argument for the importance of the resurrection in Hebrews accords with the signature emphasis distinguishing the author of this letter: a high priestly Christology. Moffitt suggests that Jesus was fit to become a high priest in the enigmatic order of Melchizedek because he possesses enduring life. Again, the reader might wonder how this claim could be controversial. At issue is the meaning of perfection in Hebrews as a qualification for Jesus’ priestly ministry. Moffitt observes a sequence from suffering unto perfection unto priesthood and thereby clarifies and interprets correctly, in my opinion, the narrative of the author. Jesus’ perfection means that he, unlike other high priests, will never again succumb to death. Hence, the moment when this reality unfolds is the moment of Christ’s resurrection. In essence, “His resurrection from the dead enables him to be a high priest.”
Finally, any claim for the necessity of the resurrection for the logic of Hebrews must also address the metaphor of atonement undergirding much of the letter. The author of Hebrews understands Jesus’ death through the lens of the Yom Kippur ritual where the high priest would atone for the sins and impurities of the people of Israel. Like the high priest, Jesus enters into the holy place with blood to atone for sin. Most commentators link this atonement with Jesus’ death on the cross, but Moffitt argues, drawing from conversations in ritual and sacrificial studies, that the guild has gotten the logic precisely backward. Jesus’ blood in Hebrews is not a reference to his death but (in the vein of Lev. 17:11) a reference to his life. His death is not the moment of atonement, but only the inauguration or the “front end of a process that culminates in the atoning moment.” That atoning moment occurs when Jesus offers his living self, body, and blood before God’s throne after the resurrection.
For the author of Hebrews, Moffitt claims, Jesus’ resurrection matters. He had to have a human body to be elevated above the angels. He had to possess enduring life to become high priest in the order of Melchizedek. He had to appear before God with a blood sacrifice to atone for sin, and he did so after he ascended to heaven with his resurrected body. Hence, Moffitt may not convince individuals repelled by Hebrews’ references to bloody rituals and thoroughgoing reliance on the stories and cult of the Old Testament to bring this letter to the center of the canon, but he has demonstrated, and convincingly so in my opinion, that this letter stands squarely in the vibrant stream of the confessions of the early church. In his words:
[F]or the author of this homily, the heavenly Son came into the world, suffered and died, rose again, ascended into heaven, made his offering for eternal atonement, and sat down at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there, the author avers, he will come to judge the living and the dead. This is the outline of the author’s Christology and the context in which he works out his understanding of how Jesus effected atonement.
If Hebrews becomes one more voice from our heritage that boldly proclaims its belief that “on the third day he ascended from the dead,” members of Christ’s body who question the resurrection now have less reason to do so. The life of the church depends completely upon the resurrected life of its Lord, and Moffitt has tuned our ears to hear another voice in the canon of voices who say so.
Long’s Hebrews commentary is a fitting dialogue partner with Moffitt’s work not only because he draws from it, and proclaims its positive contribution, but also because he has a robust view of the resurrection as well, arguing that such a claim is “decisive for Hebrews’ argument.” This attention to resurrection is only one of many “creedal” features of his commentary.
Long is not a biblical scholar but a systematic theologian, but works like his own show how to bridge the Gablerian divide. Approaching his commentary reminds one of Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans. Both aim to be more than “the first step toward a commentary,”[1] offering instead “a reconsideration of what is set out in the epistle, until the actual meaning of it is disclosed.”[2] Or, as the series editors, Amy Plantinga Pauw and the late William C. Placher, put it: “the series’ authors will seek to explain the theological importance of the texts for the church today, using biblical scholarship as needed for such explication.” Consequently, Long approaches the text with the fresh eyes of an outsider. For example, he introduces his readers to the theological value the early Church Fathers attributed to Hebrews’ statement that Jesus is both the radiance of God’s glory and the imprint of his being (Heb. 1:3). For them, the radiance “expresses the coeternity whereas the ‘exact imprint’ of his substance reflects the distinct agency of his person.”
Long then acknowledges that the author of Hebrews did not intend such a differentiation, but used the two metaphors to reinforce one another. The art of his reading of this epistle is that he not only affirms this historical critical claim but also shows that the Church Fathers would do the same. They saw the terms duplicating one another, but went a step further to ask why the author chose to include the duplication. Long’s appeal to the Church Fathers teaches us to read this weighty phrase in a deeper way:
The duplication suggests the Son shares the essence of God, but does so in a unique way. He is the “repetition” of God through a distinct agency. To express this requires language that expresses both sameness of essence (radiance) and distinction of person (exact imprint), without the latter opposing the former.
At the same time, Long avoids the stereotype of an interdisciplinarian who provides only surface—or, even worse, incorrect—interpretations of a discipline foreign to his own. Long reads Scripture in its original language quite well. He attends carefully to both the content and the form of the letter. He navigates the rough places in the terrain of Hebrews scholarship with solid knowledge of the debates, and he offers plausible and insightful readings of the text, as any good commentator should do. For example, his commentary includes one of the clearest interpretations I’ve seen of perfection in the epistle. His excellent discussion concludes, “[Jesus’] obedience, learned through suffering, makes him perfect. In other words, he brings his perfection as the ‘exact imprint’ of God into creation, into its space and time, and achieves it there. He becomes what he is.”
What distinguishes Long’s commentary, and all other volumes in the Belief series, are the “further reflections” scattered throughout the text. In each of these venues, a theme from Hebrews provides an entrée into a theological discussion with voices from the past and present, the near and far, the academic and the popular. Ernst Käsemann’s gnostic interpretation of Hebrews, now largely dismissed, provides an opportunity to contextualize the propensity for gnosticism in the church. Hebrews’ interest in the Jewish cult demands discussion of traditional atonement theories and their contemporary challengers. The requirements of faith before God (Heb. 11:6) spill into an analysis of Catholic and Protestant epistemology. At times, these discussions just whet my appetite, and I wish he had gone into even more depth. But in providing the references and in introducing the topics, he equips the interested reader with sources for delving further into the topics.
Long argues that we should read Hebrews for three reasons. First, the author’s artful reading of Israel’s scriptures in light of Christ’s triumph teaches us how to read Scripture. Second, it jolts us out of flat modern metaphysics and opens our eyes to the richness and mystery of the real world. Finally, it “integrates doctrine, ethics, and politics, helping the faithful negotiate troubled times.” On this last point, Long’s own work follows the model of the perpetually anonymous auctor. Like a Socratic gadfly, he asks how exactly readers can hear the message of this letter. In other words, with Barth, he affirms that historical criticism is insufficient; one must think theologically about the text with the aid of the universal (in time and space) church.
Even the addition of theological discussions to word and history studies, however, falls short of the grace offered in this letter. Long wonders provocatively, “Can Hebrews be heard only by those who have been divested of some property (10:34), pursue peace with everyone (12:14), show hospitality to strangers (13:2), attend to prisoners (13:3), or honor marriage (13:4)?” If we do not show hospitality (as Long himself had opportunity to do for a young Guatemalan migrant worker) can we really hear the word? Can we really hear Hebrews when mutual love remains elusive between denominations? His questions remind us that doctrine should shape our character, but that the opposite is also true. Our lived character prepares us to grasp the doctrine.
In some ways, Moffitt’s and Long’s books are quite different. The former is a published dissertation intended for a highly specified audience (consider all the German, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek a chance to boost your language skills!), while the latter is an interdisciplinary commentary written for biblical scholars, theologians, clergy, and lay people alike. These efforts are united, however, in more than just subject matter. Far from being dead tomes of the ivory tower, they exemplify a vibrant study of the Bible that offers new life to the church because practitioners like these perform their work in the service of a risen and living Savior.
Amy L. B. Peeler joined the faculty of Wheaton College in the fall of 2012 after completing a postdoctoral fellowship in the John Wesley Honors College at Indiana Wesleyan University.
1. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, preface to the 2nd edition, trans. from the 6th ed. by Edwyn C. Hoskyns (Oxford Univ. Press, 1933), p. 6.
2. Ibid., p. 7.
Copyright © 2013 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture magazine.Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.
