Читать книгу The Letter to the Hebrews - Jon C. Laansma - Страница 8

A friend of a friend wrote a commentary for, as it happened, a Chinese audience. When it was released a Chinese pastor said, maybe with a twinkle in his eye, “We wish you had added more helpful words, and that you had made it shorter.” Indeed.

This commentary was originally undertaken at the invitation of the editors of Baker’s Teach the Text Series. As I neared completion of the manuscript, however, the notice went out that the series had been terminated. I am deeply grateful to Cascade Books for the interest they showed in bringing this work to its conclusion. The substance of the commentary itself, including the sections suggesting lines for teachers, was all complete before the original series was terminated and remains largely shaped by the strictures imposed by that series. I could not undertake a complete revision of the project since that time and, in any event, I had already worked conscientiously to fit a meticulously wrought exegetical reading into the original series’ guidelines and aims. Yet with the break from from the series, certain formal features have been abandoned—mostly to do with visual and homiletical aids—while I also took advantage of the freedom to expand the exposition at points.

This short description of this commentary’s history is necessary in part to explain its contents and approach. Those seeking a technical defense of particular interpretations will not find that here, except by implication. The intended reader of this commentary is a motivated, curious, experienced reader of the Scriptures (in brief, the reader sought by Hebrews itself in 5:11—6:12), who wants a specialist to get straight to the bottom line with each passage. Just give them the meal; they can figure out for themselves how to make it. Hit the high points, and they can figure out what would fall in between. Those who are most fond of the details—specialists—are probably least in need of them, once the main thing has been said. And if some of it falls between the stools—asking too much of the non-specialist, supplying too little for the specialist—I am bound nevertheless to state my judgments and attempt to make Hebrews heard. One can do no more. The rest occurs only “if God permits.”

For the same reason, references to both extra-canonical primary sources and secondary literature will be minimized. The assumption of this commentary is that most users will have limited personal holdings of secondary literature and might have no access to a good college library. For this reason among others I have attempted to restrict citations to a very limited number of other commentaries, one or two of which could serve as a resource alongside the present volume. Cockerill, Attridge, Lane, or C. Koester would serve this end well, though several others deserve to be named.2 Going back a generation or more one would quickly name Westcott, Bruce,3 and P. Hughes. In addition, a good study Bible, of which there are several, will be a useful complement to our notes.4

The steady flow of yet new commentaries in general needs no justification here; the gains outpace the costs; the organic progress and freshness outweigh the redundancy. This one was originally commissioned for a larger project that sought to serve the busy teacher and preacher by giving them the best of scholarship in a form most immediately serviceable for their churchly ends. That remains the spirit and intent of what follows. With this comes a desire by-and-large to refrain from polemics. Reference can be made to Calvin’s comment on 1 Cor 5:9: “. . . because of its obscurity this passage is twisted to give different meanings. I think that we ought not to waste time in refuting these, but that I should simply state what seems to me to be the true meaning.”5 This choice has the unintended effect of failing to notify the reader where there are different but still-viable interpretations, but the hospital room, the grieving home, the counselor’s office, and the pulpit are not the place to argue a thesis. I recall, too, a conversation with a masterful preacher who was responding to my encouragement to consider a newer theory about a key text of Scripture. Wisely, he preferred not to try out novel interpretations on his church, interpretations that had not been fully vetted by other scholars and that he himself had not yet had time to consider. I cannot claim that there is nothing novel in what follows. Hebrews is a book over which I have spent considerable time since my student days and my convictions have been forged in the fires of conversations with other specialists.6 My ambition, however, has not been to advance a new theory and carve out my own interpretive niche, but rather to convey what I believe to be Hebrews’ own voice—whether that aligns with well-established readings or not. If I have failed, it is to be measured by that standard, rather than the standard of new findings. We moderns do well to remember that there was a day when what was old was considered true. The word must become greater, the interpreter must become less.

While working on this introduction a former student visited who is presently working in advanced agricultural research. He found his work there fascinating and important in many ways, but his heart was less in exploring new ways to enhance the industrialized food production systems of North America than in assisting societies still struggling with providing what is essential. Likewise, the ongoing efforts of biblical scholars and academic theologians are vitally important (I share those values and interests!) but there are many who are simply hungry for the word. If in some way my work contributes to the feeding of the Great Shepherd’s sheep my heart’s prayers will have been answered.

While Hebrews claims that “God spoke in his Son” it never quotes the words of Jesus that we know from the Gospels. Its strategy is to present God’s speech in the Son as a fusion of the OT Scriptures and the Son’s person and work. Our decision to head each unit of our exposition with a dominical saying does not ignore that strategy. Hebrews itself directs its audience’s attention to the traditions of Jesus’ life and references the great salvation announced through him (2:3). We believe that the preacher meant for his exposition to represent a faithful continuation of Jesus’ work and teaching, making it fitting to juxtapose these formally different but materially coherent forms of God’s speech in and as the Son.

Thanks are due to Wheaton College—administration, colleagues, students—for its support of this work, not least the partial release time in the spring of 2016 and a sabbatical during the fall of the same year. Friends who were willing to take a look at the work-in-progress and give feedback included Daniel Treier, Josh Moody, Peter Walters, Gregg Quiggle, and Brian Hillstrom. Alexa Marquardt and Stephen Wunrow provided essential help in technical style editing, checking references, finding literature, and matters of clarity in general. The privilege of working with this rich text of Scripture began under the guidance of John Wilson (Grand Rapids Baptist College), continued under that of Carl B. Hoch, Jr. (Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary), and advanced considerably during my doctoral research with I. H. Marshall and Paul Ellingworth (University of Aberdeen). That foundation has been strengthened immeasurably by the succeeding opportunities to discuss these things with students and colleagues at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College and Graduate School, as well as with colleagues from other institutions. Chairing the Hebrews Section of the Evangelical Theological Society these last several years has permitted me to learn from gifted fellow-exegetes and theologians. Lisa and I have been blessed with wonderful friends as we have made our way on the great Camino that is the subject matter of Hebrews: Among those more closely connected to this work are Andrew and Libby Lau, Mark and Ruth Brucato, Dan and Amy Treier, the Dead Theologians, Bob and Peg Carlson and the members of the College Church Greek Exegesis Sunday School class, and John and Kim Walton. We have also been blessed with supportive families and acknowledge with unspeakable gratitude the love of Marv (who, as this volume neared completion, finished the race) and Ann Laansma and Ed and Margaret Rysdyk. Our church fellowships—Highland Hills Baptist (Grand Rapids, MI), Gerrard Street Baptist (Aberdeen, Scotland), and College Church in Wheaton—have enabled us to walk within the world to which Hebrews witnesses. My love and thanks go to Lisa, and together we give our love to our daughter, Kiersten, who has veritably lived inside of Hebrews her entire life.

Soli Deo gloria

Wheaton

Fall 2016

2. For those interested in the Greek text, Ellingworth (Epistle to the Hebrews) is a dependable go-to. His volume is not the most readable, but he has done his homework, especially in conversation with Continental scholarship. The raw material for theological insight is present, though “assembly is required.” For religious historical parallels, see especially Attridge (Hebrews). For situating Hebrews in the history of interpretation, see Koester (Hebrews) and Hughes (Commentary on Hebrews). For good general coverage in the interest of exposition, see Cockerill (Epistle to the Hebrews) and Lane (Hebrews), among others. For a convenient collection of charts and diagrams that distill interpretive options, background sources, and visual perspectives, see Bateman, Charts. The United Bible Society has prepared handbooks for translators that provide a running comparison of English (and other language) translations which are illuminating for any reader: Ellingworth and Nida, Letter to the Hebrews.

3. Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews; and Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews.

4. Especially helpful are The ESV Study Bible, The NIV Zondervan Study Bible, The NLT Illustrated Study Bible, The HCSB Study Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, and The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible.

5. Calvin, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 111.

6. The debt of what follows to the work of others goes far beyond what is explicitly acknowledged here and throughout this commentary. If, however, without my acknowledgment there are substantial verbal correspondences to things they have said, these are due to a memory that has forgotten the source of its thought. In general, the attempt was to document sparingly in the spirit of this commentary’s aims. If I felt I had for some time already digested an idea, if it seemed common to several interpreters, if it seemed rather self-evident from the English version of Hebrews, if it was owing neither to the unique researches nor creative insight of a particular scholar, and if I was not relying on their wording for whole ideas, I probably let it go without a reference. I merely repeat my deep debt to my fellow interpreters, and in particular those already named. I have nothing I was not given.