CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
G. B. Caird
G. B. Caird, in his brief but influential 1959 article, argued that Hebrews, “far from being an example of fantastic exegesis which can be totally disregarded by modern Christians, . . . is one of the earliest and most successful attempts to define the relation between the Old and New Testaments.”139 Caird discusses four primary notions that Hebrews teaches concerning the OT: (1) the validity of the old order, (2) the self-
Articulate a Supersessionist Theology? A Response to Richard Hays,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 174–82. Another reader-oriented approach to Hebrews is represented in the article by David M. Moffitt, “The Interpretation of Scripture in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden, SBLRBS 66 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 77–98. Moffitt rightly identifies the eschatological conviction that the “last days” have been inaugurated in Christ as the central interpretive conviction that drives Hebrews’ exegesis. Further, he helpfully, if not always convincingly, posits the rationale for the author’s selection of certain texts and shows how exegesis of the OT works itself out in the argument of Hebrews. Moffitt’s characterization of the author’s exegesis, however, amounts to nothing more than saying that the author “recontextualizes” the OT (see Moffitt, “Interpretation of Scripture,” 96), by applying Jewish exegetical techniques, but reading in light of his christological convictions. Two other articles representing a reader-oriented approach that have exercised some influence in the history of the field are Markus Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto a. Piper, ed. William Klassen and Graydon F.
Snyder (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 53–78, and A. T. Hanson, “Hebrews,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 292–303. Both these interpreters essentially argue that the author of Hebrews imposes his christological convictions onto the OT. Hanson argues that the author reads the OT in light of his conviction of the pre-existence of Christ, and maintains that Hebrews’ exegetical methods and hermeneutic are not tenable for interpreters today. Barth advocates a “dialogical
interpretation,” claiming that for Hebrews, “the Lord who comes into the world is the canon within the canon.” Barth, “Old Testament in Hebrews,” 57.
139Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 45.
confessed inadequacy of the old order, (3) Christ, Aaron and Melchizedek, and (4) the contribution of the Old Testament to Christian faith and worship.
First, Caird maintains that for the author of Hebrews, the “old covenant was a valid revelation of God.”140 The Old Testament retains its validity because the voice of God speaks through it, directing God’s people to their eschatological destiny. Second, Caird contends that Hebrews “does not seek to prove the superiority of the New
Covenant to the Old, nor to establish the inadequacy of the old order,” but rather, to show that the old order confesses its own inadequacy. According to Caird, this assertion is borne out through the author’s exposition of four core passages of the OT, namely, Psalm 8; Psalm 95; Psalm 110; and Jeremiah 31, each of which testify to the old order’s
unfulfilled and anticipatory character. Through these citations, the author establishes his main thesis, “that the Old Testament is not only an incomplete book, but an avowedly incomplete book, which taught and teaches men to live by faith in the good things that were to come.”141
Third, Caird further posits the significance of the OT for the author of Hebrews through its provision of “real and meaningful parallels” to conceive of the person and work of Christ.142 Caird does not prefer the language of ‘typology’ to describe this relationship, instead using the terms “picture” and “reality” to describe, for instance, the relation between the Levitical sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice. Caird argues that God speaks through “picturesque language” that creates conceptual familiarity and enables the apprehension of his later word of salvation, while not conveying its full scope.
Finally, Caird concludes by drawing out four points that Hebrews makes on the contribution of the OT to Christian faith and worship:143 (1) the OT provides aspirations
140Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 46.
141Ibid., 49.
142Ibid.
143Ibid., 51.
which Christ ultimately fulfills, (2) the OT provides “picture language” for the preaching of the gospel, (3) the OT provides partial anticipations of the realities fulfilled in Jesus, and (4) the OT provides models of faith in men and women who trusted in God’s future redemption.
Caird thus argues that the author of Hebrews brings to culmination the OT’s own aspirations and open-ended eschatological orientation. Caird sees the author’s hermeneutical presuppositions as primarily centering on eschatological fulfillment in Christ: the author’s starting point is, of course, that Christ has fulfilled the OT, but then the author goes back to the OT to understand how the OT itself unpacks the Christian faith. Caird presents the author as one concerned to “present Christ as the climax of the ongoing, historic purpose of God.”144
Evaluation. In the history of research, Caird’s article appeared as scholars were beginning to move away from seeing Hebrews as dependent on Philo’s allegorical exegesis. Consequently, Caird’s article has exercised great influence, for it “mark[ed] the beginning of a re-evaluation of the use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.”145 Caird’s article constitutes one of the best assessments of the hermeneutics of Hebrews,
recognizing the author of Hebrews as a master exegete who rightly interpreted the OT and whose hermeneutical principles are worthy of imitation.
Caird’s thesis answers both the problem of validity and the question of
normativity in the affirmative. He rightly presents the author as a biblical-theologian par excellence, one concerned to “present Christ as the climax of the ongoing, historic
144Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 51. Caird’s work finds a precursor in the commentary of B. F.
Westcott, who argued for “Christ and the Christian dispensation as the one end to which the Old Testament points and in which it finds its complete accomplishment.” Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text With Notes and Essays, 3rd ed. (London: McMillan and Co., 1903), 482. R. T.
France (“The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor,” TynBul 47 [1996]: 245–76) also builds on the work of Caird, to present the author of Hebrews as a biblical expositor. Examining the key expository and hortatory sections of the epistle, France concludes that the author rightly exposits texts in a way that coheres with the original authors’ meaning and application.
145Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, 66.
purpose of God,”146 and considers his exegesis of the OT as “perfectly sound.”147 Furthermore, Caird rightly enjoins interpreters of Hebrews to “lay aside the weight of traditional scholarship and the presuppositions which cling so closely to us, and come with an open mind to ask what the epistle has to tell us about the Old Testament.”148
Caird perhaps unduly dismisses the concept of ‘typology.’149 His use of the terms “picture,” “reality,” “picturesque language,” “correspondence,” and
“anticipations”150 reveal that he simply opts for innovative terminology to describe traditional typological structures. More importantly, Caird rightly perceives the redemptive-historical and christological nature of fulfillment of the OT in Hebrews.
Caird’s article offers a brief and incisive vindication of the author of Hebrews as an interpreter of Scripture. It remains to be seen, however, whether Caird’s theory stands under scrutiny when tested through rigorous exegesis of some of Hebrews’ more difficult problem texts. I believe that it does. In this dissertation, I hope to further build on Caird’s thesis through detailed exegesis and vindicate the author’s exegesis, showing him to be a biblical-theologian concerned to rightly interpret the OT in light of its self- confessed inadequacy, canonical development, and eschatological fulfillment in Christ.
Grammatical-Historical Approach: Dale Leschert
Dale Leschert directly addresses the problem of validity in Hebrews’
interpretation of the OT.151 By examining some core citations, Leschert seeks to defend
146Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 51.
147Ibid., 47.
148Ibid., 46.
149See ibid., 50.
150Ibid., 49–51.
151Dale Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1994).
the thesis that the author of Hebrews “interprets in a manner consistent with historical- grammatical hermeneutics without distorting the intended meaning of the OT.”152 Where the author’s interpretations transcend the historical-grammatical meaning of the OT, Leschert aims to “offer an explanation of how they may be consistent with it without being identical to it.”153
Leschert rejects attempts to explain the author’s use of the OT in terms of cultural conditioning, divine sanction, or post-modern standards of hermeneutic viability.154 Following E. D. Hirsch, Leschert asserts that grammatical-historical hermeneutics are rooted in trans-cultural and trans-temporal principles of the nature of communication.155 Instead, Leschert proceeds on the assumption that Hebrews’
interpretation of the OT must pass the test of hermeneutical validity, for otherwise the integrity and truthfulness of the author’s message is at stake. Although he acknowledges that the NT writers might employ “prescientific methods of interpretation,” this does not entail that they distort the meaning of the OT, for such faulty interpretive methods create an ethical problem.156
Leschert defends his thesis through an exegetical study of four texts, namely Psalm 45:6–7 in Hebrews 1:8–9; Psalm 8:4–6 in Hebrews 2:5–9; Psalm 95:7–11 in Hebrews 3:7–4:11; and the Melchizedek typology based on Genesis 14:18–20 and Psalm
152Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 16.
153Ibid.
154“Cultural conditioning” asserts that though the author’s interpretive moves do not conform to our modern standards, they were acceptable in his own era (see, for example, Schröger, Der Verfasser).
The “divine sanction” view asserts the same, with the additional caveat that such interpretations were legitimate on the basis of special divine revelation (so, for instance, Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975]; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations). Leschert discusses postmodern approaches to Hebrews as the “new hermeneutic” approach, which allows for a logically non-verifiable imposition of Christian convictions back into the OT Scriptures, and particularly castigates Graham Hughes (Hebrews and Hermeneutics) in this regard. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 10–15.
155Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 8; cf. E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967).
156Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 8.
110:4 in Hebrews 7. Leschert concludes that the author of Hebrews interprets the OT in a manner consistent with grammatical-historical interpretation by employing the standard expository methods of explanation, illustration, and application to elucidate the meanings of texts. For Leschert, wherever Hebrews seems to go beyond the original meaning of the OT, it can always be shown that Hebrews’ meaning corresponds with the originally intended meaning.
Evaluation. Leschert’s study of hermeneutics in Hebrews proceeds with the robust assumption that Hebrews’ interpretation of the OT must pass the test of
hermeneutical validity or else the integrity and truthfulness of the author’s message is at stake. In other words, Leschert contends that if the author of Hebrews uses interpretive methods that distort the meaning of the OT, “the credibility of his message must also be called into question to the extent that it rests upon a faulty foundation.”157
Leschert advances a thoroughly convincing critique of other approaches to legitimize the author’s hermeneutic. Most importantly, Leschert correctly critiques reader-oriented approaches to Hebrews by arguing that if the OT does not genuinely contain the evidence that Hebrews claims it does, then Hebrews loses its “persuasive apologetic value,” for it “could neither have encouraged the faith of faltering Christians nor withstood the criticism of hostile Judaism.”158 Leschert therefore rightly seeks to validate the readings of the author of Hebrews against what the OT itself says. Moreover, Leschert does not merely theorize concerning Hebrews’ hermeneutic without actually engaging in careful exegesis of the text. Rather, he seeks to exegetically validate the use of the OT in certain important citations in Hebrews. Leschert’s exegetical work is clear and detailed, his arguments are cogent, and his conclusions are, for the most part, persuasive. The level of exegetical engagement of key issues in the selected texts is
157Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 4.
158Ibid., 15.
certainly commendable.
It seems, however, that Leschert’s rigid privileging of grammatical-historical exegesis means that he does not entertain the possibility of biblical-theological
development through other texts in the OT. This results, at times, in explanations that either do not sufficiently address the issue of warrant, or that do not go far enough in explaining how exactly the author of Hebrews is using the text in question.159
New Covenant Hermeneutic:
Steven K. Stanley
Steven Stanley considers the use of Scripture in Hebrews 8–10, which he calls the “theological heart and paraenetic core of the book or homily.”160 Stanley exegetically examines Hebrews 8–10 in order to derive the hermeneutic that undergirds the author’s use of Scripture.161 Stanley argues that Hebrews does not merely interpret the OT in light of the Christ-event, but more fundamentally, interprets the Christ-event in light of the OT.
For Stanley, this distinction plays a key role in the author’s use of Scripture.162 It is
159For instance, Hebrews leverages the LXX’s ambiguous phrase βραχύ τι, which could refer to degree or time, by taking this in a temporal sense to refer to man being “a little while” lower than the angels. Leschert cogently argues for corporate solidarity as the basis for the author’s application of Ps 8 to Hebrews. See Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 115–21. He rightly notes that Hebrews’ emphasis on the temporal sense of βραχύ τι is what clearly distinguishes it from the Hebrew טעמ. But he does not sufficiently argue for the author’s hermeneutical warrant in making this shift. Perhaps his argument would be strengthened if he further developed the “established reading tradition” that he posits for early
Christianity—a juxtaposition of Ps 8 with Ps 110:1 and Ps 2:7 not only sharpens the focus from humanity in general to the Messiah in particular, but also distinctly gives an eschatological orientation to the placing of all things under the Messiah’s feet. Leschert does not consider the possibility that the original meaning of Ps 8 is placed on a trajectory within the wider canonical and redemptive-historical context of the whole Psalter, and the whole OT itself. Likewise, it seems that Leschert’s (ibid., 168–70) explanation of “analogy”
as the basis for the author’s application of Ps 95:7–11 does not go far enough, for it is likely that there is more than a mere “analogy” at play here. In other words, the author of Hebrews does not simply describe the rest that he sets before his hearers in terms of the rest promised in the OT but rather sets before his hearers the possibility of entering that very rest envisioned in Gen 2:2 and still promised in Ps 95:7–11.
160Steven K. Stanley, “A New Covenant Hermeneutic: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 8–10”
(PhD diss., University of Sheffield, 1994), 2. Stanley structures Hebrews as a homily built around its use of Ps 110 as unfolding in three major sections (1:5–7:28; 8:1–10:39; and 11:1–13:19), and considers 8:1–
10:39 as the heart of Hebrews, for it develops the theological and paraenetic implications of Jesus’
fulfillment of Ps 110:1, 4. See ibid., 13–37. See also his article on Ps 110 and the structure of Hebrews, Steven K. Stanley, “The Structure of Hebrews from Three Perspectives,” TynBul 45 (1994): 245–71.
161As indicated by the title, Stanley terms the author’s approach as a “New Covenant Hermeneutic.”
162See Stanley, “New Covenant Hermeneutic,” 52.
through exegesis of the OT that the author seeks to persuade his readers to remain faithful to Christ.163
Stanley maintains that the author understands the relationship between the old and new covenants in terms of continuity and discontinuity, and the readers are enjoined to embrace the new covenant. The old covenant, however, does provide many of the categories for Christian experience. Hebrews sees Christ’s work and the inauguration of the new covenant as co-extensive, both together forming the culmination of God’s plan for redemption.164
Stanley observes Hebrews’ use of exegetical techniques common to rabbinic exegesis as well as affinities to the pesher exegesis of Qumran.165 The most fundamental principle, however, is typological interpretation. Stanley posits that typology is the fundamental hermeneutical principle that facilitates Hebrews’ christological exegesis of the OT, for “it provides a way of reading Scripture in light of the Christ-event, and therefore produces a new relevance for OC Scripture in the new era.”166 Stanley also draws out a number of the theological presuppositions that undergird the author’s use of the OT.167
Finally, Stanley delineates the author’s hermeneutical principles. First, he recognizes the already / not-yet eschatology of Hebrews and argues that it is dictated by
163Stanley claims, however, that the author is “not always concerned that the readers follow his exegetical path . . . but he is primarily concerned that they accept his conclusions and are persuaded by his argument.” Ibid., 184. Stanley acknowledges that this is not always the case, for at times the author does focus on particular words of Scripture (for instance, Heb 8:13).
164Stanley, “New Covenant Hermeneutic,” 98. Stanley also attempts to delineate how Hebrews conceives of how the different covenants—Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New—function in God’s economy. The Abrahamic covenant has continued validity for the hearers, and the Davidic covenant is fulfilled as a promise / prediction, but the Mosaic covenant is fulfilled by way of obsolescence. See ibid., 104–7.
165Ibid., 219–27.
166Ibid., 179.
167These include the self-revelation and consistency of God in both the old and new covenants, the continuity and discontinuity between the people of God under the old and new covenants, and the relationship of God with his people which is perfected as a result of fulfillment in the new covenant. See ibid., 230–42.
the OT texts that the author chooses to apply.168 Second, he sees the “fulfillment” of the old covenant in the new as “the heart of the use of Scripture” in Hebrews 8–10.169 Stanley identifies three ways that the OT is fulfilled in the new, namely prophetic fulfillment, typological fulfillment, and universal fulfillment.170
Evaluation. Stanley makes a significant contribution to the discussion of the OT in Hebrews. In some ways, his dissertation forms a helpful point of departure for the present work. Stanley rightly identifies “eschatological fulfilment [sic] in the Christ- event” as the central interpretive principle that guides Hebrews’ use of the OT.171 He also recognizes the already / not-yet character of the author’s eschatology. Furthermore, Stanley’s dissertation brings together what many others have put asunder—the use of exegesis to discern the hermeneutical principles of the author’s use of the OT; and this is a model that I hope to emulate. Stanley’s categorization of three different types of
fulfillment is also a useful heuristic tool (although the category of “universal fulfillment”
is somewhat questionable). Stanley employs an essentially correct and robust model of typological interpretation to describe Hebrews’ use of typology.
Despite Stanley’s contribution, however, there are a few areas that his dissertation does not address, and a few areas where he is unclear. First, he does not
168See the argument in Stanley, “New Covenant Hermeneutic,” 242–45.
169Stanley argues that “fulfillment” best captures (1) the “eschatological significance of the Christ-event in relation to Scripture,” (2) the balance of continuity and discontinuity between old and new, (3) the heightening and intensification from old to new, (4) the superior nature of the new, (5) the certainty of success for the new, and (5) the finality of provision in the new. Ibid., 245–46.
170See Stanley, “New Covenant Hermeneutic,” 246–61. Stanley defines “prophetic fulfillment”
as those elements in which a prediction or promise is directly fulfilled in Christ (for instance, the
fulfillment of messianic prophecies in Ps 110). In describing “typological fulfillment,” Stanley follows the works of Goppelt and Davidson, both of whom have helpfully and carefully described typology in
prospective, author-oriented categories; see Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: Die Typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1939), and Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture:
A Study of Hermeneutical Τυπος Structures (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981). Stanley defines “universal fulfillment” in terms of universally abiding principles that the author identifies in the OT Scripture and directly applies to his hearers—for example, the maxim that “the righteous shall live by faith”
(Hab 2:4).
171Stanley, “New Covenant Hermeneutic,” 245.