Gareth Lee Cockerill is professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Wesley Biblical Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. He has previously contributed to a book on the warning passages in Hebrews, as well as written numerous journal articles related to Hebrews. Now, he has gifted us with the newest installment in the NICNT series, which is an upgrade from F.F. Bruce’s original. I guess upgrade isn’t the word for it, but replacement doesn’t sound much better. Bruce’s volume is one of the best (83.7 on bestcommentaries.com), so Cockerill has some big shoes to fill.

Cockerill envisions the book of Hebrews as a sermon on the Old Testament in light of Christ. He sees this as helping to explain some of the rhetorical features, and also to use the title “pastor” instead of “the author of Hebrews.” He leans toward Apollos as author (10) but says, rightly, it cannot be confirmed. After exploring the pastor’s congregation and the pastor’s worldview, Cockerill digs into the sermon’s use of the Old Testament. As he says:

The OT is the “bone marrow” of Hebrews. From beginning to end this book is an expository “sermon” that rests on careful OT interpretation. The pastor quotes the OT, alludes to the OT, summarizes OT passages, recounts events from the lives of OT persons, and often echoes the idiom of the Greek OT. (41)

I was tacitly aware of this before reading Cockerill’s introductory matter, but I hadn’t really reckoned with the full extent. Cockerill does a masterful job of both expositing it in the commentary proper and giving a thorough overview in the introduction.

Once he has done that, he offers his take on the structure of Hebrews, drawing on his understanding of its rhetorical function. Here I think things get a bit confusing. Hebrews is notoriously difficult to structure, and Cockerill’s proposal is nothing if not interesting. It is semi-chiastic, and involves parallels within parallels, so naturally I’m drawn to its Inception-esque nature. I don’t think I can explain it very well, and since I don’t think I can recreate his indentation on here, I’m posting pictures of the charts he provides (from 65, 67, 69):

Once Cockerill has made you aware of these parallels, he then introduces his full outline that looks like a pretty normal outline and he breaks the book into four main parts (you can see three of the points in the picture above):

• 1:1 – 4:13 (A Very Short History of the Disobedient People of God)
• 4:14 -10:18 (The Son’s High Priesthood)
• 10:19 – 12:29 (A History of The Faithful People of God)
• 13:1-25 (Instructions for the Life of Gratitude and Godly Fear)

You can see there is a bit of an overarching chiasm if you disregard chapter 13 (which seems almost like a cover letter). With this “rhetorically effective” structure in place, the main commentary commences.

Like most NICNT volumes, the technical discussion abounds, but is pushed to the footnotes (and thank goodness they are footnotes!). You could say Cockerill’s work is pastorally sensitive, but is still more of a reference work than a NIVAC or TNTC volume. It is less technical than Lane’s two volume commentary in the WBC series, but more so than O’Brien’s in the Pillar series. I don’t think I can weigh in on whether it is better than Bruce’s original (bestcommentaries.com doesn’t think so), but it is definitely more detailed, more up-to-date in its research, and from a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective. That, I think makes it a valuable addition to a library like mine. I found in reading through passages for a short-lived Hebrews Bible study I led earlier this year, Cockerill and O’Brien agree on much, but things do get rather interesting in the warning passages. I think Cockerill’s work would have been stronger had he interacted with patristic interpretations of 6:4-8 since that has influenced the way I understand the passage. But, he still spends considerable time wrestling with the issues it presents.

Conclusion

All in all, this is another great volume in the NICNT series. From what I can tell, it is an indispensable resource for serious study of the book of Hebrews. The most original contribution is in the structuring, which can be a tad confusing, but is intriguing nonetheless. I also thought the emphasis on Hebrews as a sermon was helpful for the way I approached the book as a whole (even though not all commentators would agree that it is an appropriate designation). For those of us who are predominantly young, restless, and Reformed, Cockerill’s commentary is good balancing work that presents Wesleyan scholarship at its finest. Another recent Hebrews commentary (David Allen’s in the NAC series) is also from an Arminian perspective (which is not synonymous with Wesleyan), but I think Cockerill’s is a cut above. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant secondary literature and is very well studied in the book of Hebrews (like every commentator should be). His commentary, while not suitable for introductory study of the book (don’t make this your first commentary purchase on Hebrews), is still highly readable and easy to track with (the rhetorical structure notwithstanding). If you’re looking to dig deeper into the book, I would put this volume high on your list maybe even in tandem with O’Brien’s to get two slightly different perspectives.

Book Details

• Author: Gareth Lee Cockerill
• Title: The Epistle To The Hebrews
• Publisher: Eerdmans (April 12, 2012)
• Hardcover: 792pgs
• Reading Level: Bible School/Seminary
• Audience Appeal: Bible students and Pastors looking for an up to date commentary on Hebrews sensitive to rhetorical concerns
• Gratis Review Copy: Yes (courtesy of Eerdmans)

Purchase Info

Purchase on Amazon to support Marturo!

It’s that time of the week again. Here’s a new round of tweets:

I love my friend Jesus because he does all things well. Like sovereignly placing Tebow with the Pats. Good one, Jesus.

— jaredcwilson (@jaredcwilson) June 10, 2013

Our Move to Tennessee and New Projects — Today’s #AskPastorJohn podcast (audio): http://t.co/G7Mcb2Giqc

— Desiring God (@desiringgod) June 13, 2013

Prosperity theology = the prostitution of God. God will do whatever you want, you just have to pay up.

— Zach Nielsen (@znielsen) June 13, 2013

New Pew study says LGBT community is disproportionately religiously unaffiliated compared to rest of US: http://t.co/m2Q0IXT5HY

— Andrew Walker (@andrewwalkerdc) June 13, 2013

Baptist21 interview w/ Louisiana College President, Joe Aguillard (which I live-tweeted earlier) » http://t.co/IwsZODraub #mustwatch #SBC13

— Tim Brister (@timmybrister) June 13, 2013

If you hate anyone who’s not precisely where you are doctrinally then you must hate who you were in the past and who you’ll be in the future

— Burk Parsons (@BurkParsons) June 14, 2013

“Jony Ive Redesigns Things” Is The Best Tumblr This Week http://t.co/8DPgJYwpCy

— todd balsley (@toddba) June 14, 2013

Is it wrong to smile at the incongruity when atheists object to a new authority structure on their Reddit? http://t.co/l17IuqwGxd

— Chris Larson (@ChrisLarson) June 15, 2013

How Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg turned their fear of Jesus into an ensemble comedy with This Is The End http://t.co/jrUHiXYRyl

— The AV Club (@TheAVClub) June 15, 2013

In early April, IVP Academic sent me a copy of Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies. I don’t think I formally requested it since it is a bit more of a niche NT book than I would normally read. But I was definitely intrigued, especially after reading Peter Leithart’s Between Babel and Beast. You can read my review of that book here. I was more interested in it for its discussion of the biblical theology of empires and how America relates to it. This collection of essays, edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph Modica, is focused more on what kind of concerns with the Roman Empire may lay behind many New Testament texts. Moreover, the concern is that for certain scholars holding an empire polemic hammer, every NT text starts to look like a nail. Hence the subtitle, “Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies,” as in, “how relevant is Empire as a backdrop to New Testament exegesis?”

The short answer is that it is relevant, but to varying degrees, and probably not to such an extent as some scholars make it out to be. After a lengthy (and insightful) foreword by Andy Crouch, McKnight and Modica raise the question of whether we are “reading Rome and Caesar into the New Testament” rather than “reading what is actually there” (17). The problem of seeing the theme everywhere once it is inserted is what this volume aims to address. They then offer the five methods at work in empire criticism (17-19):

• Looking for statements that overtly and directly anti-empire and anti-imperial worship
• Looking for passages that use more than one term that has distinct and notable usage in Roman imperial ideology
• Looking for texts that have hidden empire criticism
• Listening to claims made my sensitive historians to then see connections in the NT
• Using empire criticism as a vehicle for advancing progressive, left-wing, neo-Marxist, or whatever, politics

McKnight and Modica wholeheartedly affirm the first two methods, but then point out that things get trickier with the last 3, and most obviously, with the last one. It is finding “hidden” critiques of empire, seeing latent connections, and then misusing empire criticism to advance political concerns that this volume seeks to most address.

To do so, the opening chapter by David Nystrom explains some of the background to Roman imperial ideology and the imperial cult. Then, Judith Diehl offers the lengthiest chapter in the book, which focuses on anti-imperial rhetoric in the NT. With two foundational chapters in place, the remaining chapters focus on key individual books and assesses the state of empire scholarship related to that book and offers constructive criticism where necessary. The NT books covered are Matthew (Joel Willitts), Luke (Dean Pinter), John (Christopher Skinner), Acts (Drew Strait), Romans (Michael Bird), Philippian (Lynn Cohick), Colossians (Allan Bevere), and Revelation (Dwight Sheets), the last of which is the most clearly connected to empire criticism.

McKnight and Modica wrap up with a brief conclusion that highlights three principles that emerged from the study (212-213):

• The reality of the Roman Empire needs to be reckoned with in the New Testament
• The purpose of the kingdom of God i not to replace, so to speak, the Roman Empire; rather it is to overcome the kingdom of Satan
• The New Testament writers show the earliest followers of Jesus how to live in the “already but not yet” day-to-day realities of the empire

For readers who are interested in New Testament exegesis, this volume definitely belongs on your shelf. It offers a thoughtful critique of a method of New Testament criticism that can tend to be excessive. It accomplishes this critique in a way that does not discount the legitimate insights the tool offers. For readers who may not even be familiar with what empire criticism is, this book will offer a good overview of the methods as well as essays that interact with the main scholars employing those methods. All of this is done in a way that is not overly technical so Bible school students will be able to take and read if their interest suits them.

Book Details

• Editors: Scot McKnight & Joseph B. Modica
• Title: Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire In New Testament Studies
• Publisher: IVP Academic (March 28, 2013)
• Paperback: 224pgs
• Reading Level: Bible School
• Audience Appeal: Pastors and students interested in how the concept of “empire” is impacting NT studies
• Gratis Review Copy: Yes (courtesy of IVP Academic)

Purchase Info

Buy through Amazon to support Marturo!

I don’t usually read books on politics. I did review Grudem’s Politics According to The Bible a while back, but that might be the only book that was expressly political. In conjunction with my lack of political reading, I don’t usually read a lot of books on America, either from a pre-millennial eschatological perspective or otherwise. But one thing I do, is read books by Peter Leithart. So, when he writes a book about America and empires in biblical perspective, I do what I can to take and read.

Leithart is a Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho and serves on the pastoral staff of Trinity Reformed Church. He has written numerous books, and as he explains, the present book, Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective, is a kind of book length footnote to Defending Constantine (x). He then cautions, “If you are not the kind of person who likes reading footnotes, you ought, as Lemony Snicket would say, set this book down immediately and look for something less wonkish for your beach reading.”

When I read that, I knew this would be another Leithart book I liked (because unlike endnotes, I love reading footnotes).

But then, I read Leithart’s further warning and knew I was in for a treat:

My reading of Scripture will offend scholars whose political sympathies incline toward the left, but the reading of American history that occupies the latter half of this book will offend Christians whose political sympathies incline toward the right (x).

Leithart thus wants to challenge “popular understandings of American history and the political stances that result from them.” As he continues:

For a generation, conservative Christians have accepted and taught a one-sidely rosy view of America’s Christian past, and in practice Christians have confused “restoring America” with promotion of God’s kingdom and His justice. Against this American mythology, I contend that the “American faith,” though unthinkable without the heritage of Christendom, represents a heretical departure from the political heritage of the church. American Christians need to assess our past accurately if we are going to act faithfully in the present. Until American churches actually function as outposts of Jesus’ heavenly empire rather than as cheerleaders for America – until the churches produce martyrs rather than patriots – the political witness of Christians will continue to be diluted and co-opted (xi).

As you might expect, Leithart anticipates offending many (“I expect to offend many, perhaps everyone.” – Leithart) but sees stumbling blocks as necessary. I’m not sure we have to pick between martyrs and patriots (a concluding point of his), or if I fully want to follow Leithart’s ultimate practical suggestions. But, I think his book presents a necessary corrective and critique on how Christians view America. Since it is delivered from within conservative evangelicalism rather than from without, I think it will gain more traction. But then again, Leithart is often a voice from the margins (he does live in Idaho).

Overview

As for the actual flow of his book, Leithart divides it up into 3 parts. First, and perhaps most valuable, he presents a survey of the biblical presentation of empires, or a kind of biblical theology of empire. He spans everything from the pre-flood cities of Cain and Lamech to the harlot Babylon in Revelation. Chapter 1 presents a tale of two imperialisms: God’s and Babel’s. Chapter 2 fleshes this out further and introduces the concept of a messianic empire, as well as a beastly empire. As he concludes:

The struggle of the Old Testament is not empire verses non-empire, but between rival imperialisms, rival visions for the political salvation of a human race divided linguistically, culturally, and religiously in the wake of the rebellion at Babel. This is why empire is always a seduction for Abraham’s children. For Israel, looking at Babel is like looking in the mirror. Israel is a parody of Babelic empire, and empires counterfeits of Israel (33).

Chapter 3 then moves into the New Testament, simultaneously fleshing out the vision of the messianic empire known as the kingdom of God and the ultimately beastly empire seen most clearly in Revelation.

Part 2 is more historical and starts with a chapter revising our understanding of America. It is titled “Heretic Nation” and here Leithart fleshes out the roots of “Americanism.” In the introduction he defines this as “the fundamental theology of the American order, a quasi-Christian, biblical laced heresy” (xi-xii). Its roots go back to the Puritan settlers, the Founding, and the Civil War. Leithart explains further in chapter 4:

“Americanism” was initially constructed from the misshapen fragments of the metapolitical outlook of Christendom. The Puritan Founders of New England were orthodox Christians in all their theological beliefs, but they laid the foundations for Americanism because of their tendency toward a nationalist, an-ecclesial reading of Scripture, their enthusiasm for nationalistic eschatology, and their privatization and individualization of the Eucharist. As Americanism developed, these tendencies settled into habits, and the result was the fourth great biblical religion (66).

The reading of Scripture he mentions tends to confuse typology related to the kingdom of God with America, resulting in a confused eschatology in which America is the political future to which all nations should aspire. This can go hand in hand with a notion of sacrifice that confuses patriotism with martyrdom (which was mentioned above in this review) and makes the American community the primary sacred community rather than the church.

Chapter 5 then explains America’s relationship to the broader world, especially highlighting our forays into empire building early in our history. Leithart sees America as acting “neither more or less foolishly or wickedly than other nations have” (109). We have more or less acted like a Babel but have thought to ourselves “that we are fulfilling a divine mission on behalf of the human race.”

This is fleshed out further in part 3 which starts with a chapter on America’s activity as a Babelic empire. This is not in and of itself a bad thing, but is a reminder that there is only one kingdom of God, and it’s not America. Acting as a Babel is where most empires find themselves, though it is not the “cherubic” or guardian-like ideal.

In chapter 7 Leithart explores how America is prone to consort among beastly empires like Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other lesser beasts. This chapter, along with chapter 6, is a well-researched treatise on current events in American politics, though not necessarily the events that make the news. Leithart makes a good case that America is in a precarious position, one of being between being a Babel or a Beast. We certainly aren’t beastly at the moment, but Americanism actually lends itself toward beastial policies which are what lead to persecution of the church. We are perhaps seeing hints of that in current events, but time will tell.

Conclusion

Overall, I think Leithart’s work is most valuable in its descriptive aims. He clearly loves America and the church even as he critiques the former out of his more zealous love of the latter. He identifies the problem as Americanism, not so much the nation of America per se. This keeps him from demonizing empire in general and American in particular. Because he has rooted his study in a biblical theology of empire, he is able to evaluate America’s imperial status more objectively. His concluding thoughts offer his vision for a way forward that I don’t think all will agree with, even if they like his reorienting of our understanding of America. He basically presents a call to martyrdom that will force America in its Babelic state “either to acknowledge Jesus as imperator and the church as God’s imperium or the begin drinking holy blood” (i.e. become a beastly empire). Whether or not that is the way to do things is probably a question for a different post, but it gives you an idea of where Leithart is coming from.

Book Details

• Author: Peter Leithart
• Title: Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective
• Publisher: Cascade Books (July 6, 2012)
• Paperback: 216pgs
• Reading Level: General Reader/Bible School (mainly in the endnotes)
• Audience Appeal: Readers interested in a different take on America in biblical perspective
• Gratis Review Copy: Yes (courtesy of Wipf & Stock)

Purchase Info

Buy through Amazon to support Marturo!

Better late than never, once again, this week’s tweets of the week:

Today you’ll be tempted to assign to yourself strength you don’t have and try to do what you can’t do on your own. There’s grace for this.

— Paul David Tripp (@PaulTripp) June 3, 2013

Comedic license ≠ stealing. This is something comedians understand, and so should we bit.ly/16z5y73 bit.ly/NiSvPr (at 3:51)

— Burk Parsons (@BurkParsons) June 4, 2013

Wow. Hear @jrrtolkien himself do Gollum: blastr.com/2013-6-4/liste… (HT @danhames)

— Mike Reeves (@mike_reeves) June 5, 2013

If Calvin lived today, would he write The Institutes of the Christian Relationship?

— Keith Plummer (@XianMind) June 5, 2013

Cats are the perfect pets for Presbyterians because you didn’t choose them, they chose you.

— sammy rhodes (@prodigalsam) June 5, 2013

“Scariotype”- A caricature of any view for the purpose of immediately dissuading people from considering it. #neologism @xianmind

— Joseph E. Torres (@JosephETorres) June 5, 2013

Quiz: What do you know about Calvinism? See if your score is predestined, or if you have free will. shar.es/wxreX

— Sarah Pulliam Bailey (@spulliam) June 6, 2013

People who throw around evangelical buzzwords, time to wake up & smell the missional, neo-radical, post-incarnational, gospel-centered roses

— Evangelical Hipster (@evnglcalhipster) May 7, 2013

QUIZ: Orwell Or Obama? bzfd.it/10TAAWm

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) June 6, 2013

Retweeting is how Christianity got rolling.

— Jason (@advancedgenius) June 7, 2013

Funny (old) announcement: Wheaton trades Vanhoozer to TEDS for 5 junior faculty, 2 administrators, and 1 librarian ow.ly/jjFXm

— Andy Naselli (@AndyNaselli) June 8, 2013

Breaking News: Bear roaming downtown Orlando thesent.nl/18W4HOW

— Orlando Sentinel (@orlandosentinel) June 8, 2013