Commentary on Hebrews (Commentary on the New Testament Book #15)

By Robert H. Gundry

Delve Deeper into God's Word

In this verse-by-verse commentary, Robert Gundry offers a fresh, literal translation and a reliable exposition of Scripture for today's readers.

The author of Hebrews seeks to establish Christ's preeminence and his replacement of the Mosaic law. This author wishes to turn his audience back to faith in Christ and toward a life of purity.

Pastors, Sunday school teachers, small group leaders, and laypeople will welcome Gundry's nontechnical explanations and clarifications. And Bible students at all levels will appreciate his sparkling interpretations.

This selection is from Gundry's Commentary on the New Testament.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Baker Publishing Group
• Release date: Nov 1, 2011
• ISBN: 9781441237729

Robert H. Gundry

Robert H. Gundry (PhD, Manchester) is a scholar-in-residence and professor emeritus of New Testament and Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. Among his books are Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross; Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, Soma in Biblical Theology, and Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian.

Book preview

California

Introduction

Dear reader,

Here you have part of a commentary on the whole New Testament, published by Baker Academic both in hardback and as an ebook. The electronic version has been broken into segments for your convenience and affordability, though if you like what you find here you may want to consider the whole at a proportionately lower cost. Whether in whole or in part, the e-version puts my comments at your fingertips on your easily portable Kindle, iPad, smartphone, or similar device.

I’ve written this commentary especially for busy people like you—lay people with jobs and families that take up a lot of time, Bible study leaders, pastors, and all who take the New Testament seriously—that is, people who time-wise and perhaps money-wise can’t afford the luxury of numerous heavyweight, technical commentaries on the individual books making up the section of the Bible we call the New Testament. So technical questions are avoided almost entirely, and the commentary concentrates on what will prove useful for understanding the scriptural text as a basis for your personal life as a Christian, for discussion with others, and for teaching and preaching.

Group discussion, teaching, and preaching all involve speaking aloud, of course, and when the New Testament was written, even private reading was done aloud. Moreover, most authors dictated their material to a writing secretary, and books were ordinarily read aloud to an audience. In this commentary, then, I’ve avoided almost all abbreviations (which don’t come through as such in oral speech) and have freely used contractions that characterize speaking (we’ll, you’re, they’ve, and so on). To indicate emphasis in oral speech, italics also occur fairly often.

You’ll mostly have to make your own practical and devotional applications of the scriptural text. But such applications shouldn’t disregard or violate the meanings intended by the Scripture’s divinely inspired authors and should draw on the richness of those meanings. So I’ve interpreted them in detail. Bold print indicates the text being interpreted. Translations of the original Greek are my own. Because of the interpretations’ close attention to detail, my translations usually, though not always, gravitate to the literal and sometimes produce run-on sentences and other nonstandard, convoluted, and even highly unnatural English. Square brackets enclose intervening clarifications, however, plus words in English that don’t correspond to words in the Greek text but do need supplying to make good sense. (As a language, Greek has a much greater tendency than English does to omit words meant to be supplied mentally.) Seemingly odd word-choices in a translation get justified in the following comments. It needs to be said as well that the very awkwardness of a literal translation often highlights features of the scriptural text obscured, eclipsed, or even contradicted by loose translations and paraphrases.

Literal translation also produces some politically incorrect English. Though brothers often includes sisters, for example, sisters doesn’t include brothers. Similarly, masculine pronouns may include females as well as males, but not vice versa. These pronouns, brothers, and other masculine expressions that on occasion are gender-inclusive correspond to the original, however, and help give a linguistic feel for the male-dominated culture in which the New Testament originated and which its language reflects. Preachers, Bible study leaders, and others should make whatever adjustments they think necessary for contemporary audiences but should not garble the text’s intended meaning.

Out of respect for your abilities so far as English is concerned, I’ve not dumbed down the vocabulary used in translations and interpretations. Like the translations, interpretations are my own. Rather than reading straight through, many of you may consult the interpretation of an individual passage now and then. So I’ve had to engage in a certain amount of repetition. To offset the repetition and keep the material in bounds, I rarely discuss others’ interpretations. But I’ve not neglected to canvass them in my research.

On the theological front, the commentary is unabashedly evangelical, so that my prayers accompany this volume in support of all you who strive for faithfulness to the New Testament as the word of God.

Robert Gundry

Hebrews

Hebrews was written anonymously, and neither its contents and style nor early church tradition enables us to guess with confidence who may have written it. The address and greeting that usually introduce an ancient letter are missing from Hebrews, but it closes like an ancient letter (13:18–25). Apart from the traditional title, To the Hebrews, several factors favor an original audience consisting at least for the most part of Jewish Christians: (1) warnings not to apostatize as an early generation of Jews did; (2) a presupposition of the recipients’ knowledge of Jewish ritual; and (3) constant appeal to the Old Testament. Whatever his own identity, the author portrays Jesus Christ distinctively as a high priest who, having offered none other than himself as a completely sufficient sacrifice for sins, now ministers in the heavenly sanctuary. The purpose of this portrayal, which emphasizes his superiority to every aspect and hero of Old Testament religion, is to ensure that the letter’s recipients stick true to their Christian faith.

THE SUPERIORITY OF GOD’S SON TO THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS AND TO ANGELS, WITH A WARNING AGAINST APOSTASY

Hebrews 1:1–2:18

1:1–4: After speaking in the prophets long ago to the [fore]fathers in many parts [= bit by bit] and in many ways, ²God has spoken to us at the last—[that is,] during these days—in a son, whom he positioned as the heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages, ³who being the radiance of [God’s] glory and the exact imprint of his [God’s] essence and carrying all things by the word of his power, on accomplishing the cleansing of sins, sat down at the right [hand] of the Greatness in the heights ⁴because of having become much superior to the angels inasmuch as he has inherited a more illustrious name in comparison with them. The [fore]fathers means the ancestors of the Jewish Christians addressed in this letter. Long ago refers to Old Testament times, when God spoke to their ancestors. In the prophets has to do with God’s using the prophets as his spokespersons (compare the use of prophet for Aaron as Moses’ spokesman [Exodus 7:1 with 4:14–16; 16:9]). In many parts [= bit by bit] and in many ways points up the intermittence and variety of God’s messages spoken through the prophets. There’s little difference in meaning between these phrases, but the author uses the two of them to highlight a qualitative contrast with the singularity of God’s having spoken in a son. For a son can convey his father’s speech more definitively than an unrelated spokesperson can. Adding to the qualitative contrast are both a contrast in addressees between to us and to the [fore]fathers, so that God has spoken to us directly (we’re not limited to figuring out how what he said to them applies to us), and a temporal contrast between at the last—[that is,] during these days and long ago. These days are the last in that God’s having spoken in a son constitutes his final word, so that we dare not neglect it.

Sonship entails heirship. Therefore the author supplements the son’s communicative superiority to the prophets with the superiority of God’s having put his son in the position of an heir, such as the prophets were not. Of all things grows out of God’s having created and thereby owning all that exists, and thus maximizes the son’s inheritance. The background of creation then leads the author to pronounce the son God’s agent in creation: through whom also [in addition to positioning him as heir] he made the ages. All things referred to the physical universe. The ages refers to the eras of time in which the universe exists; and to link up with the temporal contrast between long ago and at the last—[that is,] during these days, the author refers to these eras rather than repeating all things.[1]

To sonship, heirship, and agency in creation the author adds the son’s being the radiance of [God’s] glory and the exact imprint [on human flesh (compare 2:14)] of his [God’s] essence. In other words, the son is deity in human form, as the prophets were not, so that from now on we’ll usually capitalize Son. As deity, the Son is carrying all things, that is, sustaining the universe of which he’s the heir. By the word of his power means by the Son’s powerful word. Now he, the Son rather than God, is speaking; and the power with which he speaks is his own. As God has spoken communicatively, then, the Son is speaking sustainingly and therefore even more powerfully than God spoke in the prophets (but compare God’s speaking the universe into existence in Genesis 1; also John 1:1–3).

More than anything the prophets did, the Son accomplished the cleansing of sins (in the sense of washing them away) and sat down at the right [hand] of the Greatness in the heights (compare Psalm 110:1). Sitting there links with the Son’s heirship and codeity with God and connotes rulership, because rulers sit on a throne. The right hand represents favor (see, for example, Genesis 48:8–22; Matthew 25:31–46), such as suits God’s having positioned the Son to be the heir of all things. The author calls heaven the heights to stress the height to which God has exalted the Son, and he calls God the Greatness to stress the Son’s corresponding greatness in that he sits enthroned beside God. But the mention of enthronement in heaven’s heights leads to the thought of angels, who also inhabit heaven. So the author shifts to the Son’s superiority even to them as well as to the prophets. The Son became much superior to the angels inasmuch as he has inherited a more illustrious name in comparison with them. Earlier he was said to have been made "the heir of all things. Now he’s said to have inherited a . . . name. A double inheritance, then! The inherited name is Son, as the next verse will indicate; and that’s a more illustrious name than angels. Hence name denotes a species and has the sense of designation" rather than referring to a personal name or even a title. The author doesn’t say here who the Son is. Saving the identification till 2:9 will make for a climax.

Next, the author starts supporting with Scripture his assertion of the Son’s superiority to angels. 1:5–6: For to which of the angels did he [God] ever say, "You’re my Son; today I’ve fathered you [Psalm 2:7]"? And again [to which of the angels did God ever say], "He’ll have me as [his] Father, and I’ll have him as [my] Son [2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13]"? ⁶And when he [God] brings [his] firstborn again into the inhabited [earth], he says, "And all God’s angels are to worship him [the firstborn] [Deuteronomy 32:43; Psalm 97:7 according to an earlier Greek translation of the standard Hebrew text translated in English versions]." Divine sonship outranks angelhood as well as prophethood. Finally, God’s fatherhood, only implied till now, comes out explicitly. Fathered symbolizes that he has positioned the Son at his right hand, as is appropriate for a son and heir. The today of fathering probably refers to the time when the Son sat down at the right [hand] of the Greatness in the heights. At this point, though, the author isn’t concerned with the time of God’s having fathered the Son so much as with God’s having addressed the Son as quoted, and not having addressed any angel in that way (compare 12:16; Genesis 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17). The quotations of Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13 have to do with David’s royal line, of which the Son is the culmination (compare 7:14). When he [God] brings [his] firstborn again into the inhabited [earth] (1) implies the Son’s heavenly origin; (2) refers to the second coming (again [compare 9:28]); (3) implies the Son’s preexistence as deity; (4) anticipates God’s having other sons and therefore the Son’s having brothers (see 2:10–12); and (5) ranks the firstborn Son above them.

1:7–9: And on the one hand he [God] says in reference to the angels, "The one who makes his angels winds and [who makes] his attendants a flame of fire [Psalm 104:4, again according to an earlier Greek translation of the Hebrew]." ⁸On the other hand [he says] in reference to the Son, "Your throne, God, is forever and ever; and a scepter of rectitude [is] the scepter of your reign. ⁹You’ve loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. Because of this, God—your God—has anointed you more than your partners with the olive oil of gladness [Psalm 45:6–7]." In Psalm 104:4 a psalmist refers to God as the one who makes his angels winds [and so on]. But the author of Hebrews considers the psalmist to be a prophet, or at least like a prophet, and therefore a mouthpiece for what God says. The present tense of says gives the following quotation a contemporary relevance. The comparison of angels to winds arises out of the nature of angels as spirits, the Greek as well as Hebrew word for which also means winds. The word underlying attendants has to do with religious service such as angels perform for God. The contrast with the eternality of the Son’s throne, stressed by the addition of and ever to forever, makes angels, by comparison, as evanescent as winds and a flame of fire. To this contrast are added a number of items that demonstrate the superiority of the Son to angels: (1) his throne itself, in that angels have no throne; (2) the affirmation of the Son’s deity by God himself when using God to address his Son; (3) God’s attributing to him a reign of rectitude, symbolized by a scepter,[2] and describing him as a lover of righteousness and a hater of lawlessness; and (4) God’s celebration of the Son’s kingship because the Son has loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. God—your God highlights the close relation of the Son to his Father. Anointing with olive oil not only had to do with choosing a king. It also had to do with the festivity of a celebration. A host anointed with olive oil the heads of his guests to make their heads shine as a sign of gladness (compare the comments on Matthew 6:17; Luke 7:46). Playing the host, God has anointed his Son, so to speak, with more olive oil than he has used on his other guests and thus has treated his Son as the honored guest. Given the flow of argument, more than your partners probably means more than the angels, though an anticipation of the Son’s brothers (2:10–12) and partners (3:14) raises the possibility of another or additional identification with Christians (compare 12:22–23). Psalm 45, part of which the author quotes, dealt originally with a king’s wedding. The author of Hebrews applies it to God’s Son as the ultimate king and again