Denver Seminary > Articles > Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentar...

Seite 1

D E NVE R S E MINAR Y

Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A

Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James
and Jude
Ben Witherington
Jan 7, 2008
Series: Volume 11 - 2008

Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews,
James and Jude. Downers Grove: IVP; Nottingham: Apollos, 2007. $35.00. 656 pp. ISBN 978-0-8308-29323
With this wonderful study of three Jewish-Christian epistles, Ben Witherington, prolific evangelical New
Testament scholar and New Testament professor at Asbury Seminary, moves ever closer to his completion of
commentaries, emphasizing social and rhetorical backgrounds, on every book of the New Testament. Actually,
Witherington views each epistle as better classified as a sermon or homily. Hebrews reflects epideictic rhetoric,
with Apollos as probable author praising Christ as superior to all people and institutions within Judaism which
this document's Roman readers under Nero's persecution in the mid-60s might be tempted to think merited a
retreat into non-Christian Judaism. (Witherington doesn't think 12:4 means that no Christians in Rome have
yet been martyred, just none of those this book directly addresses.) But in saving their physical lives, they
would forfeit their spiritual lives. James represents wisdom literature from the 50s (presupposing the
Jerusalem Council of 49) written by the half-brother of Jesus employing deliberative rhetoric and intended for
Jewish believers throughout the empire. Jude, finally, penned by another half-brother of Christ, may have been
written in Israel somewhere between the early 50s and early 60s to be used as a closing exhortation in a
worship service, using deliberative rhetoric tinged with epideictic features, to warn the congregation against the
antinomian false teachers infiltrating their assemblies.
As one has come to expect from Witherington, both his introductions to each book and the commentaries
proper highlight his understanding of the letters' structures according to the categories of Greco-Roman
rhetoric as well as identifying various rhetorical devices used within each passage and how they function. In
this work, he is able to go into even more detail than he sometimes does. Whether or not one is convinced that
oral forms entirely transferred over to written documents, these portions of the volume certainly reflect its
most innovative and distinctive contributions. Witherington regularly seeks key sources not well utilized
elsewhere along side the standard tools. Thus his thoughts on Hebrews frequently cite extensive portions of
Craddock's (NIB rev.) and Long's (Int) commentaries, while ignoring Ellingworth (NIGTC) altogether. On
James, he regularly reproduces gems of insight from the century-old classic by Plummer but isn't even aware
of Hartin (Sacra Pagina). For Jude, he cites key comments by his colleague, Ruth Ann Reese, from her Two
Horizons volume now published but only in manuscript form when Witherington was writing. As is true
consistently in his commentaries, Witherington relies much more on other commentaries than on monographs,
journal articles or essays in multi-author works, though his bibliographies on these three biblical books are as
detailed as any he has produced. But it is apparent he hasn't actually done anything with many of the items on
these bibliographies.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/letters-and-homilies-for-jewish-christians-a-socio-rh...

08.01.2008 11:49:24

Denver Seminary > Articles > Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentar...

Seite 2

Strengths of Witherington's exegesis include sensitive and detailed explanations of the three writers' uses of
the Old Testament, especially Hebrews' use of Psalms, his recognition of those claims about Jesus which
implicitly challenged Caesar's comparable allegations, and the importance in the ancient Mediterranean world
of focusing on the nature of a person's death as a key to his or her character. The contrast between Jesus and
angels in Hebrews 1-2 shows that our author "would flatly deny an angelomorphic Christology" (p. 160),
despite many today who see key precedents here for various New Testament convictions about Jesus' deity.
Despite partial parallels to Plato and Philo, Hebrews' eschatology is more temporal than spatial and intensifies
the closer one gets to the end of the sermon. Jesus' ability to empathize with his people required his
peccability just as his atonement required his sinlessness. The apparent mistake in 9:4 of placing the incense
altar inside the holy of holies is probably better explained with "have" here meaning only "belonging to in
function" (p. 264). Faith in 11:1 is best defined as the "assurance" and "conviction" of unseen things hoped
for, not as "substance" and "evidence." Overall Hebrews promotes not a "replacement" theology but a
"completionist" one, with respect to the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.
Witherington's treatment of James is the best of the three parts of this volume. James sees trials as a
necessary part of the Christian life and growth. Single-mindedness may be the most important, unifying theme
of the homily. Anr and anthrpos are equally generic or inclusive in this epistle. The "perfect law of liberty" or
"royal law" reflects the new covenant of Jeremiah now written on believers' hearts. The puzzling grammar of
2:18-19 is best solved by envisioning two believers debating each other, with James then interjecting his
response in verse 18b. Belief in the unity of God should lead to an understanding of the unity of faith and
works. "James insists that both unity and puriy must be maintained among God's people and insisted on. To
stress one over the other is to either ignore sin or fracture the whole body of Christ" (p. 504). "The issue of
taming the tongue in the internet and soap opera age takes on a whole new life. People would benefit from
reading John Wesley's famous sermon on this subject, The Cure of Evil Speaking,' in which he insists that a
Christian should never speak ill of any absent person, of anyone not there to defend themselves. Teachers and
preachers especially need to hear James's warnings about loose tongues" (p. 555).
Jude contains nothing reflecting "early Catholicism," despite frequent claims to the contrary. "Our common
salvation" (v. 3) shows that "against our modern overemphasis on individuals being saved, we would do well to
recognize that no one is saved in or for solitude" (p. 602). Nothing in Jude's use of the pseudepigrapha
requires us to believe he thought entire documents outside the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired or even
historical. Relevant rhetorical parallels show writers of that era using fiction as well as history for moral
exempla. The false teachers' slander of angels probably implies rejection of Torah, because angels were
believed to have mediated the giving of the Law to Moses.
Contra Witherington, it is unlikely that the use of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2:6-8 refers to Jesus; he appears, by
contrast with previous humanity, first in verse 9. Of course, by now we have come to expect Witherington's
refrain that there is no eternal security until one is securely in eternity in each of his commentaries at junctures
that seem more amenable to Arminian than to Calvinist interpretations. But when he rejects the view of
Hebrews 6:4-6 that sees the author worried that some in his audience might not have a genuine faith, because
he addresses his warnings to the whole community rather than to "some," Witherington misses the explicit
reference in verse 11 in which the author wants "each of you" to show the same eagerness for growth, which
suggests precisely that he worries more about some than others. Creation ex nihilo is not the only possible
inference from 11:3, which literally reads, "created not from visible things," leaving open the possibility (even
if not the probability) of creation from invisible things.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/letters-and-homilies-for-jewish-christians-a-socio-rh...

08.01.2008 11:49:24

Denver Seminary > Articles > Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentar...

Seite 3

In James 2:1, one is surprised to see the option of an appositional genitive with "glory" not even mentioned
and the majority interpretation of an objectively genitive for "Lord" dismissed so quickly. Witherington thinks
the rich man of verses 2-4 had to have been invited, since no one would come to a house-church uninvited.
But is the man in rags then similarly a pre-arranged guest? If we translate krima as "condemnation" in 3:1,
why would anyone ever become a teacher? The treatment of 4:5 is puzzlingly brief and seems unaware of
Craig Carpenter's 2001 article in New Testament Studies with a solution to the riddle of the lost quotation that
may in fact make the most sense of all. A reference to Christ as "the righteous one" in 5:6 appears highly
unlikely. And the weaknesses healed in 5:14-18 seem more probably to be physical than spiritual. How there
can be a difference in meaning between kan and kai ean (cf. v. 15), given that the latter is simply a
contraction of the former, baffles me.
The book jacket touts the value of the "Bridging the Horizons" sections of applications, but Witherington
includes only two-after the entire commentary on Hebrews (rather than after each main section of the letter as
in his previous commentaries), and half of it is the transcript of a sermon he preached, and after all the
comments on James as well (but for only two pages). For Jude he has no comparable section at all.
This commentary is much freer of typos than many of Witherington's previous works. But he still consistently
misspells "supersessionist" (as if it had a "c" in it). Relecture is three times rendered relecteur. On page 101,
the labels "genitival" and "datival" should be reversed. On pages 129 and 238, "descendants" trades its "a" for
another "e." The translation of Hebrews 3:3 on page 165 contains the redundant "just as inasmuch as." The
apostrophe is missing from "readers problems" on page 168. Page 281 needs "are the issues" instead of "is the
issue." Page 309 offers "by take possession" instead of "by taking. . ." Page 334 refers to a "root or
bitterness" and to "is not only is familiar." "Audiences'" on page 357 needs to be "audience's." Conversely,
"David's" on page 407 should be "Davids'." Three rectangular boxes replace what should be Greek letters or
accent marks on page 496. "Thing" should be plural on page 501. "Fruits of good words" was meant to read
"works" on page 616. "Serious" must become "seriously" on page 625. And Reinhold is a first name;
Merkelbach, a last name, rather than vice-versa on page 642.
It was fun to see Witherington use a point from Mariam Kamell's conference paper on faith in Hebrews and
James, since she is a recent Denver Seminary graduate, research assistant, and adjunct faculty member now
finishing up her doctorate in New Testament at St. Andrews.
Craig L. Blomberg, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
January 2008
6399 South Santa Fe Drive, Littleton, CO, USA 80120
800-922-3040 | info@denverseminary.edu
Copyright Denver Seminary. | Privacy Policy (/about-us/seminary-policies/privacy-policy/)
Powered by Ekklesia 360 (http://www.ekklesia360.com/)

http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/letters-and-homilies-for-jewish-christians-a-socio-rh...

08.01.2008 11:49:24