Abstract
It is imperative that any volume in a time-honored commentary series such as the NICNT must at least be worthy to supplant its predecessor—a daunting task even in the best of circumstances. For The Epistle to the Hebrews, however, Gareth Lee Cockerill was given the Herculean task of seeking to replace the volume penned by iconic, evangelical legend F. F. Bruce, who formerly served as editor for the series. And although I am reticent to say that Bruce's volume has been entirely superseded—undoubtedly it will still be consulted by specialists—I have no hesitation in saying that Cockerill's contribution is indeed valuable and surpasses that of Bruce in a number of ways. The commentary is thorough without bombarding the reader with irrelevant minutiae, shows independence in making exegetical decisions, and is approachable while still giving essential technical details.
With regard to traditional introductory topics such as author, genre, audience, date, and provenance, Cockerill does not offer any surprises, but repeatedly shows sound judgment. He prudently avoids unnecessary speculation about the intractable topic of the author's identity. For example, he rejects recent arguments in favor of Lucan authorship, concluding instead, “The description of Apollos in Acts 18:24–19:1 is a description of the kind of person who wrote Hebrews” (p. 9). Yet he wisely states that this does not thereby prove that Apollos is the author. The genre is a Christian synagogue homily couched as a letter to be read to encourage socially marginalized Christian worshipers. Regarding the identity of these specific worshippers, according to Cockerill, they are being encouraged by the author of Hebrews to rely on Christ alone in part because they are tempted instead to “take refuge in the synagogue” or “maintain vestigial Jewish religious practices” (p. 22). So he does affirm that the audience's intimate proximity to the “old” Jewish order is real, although the exact ethnic composition of the community is not clear. Since Cockerill accepts the literary dependence of 1 Clement upon Hebrews, a first-century date is adopted, and a cogent argument is made that a pre-
Readers with a special interest in the flow of the entire book and rhetorical macro-structuring will undoubtedly be rewarded by a careful perusal of Cockerill's thorough coverage of these matters. He proposes that Hebrews is organized fundamentally by unequal macro-chiasms as well as by rhetorically governed subsections of exordium (1:1–4), narratio (1:5–2:18), propositio (2:17–18), and peroratio (13:1–21), all of which frame the central scripture-laden message. Cockerill interacts carefully with many other scholarly proposals pertaining to the structure of the letter. Unfortunately, it is perhaps a personal character defect of mine, but I lack this special interest in rhetorical macro-structuring, so it is not surprising that I found this part of the commentary strained and less helpful. Undoubtedly I am not a fair judge, and many others will find this portion persuasive and stimulating. Regardless, on the ground level I did find that Cockerill was able to describe with consistent success how individual verses contribute to the overall train of thought in the letter.
Cockerill offers a 19-page introductory discussion pertaining to how the Old Testament functions in Hebrews, and this in addition to his detailed engagement in the main body of the commentary. Although to be sure the commentary responsibly treats this matter, I often found it imprecise, trotting out generalizing terms such as “continuity,” “foreshadows,” “typological,” and “fulfillment,” as if these terms give a complete explanation, when in fact they plead for further nuancing—e.g., what specific kind of typology and fulfillment?—historical, cosmological, sacramental, liturgical, moral, eschatological, ironic? And why?
Although what the commentary does contain is generally thorough and well executed, readers should also be forewarned that the commentary does not include separate sections which treat the epistle's theology, reception history, ancient manuscript basis (i.e., history of textual transmission and preservation), or possible sources. Of course, these matters are dealt with throughout the commentary on an ad hoc basis as Cockerill deems discussion necessary, but readers who are hoping for synthesized discussions of these topics will need to look elsewhere. A unique section on the worldview of the author of Hebrews is, however, included. In summary, although neither perfect nor exhaustive, this commentary is helpful and comprehensive. This commentary is a solid addition to the NICNT series, and I certainly will be consulting it in future research.