Hebrews: Verse by Verse, by Grant R. Osborne with George H. Guthrie. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2021. vii + 360 pp. $26.99.
Grant R. Osborne, who passed away in November 2018, remains a monumental force within evangelical New Testament scholarship. His Baker Exegetical Commentary on Revelation ranks at the top of essential commentaries on that book, and The Hermeneutical Spiral is required reading at many seminaries. George Guthrie, who wrote the introduction and placed the final touches on the commentary, teaches New Testament at Regent College and has made his own contribution to Hebrews (most notably a very influential monograph for Brill and the NIV Application Commentary). This reviewer once had the privilege of taking a PhD class on Hebrews with Dr. Guthrie, one of the best classes I have ever taken.
Hebrews: Verse by Verse, like the other titles in this series (Osborne New Testament Commentaries), is meant for the lay audience more than scholars. Yet the strengths of the book, especially the brilliant examination of Hebrews’ citation of the Old Testament, definitely benefits those engaged with in-depth study of Hebrews, including scholars and graduate students. Conversely, what is in my opinion the main weakness, a somewhat one-sided Arminian perspective of apostasy in the warning passages (esp. Heb 6), renders the book less useful than it might have been to the sort of independent Baptist pastors and laymen who read DBSJ (for the record, this Arminian perspective belongs more to Osborne than to Guthrie).
Hebrews: Verse-by-Verse does justice to its title with a fairly thorough engagement with the text of Hebrews (mostly Osborne’s work), preceded by a 21-page introduction (Guthrie’s work). Greek words are transliterated and usually clearly explained. Key theological terms are bolded, indicating that they are defined in a glossary beginning on page 321. Indices for subjects, authors, and texts of Scripture and other ancient writings help make the book accessible to the reader. Osborne and Guthrie write with an engaging style and go to great lengths to make the commentary theologically relevant and practical to the Christian life.
The general layout flows nicely, and the discussion of individual verses and clusters of verses is generally quite good. Each section begins and ends with a theologically-rich summary. The introduction is just right for this sort of book, avoiding the technicalities of other commentaries while still discussing pertinent issues such as authorship (Guthrie tentatively favors Apollos). The introduction’s well-thought-out structuring of the book lends itself quite effectively to sermon outlining.
As for the commentary itself, I feel there are two major strengths and two weaknesses. First and foremost, Osborne’s interaction with the Old Testament background is nothing short of brilliant. I feel that I often gained more insight from this “casual” commentary than I have from many academic commentaries. For example, Osborne’s discussion on pages 53–55 of the OT citations of Hebrews 2:12–13 is rich in theological relevance. In addition, Osborne interacts with both the subtler echoes of Scripture in Hebrews (not just the direct citations) and the primacy of the Septuagint version for the author. An occasional oddity exists: since Osborne is not Roman Catholic, I was puzzled as to why he cites Wisdom of Solomon alongside Scripture to make a theological (as opposed to background) point (91); for a commentary meant for a broader audience, this has the potential to confuse.
Second, Osborne’s style is a solid blend of readability and depth. On the one hand, he offers his reader informed discussions of key Greek terms (e.g., 270 on the meaning of anti in Heb 12:2; Greek words are transliterated) or even sophisticated structural elements of the book (e.g., 39–40 on the chiasm of Heb 1:1–4). On the other hand, he deftly brings these issues down to the level of the audience: not only does he define “chiasm” in the glossary, he then explains just how such a “chiasm” makes a difference theologically and practically (Osborne generally steers away from text-critical comments, however; p. 180, on genomenōn vs. mellontōn, is a rare exception.). Osborne’s style is quite enjoyable, whether he is referring to the Word of God in Hebrews 4:12–13 as the “ninja sword” or illustrating the term gymanzō in Hebrews 5:14 through the lens of the Tour de France.
In addition, the commentary evidences broader canonical-theological awareness—Osborne’s discussion on page 83 of the “four stages” of the theme of “rest” in Scripture, for example, demonstrates that he is not interpreting Hebrews in isolation from the rest of Scripture. Similarly, his discussion of Melchizedek on pages 135–41 is one of the best I have ever read.
In its well-founded zeal to make Hebrews accessible to a lay audience, however, the book stumbles in two points. First, its minimal engagement with secondary sources can occasionally lead one to ask whether or not a difficult situation has been adequately explained or an alternative position fairly portrayed. Guthrie will use such expressions as “some have called this” or “as several have pointed” (24 and 46 respectively) without citation to describe a particular position. This in of itself is not problematic, since in this sort of a commentary a general position held by a wide swath of scholarship does not need to be footnoted. Yet this lack of precision becomes somewhat problematic in more controversial passages such as Hebrews 6. To his credit, Osborne acknowledges the difficulties of 6:4–8 and commits himself to avoiding “acrimony” (117), yet I feel it is precisely at this point Osborne has not adequately given the reader a fair view of interpretive options. For example, while briefly mentioning the possibility of an allusion to Exodus 13:21 here in the word “enlighten,” the commentary does not engage with secondary sources such as Dave Mathewson’s excellent Westminster Theological Journal article on “Reading Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament” (1999), which grapples with the possible significance of such an allusion.
This leads to the second point of critique: the book’s somewhat one-sided “classic” Arminian theology in regard to the possibility of a person who has been truly saved losing their salvation (e.g., 43–44, 68, 90, 291, not to mention his discussion of Heb 6:4–8). This does not mean that the treatments of the warning passages do not contain value; far from it (though in my opinion his discussion of Heb 10 is a bit more even-handed than that of ch. 6). Yet occasionally his discussion lacks the exegetical rigor that he has elsewhere. Case in point: on page 119, discussing Hebrews 6:4, Osborne declares, “‘Once been enlightened’ (v. 4). Both terms [hapax, photizō] are used of salvation and conversion in the New Testament.” Yet at this point Osborne does not mention a single other occurrence of phōtizō (“to enlighten”) in the NT (though some, e.g., Eph 1:18, might support his position), thus leaving the reader unaware of how, in John 1:9, Jesus “illuminates” (phōtizei) everybody (panta anthrōpon), hardly a reference to true conversion (one cannot, after all, get more universal than “every man that comes into the world”).
Osborne’s theology of apostasy in Hebrews also goes hand-in-hand with what is, in my opinion, an overly negative view of the audience (e.g., 39, 73, 78, 90), which in turn stems from his view that the audience is “a second-generation church” (111; it is not clear why Osborne feels that Heb 10:32–34 indicates this). I felt his view of the audience was not defended or even discussed with the rigor that it deserved. In all fairness, this is something of a no-win situation. On the one hand, the very nature of this commentary naturally necessitates cutting out technical scholarly discourse in order to be accessible to a wider audience. On the other hand, the lack of such discourse occasionally results in a very one-sided perspective of a controversial issue, especially apostasy, rendering it less suitable for an independent Baptist pastor who simply wishes to recommend a thoughtful yet accessible commentary to the “average Joe” or “average Josephine” in his congregation, especially when such a person is a new believer.
In conclusion: Osborne’s commentary attempts to fill a niche by making scholarly exegesis accessible to a more casual audience. In this he generally succeeds, fusing excellent exegetical insights with enjoyable prose. From the perspective of a more casual audience, the book is beneficial, so long as one is aware of the strong dose of Arminian theology vis-à-vis apostasy. From the perspective of scholars and graduate students, they will be well-served by the book’s theological insights and depth of intertextual awareness. Those looking for a more rigorous and fair representation of opposing views, however, will sometimes be disappointed, and occasionally the mere handful of secondary sources Osborne utilizes are unequal to the task of exegesis. Notwithstanding those critiques, the book functions marvelously as a fitting postscript to Grant Osborne’s illustrious career in service of evangelical scholarship and the church.
