Hebrews 5:7 (SBLGNT): ὃς
ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας πρὸς τὸν
δυνάμενον σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων
προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας
Syntax:
ὃς-masculine relative pronoun nominative singular
ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις-prepositional phrase with ἐν + the dative plural. Translate "in the days."
τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ-"of his flesh" (genitive singular feminine)
David M. Moffitt (Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, pages 208-209): "In Heb 5:7 the writer says the suffering that Jesus endured occurred 'in the days of his flesh' (ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ). As in 2:14 the term σάρξ here clearly points to the humanity of the Son.148 In the course of becoming the source of eternal salvation, the heavenly Son entered the world and took on a human body (cf. 2:14; 10:5). Thus the phrase is often understood to connote Jesus’ mortal or earthly existence as contrasted with his heavenly existence.149 For some, the language implies a sharp dualism between the Son’s temporary, mortal embodiment and the laying aside of his flesh at his death in order to release his spirit to ascend into heaven.150 Others, such as F. F. Bruce, suggest that the 'expression . . . emphasizes the conditions of human weakness of which [Jesus] partook during his earthly life' but 'does not imply that his human condition came to an end with his exaltation to the right hand of God.' ”151
Moffitt argues that the language of Hebrews 5:7 doesn't necessarily imply that Christ is no longer human although some commentators explain the text this way. I wonder if Hebrews 10:19-20 doesn't lend support to the idea that Christ is no longer human.
δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας-Westcott that the first word in this part of 5:7 refers to definite requests (i.e., petitions); ἱκετηρίας "describes the supplication of one in need of protection or help in some overwhelming capacity" (page 125). The latter term may also describe the posture or external form of the suppliant (Ibid.).
πρὸς τὸν
δυνάμενον σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου-Westcott likewise explains that the Son's petitions and supplications were directed "Godward," to the only person who could save him from death (page 126). However, scholars debate exactly how Jesus' prayer was answered and what his exact requests were.
μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων-"with strong outcries and tears";
προσενέγκας is an aorist active participle nominative singular masculine of προσφέρω.
"The participle translated 'offered up' may include the concept of sacrifice. Interestingly, all the major translations render it as the main verb, except the KJV/NKJV, which translates it temporally ('after he had offered up'). Miller interpreted the participle concessively ('although he offered up')."
Allen, David L.. Hebrews: 35 (New American Commentary) (Kindle Locations 10154-10156). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Harold W. Attridge (Hebrews: A Commentary, page 149 ) suggests that 5:7 employs προσφέρω metaphorically. Compare Hebrews 5:1, 3; 8:3-4; 9:7, 9, 14, 25, 28.
καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας-"and he was heard because of his godly fear (reverence)"
See Hebrews 11:7; 12:28 for other uses of "godly fear." Cf. the discussion by Murray J. Harris in Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis.
εἰσακουσθεὶς is the aorist passive participle nominative singular masculine of εἰσακούω: Jehovah God heard his prayers.
See also https://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html
Friday, March 11, 2022
Hebrews 5:7--Analyzing the Greek Structure
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think the question of whether or not ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆςσαρκὸς αὐτοῦ refers to him being "human" and implies he was no longer "human" after can get very vague, largley due to, what I believe, are extra-biblical and theologically confused concepts from calcedonean Christology. I think what the author is clearly distinguishing is Jesus as a flesh and blood person like us and the glorified Christ at the right hand of God.
I think trying to throw in some strict anthropology: i.e. what counts as "human" and what doesn't, is besides the point, and is reading back later Christological concerns and debates into the text.
On a different note: Do you think that the epistle of Romans and the epistle of Hebrews present two different atonement models? Is the atonement something you've studied?
I agree that the problem with many of these debates is reading the accounts through post-Nicaea/Chalcedonian templates: the writer of Hebrews was not concerned with these issues but had a different focus.
I've studied the atonement to a degree, but not like I spent time on other things like Christology or the Trinity. I want to read Craig and E. Stump's works. However, for me, I know the outlines of what Romans and Hebrews teach when it comes to atonement.
Not being dogmatic here, but I would say that Romans and Hebrews describe the atonement in different ways, but I think they're complementary accounts. How do you read them?
A couple years ago the atonement really bothered me, trying to make it work.
I've been influenced by the classic Gustaf Aulén book, and some work by Greg Boyd on Christus Victor, and some others, along with the recapitulation theories of people like Ireneaus, and I've been persuaded on a theoretical level in that direction.
For me, reading Romans, I think reading λύτρον as that which releases a prisoner, i.e. the metaphor is focused that of freeing those captive, rather than that of a kind of exchange or purchase (of course the actually meaning includes both, but I'm speaking of how one can make sense of the metaphor).
So for me the atonement of Romans seems to fit without an penal substitution, or 'payment' in exchange, or payment of a 'debt.'
So it would be more that Christ, as the new Adam died but over came death and sin through righteousness and the ressurection, and just as Adam took those after him into sin and death, Christ took them out of sin and death.
The "forgiveness" of sins is not a function of the atonement (like a judicial pardon), but something God does, which can have concrete effect only after mankind is freed from Sin and death.
So it's not like any life was owed to anyone, or some one needed to die to satisfy someone or something; but rather that the death covered over the sin of Adam, and thus freed people from it.
I think this is the ransom logic of Romans. It's liberation and reconciliation not payment and pardon.
I don't know if it can be applied to Hebrews though, I don't think it can, but I haven't studied Hebrews enough to know, how one can make sense of the atonement in Hebrews.
I've studied atonement but not to a degree where I would make definitive pronouncements, but I've always seen the forgiveness of sins as part of God's act of atonement through Christ, which is similar to what we find with Yom Kippur in the Hebrew Bible.
Maybe Romans doesn't highlight certain facets of the atonement, which we wouldn't expect one book to bring out all facets anyway, but Hebrews deals with Yom Kippur and the connection between that day and the sacrifice of Christ. Of course, his sacrifice is superior, and Hebrews 9:22 makes an interesting statement. But I guess to put it simply, it's hard for me to disassociate God's act of forgiveness from his atoning act that happens through Christ. The release from sin and death likewise happens through Christ, but it's done by God. Should we consider this forgiveness to be judicial? Good question.
Hebrews 9 and 10 are good to read to get some perspective on the book's potential view of atonement. See also Hebrews 1:1-4.
That's been my reading of Hebrews as well. i.e. Yom Kippur with Christ as both the high priest and the offering. I'm actually reading through Hebrews in the greek for the first time at the moment, I've heard that the greek very difficult, but I've actually found in not that bad.
I do think the atonement in Romans can be accounted for entirely by Christus Victor and recapitulation theories, without and penal substitution (which includes ideas of payment for exchange).
But Hebrews does something different, tied to the logic of Yom Kippur, one day I'd like to try and work out the logic, and perhaps some day later work out the Logic of Hebrews and Paul, as well as the passover lamb motifs elsewhere (which fits well with the Christus Victor model), and see what comes out of it.
As of now I can't see how a judicial forgiveness could make sense without doing violence to the logic of Romans.
I'm not sure that one has to represent the atonement in penal substitution or judicial forgiveness terms, but the Bible does indicate some kind of exchange occurred or that one man died in place of many. I also wrote about justification some time ago: see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/09/dikaiow-and-bdag-greek-english-lexicon.html
the term exchange is a slippery one. I should have been more specific. what I men't is an exchange in terms of person 1 gives person 2 X in exchange for person 2 giving person 1 Y.
Or course Christ dies in our place, but that could be only an exchange in that Christ is dying as the New Adam, thus since we die in Adam, we can instead die in the New Adam (Christ) and if we die in the new Adam (Christ) we can then be raised with the New Adam (Christ), in that sense Christ is dying for us, or his death covers our death because it covors Adan.
Of course I'm ONLY speaking in terms of Romans. When it comes to Hebrew's it's clear Christ offers his blood to God ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν (9:14) ... and 'obtained' (or perhaps 'found'?) a ransom or redemtion λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος. But as I said, I need to bone up on Yom Kippur, to even begin to understand the logic of it.
Okay, I see what you mean. That kind of exchange raises lots of questions, like the old debates about who received the ransom price, God or Satan?
What adds a twist in Romans is that Paul writes that Christians die with reference to sin (concerning sin), then he says that the person who dies is acquitted/freed from sin. Secondly, does Christ's death cover Adam, or does Jehovah substitute the New Adam's death for the first Adam?
Hi Edgar, I enjoyed your presentation of the text and added a link on my blog post:
Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis
Thanks, Jim. While my focus on the text was different, your post gave me the inspiration to read Hebrews 5:7 closely. So I want to link your post with mine. Best regards!
Post a Comment