Greek: καίπερ ὢν υἱός, ἔμαθεν ἀφ' ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν
Margaret G. Sim explains the significance of καίπερ, a particle, especially when it accompanies a participle as happens in Hebrews 5:8: this construction makes concession relevant and prominent by grammatically marking it. Sim invokes Hebrews 7:5; 12:17 to illustrate how Hebrews employs καίπερ. See Sim, A Relevant Way to Read, pages 85-86.
καίπερ only occurs 5x in the GNT: compare Philippians 3:4; 2 Peter 1:12. About the kind of usage that one encounters in Hebrews 5:8, E.D. Burton writes:
437. The Adverbial Participle of Concession, equivalent to a concessive clause. The concessive force is sometimes emphasized by prefixing καὶπερ or καί γε to the participle.So this verse begins with a concessive clause: "Although being a Son/son." NABRE translates, "Son though he was . . ."
Acts 13:28; καὶ μηδεμίαν αἰτίαν θανάτου εὑρόντες ᾐτήσαντο Πειλάτον
ἀναιρεθῆναι αὐτόν, and though they found no cause of death in him,
yet asked they of Pilate that he should be slain.
Heb 5:8; καίπερ ὢν υἱός, ἔμαθεν ἀφ' ὧν ἔπαθεν τῆν ὑπακοήν,
he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered.
See also Matt. 14:9; Mark 4:31; Acts 17:27.
See Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses.
The anarthrous Greek construction could be definite instead of indefinite or qualitative (i.e., "Although he was the Son"), and the reference to ὢν υἱός likely makes a nexus with Hebrews 1:5-8; 2:10, 3:6; 4:14; 5:5, and 12:5-11. Jehovah God successfully helped Jesus to endure suffering and be refined by it; he can now assist Christian "sons" and daughters as they deal with suffering. If God's Son suffered and learned obedience from it, then how much more can God allow suffering as a way to refine imperfect humans. See Koester, Hebrews, page 299. He points out that the motif of learning through suffering was common in antiquity, and while Jesus was sinless, he still had to learn obedience in a new situation--under intense trial.
Some commentators try to press the term, "Son." Does it refer to the preexistent Son of God, the earthly Jesus or to the resurrected Christ? Might there be a blend of all three senses by the writer of Hebrews?
ἔμαθεν ἀφ' ὧν ἔπαθεν-this part of the verse contains wordplay (paronomasia): the Son of God learned obedience from the things he suffered during his earthly and fleshly tenure (see Hebrews 5:7). Christopher Wordsworth points to 2 Thessalonians 3:2 as an example of paronomasia, but he also maintains that due to the "frequency" with which wordplay occurs in Hebrews, the letter bears the marks of Pauline writing and it must be "an original work, and not a translation" (394).
Wordsworth makes another interesting point on that same page regarding attraction and ὧν ἔπαθεν. I take issue with all of his points concerning the Incarnation and his comments on the Son growing in wisdom (from Luke's Gospel) as to his human soul. As many know, the Incarnation doctrine teaches that Christ assumed humanity but he still remained God the Son: most theologians think no change occurred when Christ as God supposedly assumed humanity. As God the Son in the flesh, B.F. Westcott (commenting on Hebrews 5:8) said the "powers" of Christ's human nature grew progressively and in harmony "with the divine in His one Person" ( The Epistle to the Hebrews, page 130). That is, Christ allegedly learned obedience (τὴν ὑπακοήν) as a human but not with respect to his divine nature although the natures putatively were united in one person/hypostasis.
While I disagree with the whole Incarnation teaching, I think Westcott makes one good point that appears to be supported grammatically: Christ learned obedience, not how to obey God. Was there ever a time when the Son of God was disobedient to his Father? As stated earlier, Christ learned obedience in a new setting or it's possible that he learned obedience as such, which would give him deeper insight into God's will (so Westcott). Either way, this whole verse appears to weaken the case for the Incarnation rather than strengthen it. Trinitarians expect non-Trinitarians to believe that God assumed humanity or became human, then he had to become an adult and grow in wisdom and stature. Then he suffered with respect to his human nature but not with respect to his divine nature; or some just say that the entire God-man suffered, but it still needs to be made clear that his alleged divine nature was supposed to be excluded from the suffering (i.e., he was supposed to be strongly immutable and impassible).
Lastly, the Incarnation implies that the immutable God of heaven (the Son) changed qua his humanity, but not with respect to his divinity. How this ever happened is largely chalked up to "mystery" or paradox. No wonder Aquinas said the Trinity doctrine cannot be proven demonstrably by logic alone; he saw the Trinity as a mystery of the faith, something that requires more than reason alone. In my humble opinion, reason will never capitulate to the Trinity doctrine.
For additional suggestions about how to read Hebrews 5:8, see https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/hebrews/fr-william-most--on-jesus-learning-obedience-hebrews-5-8
10 comments:
It seems to me that the designation of "sonship" does not in itself imply pre-existence, but seems to be used as a messianic title (using Psalms 2), so καίπερ ὢν υἱός might be glossed as and yet being the messanic king. I agree with Westcott and your understanding of learning obedience, i.e. Jesus learend obedience as a suffering human, not that he learned how to be obedient.
I think the passive participle of τελειωθεὶς in verse 9 also makes a trinitarian reading difficult. In fact, the fact that Jesus is passively reciving priesthood, sonship, etc etc, makes a trinitarian reading difficult. The 2 natures doctrine doesn't help, other than semantically, but this would require some more theological argumenation to lay out
I think you're right that sonship doesn't necessarily imply preexistence and I've argued that it's used metaphorically to designate God's anointed king in Psalms 2. See my dissertation.
No major objection to reading καίπερ ὢν υἱός as a reference to the Messianic king, but another thing that stands out to me in Hebrews is the kingly and priestly function of Christ qua Son, like Melchizedek.
Very good point about τελειωθεὶς. I agree. It's also seeming weirder to me how that God the Son obeys and submits himself to God the Father as Trinitarianism teaches. Some Evangelicals argue that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, not just when he assumes humanity. Yet there's supposed to be one God, but how can one person of God submit to another person of God unless the Godhead has distinct and multiple consciousnesses? How can this happen without there being three distinct centers of consciousness in God? It doesn't make sense, not to mention many other paradoxes.
"the letter bears the marks of Pauline writing and it must be "an original work, and not a translation" "
Must?
McCormack has, in my mind, shown that the whole eternal subordination debate depends on the social trinity which is itself untennable. In my mind, the only trinitarian theories that have a hope of being maybe coherent are the post-Barthian ones, but even then end up with incoherencies.
It's interesting to compare the messianic theology of Hebrews to that of some of the Qumran sectarian documents, who have more than one messiah: a davidic and a priestly one, as well as some of their messianic escahtology. It's fascinating to see the parallels. :)
I liked this point:
Jehovah God successfully helped Jesus to endure suffering and be refined by it; he can now assist Christian "sons" and daughters as they deal with suffering. If God's Son suffered and learned obedience from it, then how much more can God allow suffering as a way to refine imperfect humans.
I just reported what Christopher Wordsworth writes. He says many things about Hebrews with which I take issue, and this statement is one of them.
Good point about Qumran: I need to explore some of those parallels in more depth.
Glad you liked it, Jim. Due to conditions in the world and some more closer to home, I've been thinking a lot about suffering and its potential effect on us.
Regarding a recent discussion we had, see - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/is-joshua-a-type-of-christ-in-hebrews-48-an-assessment-of-the-referent-of/38D966AA1D6ACA07015F82EB985E5573#
Thanks, looks interesting. I've run across a few sources on this subject too, since that discussion.
Post a Comment