Hebrews 5:8--"Although he was a Son" and the Incarnation

 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.
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.

So this verse begins with a concessive clause: "Although being a Son/son." NABRE translates, "Son though he was . . ."

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