Hebrews 6:19

Greek (WH): ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν καὶ εἰσερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος,

"We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain" (Hebrews 6:19 ESV)

Smyth's Greek Grammar: 2989. Relative ὡς as, how is originally an ablative (in which way) from the relative stem [ιγλιδε]ο-, whence come also ὅς, ἥ, ὅ. For the -ς, see 341. Relative ὡς has various uses as an adverb or a conjunction, all of which represent the primitive meaning.

The occurrence of ἣν tells us that ὡς functions as a relative in Hebrews 6:19.

ἄγκυραν signifies an anchor or hook (Acts 27:29-30, 40).

Do the words ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν modify "anchor" or "hope"?

Christopher W. Cowan answers:

While ἄγκυραν is the closest noun in agreement, commentators have frequently found the image of an anchor entering through the curtain into the heavenly holy place to be problematic.96 As a result, many have argued that either (1) “sure and steadfast” are modifying “anchor,” while the participle, “enters,” reaches back to modify “hope,”97 or (2) all three attributes modify “hope.”98 But such concerns seem unnecessary. Of course anchors do not reach up into the heavens, nor do they enter into the holy place! But the imagery accomplishes what the author intends: to illustrate and reinforce his message of a hope that is firmly secured.99 Moreover, attempts to argue that the attributes modify “hope” but not “anchor” seem hollow since the author identifies the two—hope is “like an anchor.”100

See Cowan, “Confident Of Better Things”: Assurance Of Salvation In The Letter To The Hebrews, page 148 (2012 Ph.D. Diss.).

Compare https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/jesus-entered-within-curtain-how.html

Hebrews 7:16 (Rogers and Rogers Screenshot)

Greek: ὃς οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης γέγονεν ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου:

Occurrences of διαθήκη in Hebrews

Hebrews 7:22-κατὰ τοσοῦτο καὶ κρείττονος διαθήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυος Ἰησοῦς.

Hebrews 8:6-νῦν δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται.

Hebrews 8:8-μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοὺς λέγει Ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει Κύριος, καὶ συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα διαθήκην καινήν,

Hebrews 8:9-οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην ἣν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου, κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, λέγει Κύριος.

Hebrews 8:10-ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραήλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν.

Hebrews 9:4-χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης περικεκαλυμμένην πάντοθεν χρυσίῳ, ἐν ᾗ στάμνος χρυσῆ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος Ἀαρὼν ἡ βλαστήσασα καὶ αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης,

Hebrews 9:15-Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας.

Hebrews 9:16-ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου·

Hebrews 9:17- διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μὴ τότε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος.

Hebrews 9:20-λέγων Τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός·

Hebrews 10:16-Αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι πρὸς αὐτούς μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς,

Hebrews 10:29-πόσῳ δοκεῖτε χείρονος ἀξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας ὁ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καταπατήσας, καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας.

Hebrews 12:24-καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτῃ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν Ἅβελ.

Hebrews 13:20-Ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν,

Over half of the thirty NT occurrences of διαθήκη appear in Hebrews. Furthermore, there are numerous books and journal articles dealing with covenant theology/semantics in Hebrews: I will list a couple.

https://www.academia.edu/44332163/_The_Concept_of_%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%AE%CE%BA%CE%B7_in_Hebrews_9_16_17_

https://www.academia.edu/18498642/A_Comparison_of_17th_Century_and_Modern_Interpretations_of_the_Meaning_and_Significance_for_Covenant_Theology_of_Diatheke_%CE%94%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%AE%CE%BA%CE%B7_in_Hebrews_9_16_17?rhid=27836246220&swp=rr-rw-wc-19918245

Hebrews 9:14 and the Eternal Spirit (Harold Attridge)-Hermeneia Series

 

Hebrews 2:4 (Morphosyntax)

Greek (WH): συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ θεοῦ σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσιν καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν

CSB: "At the same time, God also testified by signs and wonders, various miracles, and distributions of gifts from the Holy Spirit according to his will."

James Moffatt NT: "while God corroborated their testimony with signs and wonders and a variety of miraculous powers, distributing the holy Spirit as it pleased him."

This verse begins with a word that morphologically is present active participle genitive singular masculine (συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος). William L. Lane (Hebrews 1-8, WB Commentary) states that συνεπιμαρτυρέω is used regularly in nonbiblical Greek, but the LXX does not employ the word and its only GNT occurrence is Heb. 2:4. Lane proffers the meaning, “to bear witness at the same time." Bill Mounce supplies these definitions: "to join in according testimony; to support by testimony, to confirm, sanction." One other point about the present participle is that Lane thinks it connotes ongoing action that continued to be shown in the early Christian community's daily life.

συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ θεοῦ is a genitive absolute (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament). ESV translates: "while God also bore witness"; NWT 2013: "while God joined in bearing witness." Dana Harris (Hebrews) relates that συνεπιμαρτυρέω is legal nomenclature and the participle may logically correlate with ἐβεβαιώθη in Hebrews 2:3 even if the correlation is not strictly grammatical: moreover, the participle in the genitive absolute construction logically depends on ἐβεβαιώθη.

The language, σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ ποικίλαις δυνάμεσιν emphasizes divine wonders, the exhibited power of God, and "the rich variety of divine activity." See Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, page 142. Additionally, Harris observes that one finds a string of instrumental datives here with ποικίλαις modifying δυνάμεσιν.

The writer of Hebrews has a propensity for the correlative τε καὶ (see Hebrews 4:12; 5:1,7,14; 8:3); καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν-The Greek μερισμός occurs twice in the GNT (Hebrews 2:4; 4:12); the word is best understood in terms of distribution for Heb. 2:4, contra Henry Alford.

Both Paul Ellingworth and Harold Attridge consider πνεύματος ἁγίου to be an objective genitive, and Attridge adds (Hebrews, 67-68) that the "spirit" in this verse:

refers not to a divine hypostasis, but to an eschatological gift of God's power and life.68 Hebrews will describe the "holy spirit" as speaking through the scriptures.69 That personification involves a traditional paraphrase for referring to the divine origin of scripture.

The Greek text reads, καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς ("and distributions of holy spirit"), but commentators normally interpret the "distributions" (μερισμοῖς) to be gifts imparted through/by the holy spirit--it is not the holy spirit itself that is being distributed. Luke T. Johnson explains (Hebrews, page 89):

The expression “distributions of the Holy Spirit according to his will,” in turn, most clearly echoes Paul’s language in 1 Cor 12:11. Speaking of the “variety of gifts” (diaireseis charismaton), Paul says, “all these are activated by the one and same Spirit who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.”

On the other hand, see James Moffatt, The Epistle to the Hebrews, page 20. Note his translation supra.

Amplified Bible:  "[and besides this evidence] God also testifying with them [confirming the message of salvation], both by signs and wonders and by various miracles [carried out by Jesus and the apostles] and by [granting to believers the] gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will."

κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν is likely a reference to God per the context (i.e., God's will); θέλησιν is accusative singular feminine and the object of κατὰ. See Harris, Hebrews. The suffix -σιν that occurs three times in Heb. 2:4 is probably for rhetorical effect, according to Harris.

While I do not agree with Daniel Wallace's Trinitarian theology, his article here is useful in some ways: https://bible.org/article/hebrews-23-4-and-sign-gifts

Hebrews 3:4 and κατασκευάσας (Setting and Grammar)

Greek (WH): πᾶς γὰρ οἶκος κατασκευάζεται ὑπό τινος, ὁ δὲ πάντα κατασκευάσας θεός.

Contextual Setting: Why were these words written to the Hebrews? This portion of the letter is making an argument, but quite frankly, Luke T. Johnson relates that the details of the case which the writer is making "become murky" because of how the writer metaphorically employs οἶκος. In one sense, οἶκος here refers to the "people of Israel" (Johnson, Hebrews, 108) but in another sense the word references a literal house as it does in 3:4. But what is the point of the whole line of argument? Johnson writes:

"Hebrews seems to want to affirm two things simultaneously. First, God is the source of all things, so all honor ultimately goes to God; nothing that is not God is anything more than creature. Second, the Son—as we have learned—is not simply another creature 'faithful to the one who made him' (3:2), but is also as Son a participant in the creation of all things ('through whom he created the universe,' 1:2). The impossibility of stating these apparently contradictory propositions in any coherent fashion accounts, I think, for the confused sequence of statements in this section. But the confusion also points to Hebrews’ distinctive understanding of Jesus, which brings together both the 'highest' and the 'lowest' of Christologies, with equal emphasis. As Son of God, Jesus is 'over all the house' as its maker. But as Son, Jesus is also a human being 'faithful to the one who made him.' "

My purpose in writing this entry is not to make a case against the Trinity or Johnson's claim of "high Christology" in Hebrews. I think his remarks are riddled with an admixture of truth and error: he is right about some of the argument contained in Hebrews 3:1-6, but wrong about the status of Jesus Christ presented in the letter to the Hebrews. However, I think it's correct to say that Hebrews 3:4 wants to elevate God (Jehovah) as the source of all things and he does create or make things through the Son; however, the Son is God's creative agent, not the Creator. I believe George W. Buchanan's observations concerning Hebrews 3:4ff are insightful:

"In his efforts to exalt the Son, the author of Hebrews selected Moses and the angels, all of whom had been highly exalted in Samaritan and Jewish circles, and argued that they were inferior in comparison with Jesus" (Buchanan, Hebrews, 59).

On the other hand, Buchanan recognizes that the Son of God has legal authority given to him by the Father, but Christ in not on par with his Father. (See Buchanan, Hebrews, 3-9.) Despite the apparent opacity of Hebrews 3:1-6, Ken Schenck does maintain that the exhortation of Hebrews 3:7-4:13 is a "logical conclusion," given what precedes it. See Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 33. He explains the "rhyme and reason" of Hebrews 3:4ff this way:

"Hebrews argues for the superiority of Christ to Moses in two ways. First, 3:3 uses the analogy of the superiority of a house builder to a house, with Christ as the builder and Moses as the house. Hebrews 3:5 then shifts the metaphor slightly: Moses is a servant in a house where Christ is the son. Hebrews 3:4 subordinates both of these individuals to God as the one who builds everything and who is ultimately the house owner (3:6). Hebrews thus places both Christ and Moses in the same story of salvation, but with Christ as the superior. The logical conclusion the author wished the audience to draw from this superiority is that to reject Christ or the Christian Jewish hope (3:6) would be to reject God’s workings in the same way the wilderness generation did. Indeed, Hebrews insists on more than mere assent to such beliefs. It admonishes the audience to hold fast in ‘boldness’ and ‘boasting’ about this hope (3:6)."

Regardless of the way that one understands Hebrews 3:4 and its literary context, I submit that it's important to read the verse without stripping it from the original context. I will now turn toward the verse's grammar.

Grammar: πᾶς γὰρ οἶκος-The conjunction (γὰρ) grammatically subordinates Hebrews 3:4 to 3:3 and thus provides semantic clarity (David Allen, Hebrews). Allen maintains that 3:4 is not parenthetical but rather transitional since the Greek καί joins 3:4 to 3:5; see also the μέν...δέ construction in 3:5-6.

Paul Ellingworth agrees that the verse is not grammatically parenthetical, but he reasons that it naturally follows Hebrews 3:3b in terms of how the argument is developed. See Ellingworth, Hebrews, 204-205.

κατασκευάζεται ὑπό τινος-Daniel B. Wallace says that the verb here is a gnomic present that makes a proverbial action salient (523-524), that is, the writer of Hebrews represents the action as being timelessly true. The use of the preposition is apparently causal: it occurs with the genitival indefinite pronoun, τινος, so he construction suggests agency (Dana Harris, Hebrews).

ὁ δὲ πάντα κατασκευάσας θεός- this portion of the verse begins logically with the adversative conjunction, δὲ ("but" or "however") that makes a contrast with what precedes (so Allen). The articular aorist participle could be rendered "the one who built" (Allen/Bill Mounce) or "the builder," (NET) which translates the participle substantivally. The NIV takes "God" as the subject whereas others treat θεός as the predicate, a position which David Allen criticizes. On the other hand, Ellingworth submits that the descriptor, ὁ κατασκευάσας (viewed substantivally), strictly/absolutely applies to God but only relatively to Christ (pace Harris). Harris, relying on Wallace, maintains that ὁ κατασκευάσας is the subject in this predicate nominative construction, and the equative verb (i.e., "is") should be mentally supplied.

BDAG on κατασκευάζω in Hebrews 3:4:

"to bring a structure into being, build, construct, erect, create (Phylarchus [III b.c.]: 81 Fgm. 29 Jac. ναούς; Plut., Mor. 189c, Num. 10, 9 οἶκος; Herodian 5, 6, 6; 9; SIG 495, 141 and 145; 1100, 21; 1229, 4; PAmh 64, 2 βαλανεῖον; POxy 892, 8; Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 112 σκηνήν; Jos., Bell. 6, 191, Vi. 65 οἶκος) κιβωτόν construct an ark (κ. is a favorite word for construction of ships: Diod S 1, 92, 2; 11, 62, 2; Palaeph. 29, 4; 31, 9; 1 Macc 15:3) Hb 11:7. Pass. 1 Pt 3:20. οἶκον Hb 3:3f. Of God (Is 40:28; 45:7; ApcEsdr 5:19 p. 30, 19 Tdf. [πάντα διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον]; Philo, Aet. M. 39; 41; Aristob. in Eus., PE 13, 12, 9 [s. beg. of this entry]; Ath., R. 13 p. 63, 21 ζῶον) ὁ πάντα κατασκευάσας the builder of all things Hb 3:4b (cp. Epict. 1, 6, 7). Pf. pass. ptc. as subst. τὸ κατεσκευασμένον what is produced
or supplied Dg 2:2."

Hebrews 4:16: Morphology, Discourse, and Syntax

Hebrews 4:16 (WH): προσερχώμεθα οὖν μετὰ παρρησίας τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος, ἵνα λάβωμεν ἔλεος καὶ χάριν εὕρωμεν εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν.

οὖν-conjunctive particle; here implies causal sequence. David L. Mathewson remarks on the "cluster of subjunctives" in this verse (Voice and Mood); he calls οὖν in this case, a "high-level marker" that occurs with hortatory subjunctives and other supporting material to produce "a discourse peak within Hebrews."

προσερχώμεθα (present middle subjunctive 1st person plural of προσέρχομαι)-B.F. Westcott (Hebrews, 108) relates that this verb appears for the first time in Hebrews here: it occurs seven times in the letter. See 7:25; 10:1, 22; 11:6; 12:18, 22. For LXX uses, see Leviticus 21:17, 21; 22:3, which deal with the priestly approach to God (cf. Ezekiel 44:16). Compare 1 Timothy 6:3; Hebrews 6:19. The writer of Hebrews always employs προσέρχομαι to describe worshipers approaching God, whether in ancient Israel or in the Christian congregation (Ellingworth, Hebrews, 269), and it is only the letter to the Hebrews that utilizes προσέρχομαι to delineate the cultus. Translate "approach, draw near." Yet the approach referenced in Hebrews 4:16 is not to the antitypical most holy in the heavens (literally), but it means to come before God here on earth in prayer or worship.

μετὰ παρρησίας-a preposition + the genitive case: the noun is genitive singular feminine of παρρησία (boldness, freedom of speech, frankness, directness, confidence). See Acts 2:29; 4:29, 31; 28:31; Hebrews 3:6; 10:19-22; 10:35; 1 John 3:21; 4:17; 5:14. R.T. France provides another gloss: "lack of inhibition." See Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (eds.). The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Hebrews-Revelation. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος-"to the throne of undeserved kindness (unmerited favor or grace)." τῆς χάριτος might be a "Genitive of characteristic quality" (Charles J. Vaughn, The Epistle to the Hebrews, page 88). Philip Church (Hebrews and the Temple, 378ff) has a rich discussion of these words and other components of Hebrews 4:16. He articulates that the throne is likely God's throne with Jesus seated at his right hand. This expression is apparently not found in ancient Judaism even though writers speak of two thrones for God, "one of judgment and one of mercy." See also David Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary).

Paul Ellingworth (The Epistle to the Hebrews) likewise insists that the throne of grace is God's based on Hebrews 8:1: it is not Christ's throne despite the words of Hebrews 1:8; only indirectly does this throne allude to the mercy seat of Jerusalem's ancient temple (contra earlier interpreters).

ἵνα λάβωμεν ἔλεος καὶ χάριν εὕρωμεν-Compare Isaiah 16:5; Hosea 6:6 in the LXX. Ellingworth points to the chiasmus here, a construction that indicates λάβωμεν is semantically similar to εὕρωμεν and ἔλεος to χάριν (Hebrews, 270). Moreover, the neuter ἔλεος is connected with χάρις in Wisdom 3:9; 4:15; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4.

εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν-The accusative singular feminine of εὔκαιρος appears here: the only other NT occurrence is Mark 6:21. Bill Mounce provides the definitions, "timely, opportune, seasonable, convenient" for this Greek adjective; βοήθειαν is accusative singular feminine of βοήθεια. Louw-Nida supply the definitions, "help" and "support." The preposition εἰς "often indicates purpose, or even result" (Dana M. Harris) and the object of the preposition is βοήθειαν: this object is modified by εὔκαιρον.

Sources for Further Reading:

Church, Philip. Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews. (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 171). Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

Harris, Dana M. Hebrews. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019.

Vaughn, Charles J. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Macmillan, 1890.

Westcott, B.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. Second Edition. London; New York: Macmillan and Co., 1892.

Hebrews 5:13 (Babes, Milk, and Solid Food)

WH: πᾶς γὰρ ὁ μετέχων γάλακτος ἄπειρος λόγου δικαιοσύνης, νήπιος γάρ ἐστιν·

Logically, when translating, begin with γὰρ for this verse as well. Some translations have "for, now" while others leave the conjunctive particle untranslated.

Expositor's GT: "The reference of γὰρ is somewhat obscure. It seems intended to substantiate the last clause of Hebrews 5:12 : 'Ye cannot receive solid food, for you have no experience of the word of righteousness.' But he softens the statement by generalising it."

The writer of Hebrews generalizes his words in 5:12 by supplying the adjective πᾶς to 5:13.

When clarifying the significance of γὰρ in the passage, E.C. Wickham writes: "The particle implies that the sentence so introduced is meant to justify and explain the metaphor" (Epistle to the Hebrews, page 38). He believes the writer of Hebrews wants to get across the idea that his audience needs milk, which is suitable food for babes, but not for mature adults. The Hebrews apparently are not ready for "full moral teaching" (Ibid.). They must be stirred mentally to this point. Moffatt suggests that the "solid food" in Hebrews involves the Melchizedekian high priesthood of Christ, which seems plausible in view of the literary context.

Dr. Randolph Yeager refers to γὰρ as a "causal conjunction" (Renaissance New Testament).

ὁ μετέχων-William Lane explains that in this setting, the articular present participle likely denotes "living on (a diet of)." See Hebrews 1-8 in the WBC Series; compare Zerwick-Grosvenor, page 663. The present participle agrees grammatically with the adjective πᾶς as does the article ὁ and the construction as a whole functions substantivally.

γάλακτος (genitive singular neuter of γάλα)-I talked about this word in my post regarding Hebrews 5:12: "milk" when used as a scriptural metaphor refers to the elements or mere rudiments (the ABCs of the Christian faith). Commentators point out that ancient writers commonly employed this metaphor (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:2).

ἄπειρος is a predicate adjective (Yeager) and occurs only here in the GNT.

BDAG: ἄπειρος, ον ⟦ápeiros⟧ I pert. to lack of knowledge or capacity to do someth., unacquainted with, unaccustomed to (‘lacking the ability to make trial [s. πεῖρα] of’; Pind., Hdt., et al.; Epict. 2, 24, 3; OGI 669, 11; pap e.g. PSI 522, 4 [also s. Preis.]; LXX; Philo, Agr. 160 [a beginner is ἄ.], Op. M. 171; Jos., Bell. 6, 291; Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv. I 68, 5]), of an immature Christian ἄ. λόγου δικαιοσύνης unacquainted w. the teaching about uprightness Hb 5:13 (the gen. as freq., e.g. PGiss 68, 17 ἄ. τῶν τόπων; Jos., Ant. 7, 336; Ath. 27, 1).—DELG s.v. πεῖρα. M-M. TW.

λόγου δικαιοσύνης-Dana Harris (Hebrews) follows William Lane and cites P. Ellingworth while offering six possible ways to understand this genitival construction. L.T. Johnson (Hebrews: A Commentary, page 156) cites Hebrews 2:2; 4:2; 7:28; 13:7 along with four classical references that might shed light on λόγου δικαιοσύνης. He thinks that λόγος here refers to "calculation or reasoning" as opposed to speech. Compare Herodotus I.209. Zerwick and Grosvenor reckon that Hebrews 5:14b "implies teaching of uprightness or even Christian doctrine as a whole" (pages 663-664).

νήπιος γάρ ἐστιν-The conjunction γὰρ introduces an explanatory clause and we encounter a "copulative sentence" at the conclusion of this passage (Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition).

Allen: "The final clause introduced by gar functions as a reason for the immediately preceding statement and is translated 'being still an infant.' Although a subordinate clause, it receives semantic emphasis by being placed at the end of v. 13. The word 'infant' here refers to a child who has not been weaned."

Allen, David L. Hebrews: 35 (New American Commentary) (Kindle Locations 10489-10491). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.

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

Hebrews 5:7--Analyzing the Greek Structure

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

Hebrews 1:3 and Greek Texts

 In this post, I simply want to compare how different Greek texts handle Hebrews 1:3:

Westcott-Hort: ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,

SBLGNT: ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως, ^[a]δι᾽ αὑτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ^[b]τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,

Footnotes

1. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 δι᾽ αὑτοῦ Holmes ] αὐτοῦ WH Treg NIV; αὐτοῦ δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ RP
2. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος WH Treg NIV ] ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν RP
   

THGNT: ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως ^[a]αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς

Footnotes

1. ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 αὐτοῦ‌² א A B D¹ P Ψ; ♦ αυτου δι εαυτου D^*(αυτου for εαυτου) D² K L 69 1424; δι αυτου P46

NA28: ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ,

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ,
καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος
ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,

UBS5: ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,

Byzantine Majority Text 2005: ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, δι’ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,

Codex Vaticanus contains the reading: φανερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου

Dana Harris (Hebrews) writes: "The gradual loss of the mid. in BGk. likely explains the var. rdgs. (δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ in D² Hc K L 0243 and numerous minuscules or δι᾽ αὐτοῦ in 𝔓⁴⁶ D* and a few other mss.), which appear to clarify that Jesus made purification 'through himself'' for us (e.g., ἡμῶν in א² D¹ and numerous early mss.). In these variants, the shorter rdg. is better attested and best explains the variant rdgs. (see Metzger 592; Ellingworth 101)"

Hebrews 12:1 (What is the sin that 'besets' us?)

12:1 (THGNT): Τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἡμεῖς τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων, ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα καὶ τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν, δι᾽ ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα

NET: "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us,"

KJV: "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,"

J.B. Phillips NT: "Surrounded then as we are by these serried ranks of witnesses, let us strip off everything that hinders us, as well as the sin which dogs our feet, and let us run the race that we have to run with patience"

Donald Guthrie (Hebrews, 319-320): The writer next turns his attention to the preparation necessary before the contestants begin the race. The imagery is drawn from the rigorous approach of Greek athletes to training. Nothing which adds weight is retained; all but the bare essentials must be laid aside. As the writer goes on to give a spiritual interpretation of possible encumbrances by referring to sin which clings so closely, there can be no doubt that the weight (onkon, found only here in the New Testament) is also intended to be applied metaphorically of any affairs which would impede a Christian convert in his new faith. The nature of the clinging sin is not defined, so as to have the widest possible application. The word translated clings (euperistaton) occurs here only in the New Testament and is of uncertain meaning. Moulton¹⁵ lists four possibilities: (i) easily avoided, (ii) admired, (iii) easily surrounding, i.e. besetting, (iv) dangerous (from the sense, ‘having easy distress’). The RSV approximates to the third. Whatever the precise meaning it is evident that the writer regards sin as a major impediment in the spiritual race. It must not be supposed that any particular sin – a besetting sin – is in mind. It is rather sin itself which is the hindrance.