Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 5:8 - 5:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_5:8. Καίπερ ὢν υἱός ] belongs together. With Heinrichs and others, to construe καίπερ with ἔμαθεν , and in this way to enclose Heb_5:8 within a parenthesis, is forbidden by the grammar, since καίπερ is never combined with a tempus finitum. καίπερ ὢν υἱός , however, is to be connected neither, by virtue of an hyperbaton, with δεήσεις … προσενέγκας , which Photius (in Oecumenius) and Clarius consider permissible, but which is already shown to be impossible by means of the addition καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας , nor yet with καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας itself (Chrysostom, Theophylact). For against the latter καίπερ is decisive, according to which the property of Sonship is insisted on as something in consequence of which the main statement might appear strange; it is not, however, strange, but, on the contrary, congruent with nature, if any one is heard by the Father on account of his sonship. καίπερ ὢν υἱός belongs, therefore, to ἔμαθεν ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν , and serves to bring the same into relief by way of contrast. Notwithstanding the fact that Christ was a Son, He learned from suffering (learned, in that He suffered) obedience, resignation to the will of the Father. Comp. Php_2:6-8.
The article before ὑπακοήν marks the definite virtue of obedience. The article here cannot denote, as Hofmann will maintain (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 72, 2 Aufl.), the obedience “already present,” or the obedience “in which Jesus stood.” For, on the one hand, there must then have been previous mention of the obedience of Jesus, which is not the case; and then, on the other hand, we cannot any longer predicate the learning of a virtue of one in whom this virtue is already present. But altogether, that which Hofmann brings out as the import of Heb_5:8 is a wonderful Quid pro quo. Instead of recognising, to wit, in Heb_5:7-8 the sharply and clearly defined leading statement: ὃς ἐν ταῖς ὃ μέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ … ἔμαθεν … τὴν ὑπακοήν in itself, and in its simply confirmatory relation to οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν , Heb_5:5, Hofmann will have the stress to be laid upon the subsidiary defining note ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν , and then, moreover, make the whole weight of the words: καίπερ ὢν υἱός , fall upon that same ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν ! In this way the thought expressed in Heb_5:8 is, forsooth: that Jesus afterwards (!) suffered that (!) for the averting of which He had made entreaty. The special point is not that He learnt anything as Son, nor that He learnt obedience (?!). He did not learn to obey, but the obedience in which He stood, He now (!) or in a new manner (!) so learnt, as it should there (!) be exercised, where (!) it was a question (!) of suffering. And this is to be taken as the meaning, in spite of the fact—apart from all other arbitrary assumptions—that we have ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν written, and not even ἐν οἷς ἔπαθεν , which at least must be expected as a support for such an exposition as that?
ἔμαθεν ] The disposition of obedience Christ possessed even before the suffering. But this needed, in order to become vouched for, to be tested in action. And this continued development of the disposition of obedience into the act of obedience is nothing else than a practical learning of the virtue of obedience.
ἀπό with μανθάνειν , as Mat_24:32; Mat_11:29, denoting the starting-point.
ἀφʼ ὧν ἔπαθεν ] well-known attraction in place of ἀπʼ ἐκείνων ἅ ἔπαθεν .
The combination ἔμαθεν … ἔπαθεν is also of frequent occurrence with the classic writers and with Philo. Comp. Herod. i. 207: τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα , ἐόντα ἀχάριστα , μαθήματα γέγονεν ; Soph. Trach. 142 f.: ὡς δʼ ἐγὼ θυμοφθαρῶ , μήτʼ ἐκμάθοις παθοῦσα ; Xenoph. Cyrop. iii. 1. 17: πάθημα ἄρα τῆς ψνχῆς σὺ λέγεις εἶναι τὴν σωφροσύνην , ὥσπερ λύπην , οὐ μάθημα ; Philo, de speciall. legg. 6 (with Mangey, II. p. 340): ἵνʼ ἐκ τοῦ παθεῖν μάθῃ . Many other instances in Wetstein.