Hebrews 5:7-8 - Exposition

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up (rather, when he offered up ) prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. Here (according to the view taken above of the chiastic structure of the passage) we have the account of how Christ fulfilled the human requirements of a High Priest, referred to in Hebrews 5:2 , Hebrews 5:3 . This main intention of Hebrews 5:7 , Hebrews 5:8 must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of them. Christ is in them regarded, not as executing his priestly office, but as being prepared and consecrated for it. His eternal priesthood is conceived as entered on after the human experience which is the subject of these verses (cf. καὶ τελειώθεις ἐγένετο ( Hebrews 5:9 ), and what was said under Hebrews 5:5 ). With regard to the participial aorists, προσενέγκας αἰσακουσθείς , it is a misapprehension of their proper force to regard them as denoting a time previous to that of ἔμαθεν in Hebrews 5:8 ; as if the meaning were—having in Gethsemane "offered," etc., and "been heard," he afterwards "learnt obedience" on the cross. All they express is that in offering, etc., and being heard, he learned obedience. The idea of subsequent time does not come in till Hebrews 5:9 ; "and being perfected," after thus learning obedience, "he became," etc. Thus the only question with regard to time in Hebrews 5:7 , Hebrews 5:8 is whether they have reference to the agony in the garden only, or both to the agony and the cress. That they refer mainly, if not exclusively, to the agony is evident from the expressions used, corresponding so closely with the Gospel history. The view presented is, as in the Gospels, of some intense inward struggle, outwardly manifested, and expressing itself in repeated prayers (observe the plural, δεήσεις καὶ ἱκετηρίας ) aloud for deliverance. It is true that the Gospels, as we have them now, do not mention tears ; but these too are quite in keeping with the bloody sweat specified by St. Luke, and Epiphanius states that the original copies of Luke 22:43 , Luke 22:44 contained the verb ἔκλαυσε . Some interpreters would identify the κραυγή ἰσχυρά of Luke 22:7 with the "loud voice ( φωνή μεγάλη )" from the cross. But there is nothing to suggest this; the "strong crying and tears" evidently denote the manner of the "prayers and supplications;" and the thrice-repeated prayer in the garden recorded by the evangelists may be well conceived to have been thus loudly uttered, so as to be heard by the three disciples, a stone's cast distant, before sleep overcame them. "In cruce clamasse dicitur; lachrymasse non dicitur. Utrum horum respicit locum Gethsemane" (Bengel). What, then, as seen in the light of these verses, was the meaning of the "prayer and supplications" in the garden of Gethsemane? The expression, τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου , corresponding with πάντα δυνατά σοι of Mark 14:36 , confirms the view that the "cup" which he prayed might pass from him, was the death before him, and that the purport of his prayer was, not to be raised from death after undergoing it, but to be saved from undergoing it. Such is the ordinary meaning of σώζειν ἐκ θανάτου in reference to one still alive (cf. Psalms 33:19 ; James 5:20 ). It does not indeed positively follow that, because he prayed to One who was able in this sense to save him, his prayer was that he might be in this sense saved. It is, however, the natural inference. But, if so, two difficulties present themselves.

(1) How was such a prayer consistent with his distinct knowledge that death must be undergone, and his late strong rebuke to Peter for venturing to dissuade him from it?

(2) How can he be said to have been heard ( εἰσακουσθείς ) , since he was not saved from death in the sense intended? To the first of these questions the answer is that the prayer expressed, not the deliberate desire of his Divine will, but only the inevitable shrinking of the human will from such an ordeal as was before him. As man, he experienced this shrinking to the full, and as man he craved deliverance, though with entire submission to the will of the Father. His human will did not oppose itself to the Divine will: it conformed itself in the end entirely to it; but this according to the necessary conditions of humanity, through the power of prayer. Had it not been so with him, his participation in human nature would have been incomplete; he would not have been such as to be "touched with a feeling of our infirmities, being in all things tempted like as we are;" nor would he have stood forth for ever as the great Example to mankind. St. John, who so deeply enters into and interprets the mind of Christ, records an utterance before the agony which anticipates its meaning ( John 12:1-50 ): "The hour is come" (verse 23); and then (verse 27), "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour [cf. σώζειν ἐκ θανάτου ]; but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy Name." The "hour" was that of the drinking of the cup. "Father, save me from this hour" was the human craving of the agony; but still, "Father, glorify thy Name" was the essence of the prayer; and perfect submission to the Divine will was the outcome of it, after this troubling of his human soul. The mystery surrounding the whole subject of the Divine and human in Christ remains still. What was said with regard to it about the temptation in the wilderness ( Hebrews 4:15 ) is applicable also here. If it be further asked how it was that Christ, in his humanity, so shrank from the "cup" before him, seeing that mere men have been found to face death calmly in its most appalling forms, the answer may be found in the consideration of what this cup implied. It was more than physical death, more than physical pain, more than any sorrow that falls to the lot of man. Such expressions as ἤρξατο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν … περίλυπος ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου ( Matthew 26:37 , Matthew 26:38 ); ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν ( Mark 14:33 ); γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωυίᾳ ἐκτενεστερον προσηύχετο ( Luke 22:44 ); the bloody sweat, and the cry of "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"—convey in themselves the impression of a mysterious ordeal, beyond what we can fathom, undergone by the atoning Savior in that "hour" of the "power of darkness." Of the second difficulty mentioned above, as to how Christ was "heard," not having been saved "from death" in the apparent sense of his prayer, the solution may be that the prayer, conditioned as it was by εἰ δυνατὸν , was most truly answered by the angel sent to strengthen him, and the power thenceforth given him to "endure the cross, despising the shame." " Mortem ex qua Pater cum liberare posset, ne moreretur, tamen subiit, voluntati Patris obediens: ab horrore plane liberatus est per exauditionem Exauditus est, non ut ne biberet calicem, sed ut jam sine ullo horrore biberet: unde etiam per angelum corroboratus est " (Bengel). The example to us thus becomes the more apparent. For we, too, praying legitimately for release from excessive trial, may have our prayer best answered by grace given to endure the trial, and by "a happy issue" out of it; as was the case with Christ. For his bitter passion was made the path to eternal glory; and thus in the Resurrection too his prayer was answered. The exact meaning of εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας is not easy to determine. It is taken by a large proportion of commentators to mean "deliverance from his fear;" εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ being supposed to be a constructio praegnans in the sense of "heard so as to be delivered," and εὐλαβεία to denote the dread experienced in Gethsemane. So the old Italian Versions, and Ambrose, " exauditus a metu; " so Bengel, " ab horrore liberatus per exauditlonem ." This interpretation is upheld by Beza, Grotius, Tholuck, Hofmann, Ebrard, and many others; some of whom, less tenably (as Calvin, Hammond, Jackson), understand εὐλαβεία as meaning, not the fear felt, but the thing feted: " ab eo quod timebat " (Calvin). The objections to this view are

(1) the doubtfulness of the constructio praegnans (the instances adduced— ἐπήκουσέ μου εἰς πλατυσμόν , Psalms 118:5 ; ἐρραντισμένοι … ἀπὸ συνειδήσεας πονηρᾶς , Hebrews 10:22 —are not parallel); and

(2) the sense assigned to εὐλαβεία , since εὐλαβεῖσθαι and its derivatives, when used to express fear, denote usually, not a shrinking, but a wary or cautious fear, and commonly carry with them (in this Epistle and St. Luke especially) the idea of piety. Thus in Hebrews 11:7 , of Noah, εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασε κιβωτὸν : Hebrews 12:28 , μετ ̓ αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβεαίς : and in Luke 2:25 ; Acts 2:5 ; Acts 8:2 ; Acts 22:12 , εὐλαβής is synonymous with εὐσεβής . The rendering hence preferred by many, having the authority of Chrysostom, and among moderns of Lunemann, Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, is that of the Vulgate, "exauditus pro sua reverentia." So Vigilius, "propter timorem;" the A.V.," heard in that he feared," or, as in the margin, "heard for his piety;" and in the recent revision, "for his godly fear;" which is the A.V.'s rendering of εὐλαβεία in Hebrews 12:28 . The objection to the use of ἀπὸ to express the cause of his being heard is met by reference to the frequent usage of St. Luke, whose language most resembles that of our Epistle. Thus: ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ( Luke 19:3 ); ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς ( Luke 24:41 and Acts 12:14 ); ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου ( Acts 20:9 ); ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης ( Acts 22:11 ). The phrase, thus understood, brings out the more markedly the thoroughly human conditions to which Christ was subjected. It was not in right of his sonship that he was heard. He won his hearing by his human piety; though he was SON , and as such knew that his Father heard him always ( John 11:42 ), he learnt humanly his lesson of obedience. In the expression, καίπερ ὤν υἱὸς , Son is surely meant in the peculiar sense in which it has all along been applied to Christ, expressing mere than that his relation to God was that of any son to a father, and thus we perceive the full force of καίπερ . It is true that it was not till after the Resurrection that he attained his exalted position as SON (see under Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5 ); but still he was all along the Son, in virtue of his origin as well as of his destiny. Cf. ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ ( Hebrews 1:9 ). ὤν υἱὸς does not indeed, in itself, express that he was the Second Person of the Trinity (this application of the word υἱὸς being nowhere found in the Epistle); but it implies that, even in his state of humiliation, he was more than man; for there would be nothing very extraordinary, so as to justify καίπερ , in the case of an ordinary son learning obedience to his father through suffering. Recurring now to the question raised under verse 3, whether the high priest's obligation to offer in the first place for himself had any counterpart in the case of Christ, we may perceive such a counterpart in the agony, as above regarded. For, although for himself Christ needed no atonement, yet the "prayers and supplications" were offered in his own behalf, being due to his own entire participation in the conditions of humanity; the whole "agony and bloody sweat" were part of his own preparation and consecration for executing the office of a High Priest for others, and, like the Aaronic priest's offering for himself, they were the sign and evidence of his being one μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος . Thus ( χωρὶς ἀμαρτίας being all along understood) they answered truly to the preparatory part of Aaron's original consecration (Le 8:14-9:15), or to the high priest's own offering, before his offering for the people and entering behind the veil, on the Day of Atonement (Le Luke 14:6 ). It may be (though not necessarily so) that the word προσενέγκας in verse 7, corresponding with προσφέρειν in verse 3, is intended to suggest this analogy.