Part eight of the series “Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace.”
Thus, we have demonstrated the importance of patristic evidence for the textual criticism of Heb 2:9. Because Origen’s citations pass the appropriate tests (the grammar of the citation is not significantly affected; the author may be quoting directly from a text; our critical edtion is reliable; and the readings are preserved in the original Greek), it should be reckoned as a powerful witness to the text of Hebrews during that time period. Moreover, since in context it makes little difference which variant he chooses, Origen’s witness seems rather strong, at least for Alexandria.
Further, we have illustrated the importance of internal evidence for assessing this particular variant. χωρὶς is not only the lectio difficilior, but also a more common word in Hebrews than χάρις, and, while its alteration can be explained by scribal lapse, it is more likely the work of a theologically motivated scribe.
When this internal evidence and the evidence of Origen and other patristic authors is combined with the manuscript evidence that heavily favors χάριτι, we are confronted with the realities of an early christological debate that has manifested itself as a text-critical quandary.
The earliest version of the text probably read χωρὶς θεοῦ, but proto-orthodox scribes, sensitive to the “heretical” practice of splitting Christ into multiple persons, have elected to alter the text in an effort to reclaim Paul as a witness to their view.
Article Series - Hebrews 2:9 - Separated by Grace
- Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 1)
- Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 2)
- Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 3)
- Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 4)
- Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 5)
- Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 6)
- Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 7)
- Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace (Part 8)
Hi Stephen
You may be interested to know that Kevin Brown ( a theology student) shares some of your views. You may want to check his website here:
http://diglotting.com/textual-criticism/how-did-jesus-die
I appreciate your generosity in sharing this information as I had come across this matter when reading Origen (as part of my study for my current book on the atonement). Your argument is interesting, but perhaps you will consider possible bias towards your own theological position, as I noticed:
‘Like you, I found the variant reading in Hebrews 2.9 to be spiritually significant. How painful the work on the cross must truly have been if God’s very being had to be split in order that Jesus might “become sin.”
Nevertheless, the internal evidence as you describe centers upon the reasons for a deliberate change from ‘apart’ to ‘grace’. Of course, one could argue that the reverse of your argument is true. However, the internal evidence should not be restricted to the immediate passage in question. If there is a question about how we should understand the context, we need to consider the whole epistle and related comments. In my book, I consider whether it was possible for Jesus ever to have become separated from the Father – and there are clear statements in Hebrews, I believe, supporting the view that His separation was only in a physical sense, not spiritual. The phrase ‘apart from God’ simply does not agree with the context of the letter. Though I can understand why someone like Origen might want to favour the variant reading of this passage taken in isolation from the context of the whole!
I hope you may find time to review my book – an extended version of the print publication is now available free online. Regards.
Hi Norman.
Thanks for your response.
I looked at some of the passages in your book that dealt with this separation issue. I’m not understanding why you think the theology of Hebrews would disallow the text to read “apart from.” It seems to me that Hebrews stresses some changes that happen to Jesus. For example, you have multiple references to him “becoming perfect/whole” (I realize this depends on how you take ginomai in these passages), as well as the idea in Hebrews 5 that Christ learned obedience at the Cross through suffering. That particular section seems to stress that Christ had to be perfected so that he could become the source of salvation.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
May the peace of Christ be with you…
Hi Stephen
Thank you for giving such a quick response. I will have come back to you on this as I’m a little pressed for time right now. I have partly published chapter 12 online today and this may interest you as it deals with some matters to which you refer. At some stage, I will place an article on the variants of Heb.2:9 in the Addenda (with ref. to your blog for further info., if you have no objection). Blessings!
Norman McIlwain\’s last [type]: \"Welcome to bible-study-online.org!\"
Hi Stephen,
In Hebrews 9 we can read of the offering that Jesus made as our High Priest, after the order of Melchizedek: ‘…who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God’ (v14). The Holy Spirit was the One through whom Christ offered up His life to God. There is no indication of separation here. Indeed, if the anointing had left Him, then Jesus would no longer have been ‘the Christ’ – no longer anointed. The idea of separation occurring at the cross is, as we know, a Gnostic one. There was abandonment, of course, in that Jesus was given up to suffer – but not spiritual. – Then, why should anyone think there may have been any spiritual abandonment? Did Jesus actually ‘become sin’ in the eyes of God?
Keeping to Hebrews, we might note in that same verse (14) that Jesus presented Himself ‘without spot’ to God – not a reference to His physical condition after a Roman scourging! In fact, the righteousness and sinlessness of our High Priest receives special emphasis: ‘…holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners’ (7:26). He was ‘without sin’ – not His, not ours (4:15). Why? – Because He was undefiled, separate from sinners, without spot, as our High Priest. His blood (symbolic of His life) purifies the unclean. In no way was it permissible for a high priest to offer up an unclean sacrifice. Therefore, our High Priest offered up His own blood untainted by sin. Yes, Jesus was the sin offering for our sakes – and to be so, He had to be without sin. As we read in Hebrews, Jesus Christ – the same yesterday, today, and forever (13:8). His purity does not change. At the cross, the Truth of God remained the Truth. Here, He perfected His witness for mankind in all righteousness and faith, that we might believe in Him, repent and be saved.
I have limited this response to the epistle in question, but a more comprehensive answer will be found in my book. Most is available at present online and I hope to complete it in the next few months. Any feedback is welcome. Thanks again.
Blessings!