A brief note on Hebrews 1.6 (whenever again).

[Secret Alias]

Agreed.

[andrewcriddle]

Modern English translations of Hebrews 1.6 have to make a decision on the underlying Greek text, which bears an ambiguity with potential interpretive consequences. Here is my own translation of 1.5-6, preserving as closely as possible the wording and word order found in the verses:

For to which of the angels did he ever say: You are my son; today I have begotten you? And again [καὶ πάλιν]: I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me? And whenever again [ὅταν δὲ πάλιν] he should lead the firstborn into the inhabited world he says: And let all the angels of God worship him.

I call your attention to the word again. The first again, part of the expression and again in verse 5, is easy to interpret: it represents a bullet point, as it were, marking off another quotation from scripture. This exact expression is used elsewhere in Hebrews (Hebrews 2.13; 10.30) in exactly the same way. It is also found, to the same effect, in John 19.37; Romans 15.7, 10, 11, 12; and 1 Corinthians 3.20.

The second again, however, belongs to a different expression, and its position makes it ambiguous. Is it another bullet point, introducing another quotation from scripture? Or is it to be taken with the verb that comes immediately after it, marking a second leading into the world? The translations differ. The RSV, for example, opts for the former:

And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

The NASB opts for the latter:

And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."

This reading, taking the adverb again as modifying the subsequent verb, would imply a second bringing of the son into the world (9.28 might be relevant here); it has happened once, and now it is happening again. (Lest it seem unusual to introduce a second leading in so soon in the epistle, without describing even a first leading in yet, consider that Hebrews 1.3 might be read as implying the first, especially to a readership for whom the basics are generally being assumed, as Hebrews 6.1-2 implies.) So obviously our interpretation depends on how we apply this humble adverb.

I admit I myself am undecided on this issue. There are arguments to be made on both sides, I think.

First up is the question: Can the adverb again in 1.6 indeed be taken as a bullet point like the one in 1.5, even though it is part of a totally different construction and the adverb is sitting right next to the verb? After all, both our author and others seem to prefer the construction καὶ πάλιν for this purpose, and some commentators suggest that the word order absolutely disallows such a reading. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, for instance, writes:

To take πάλιν, however, ... as Hebrews 1:5, i.e. merely as the formula for linking on a new citation, is forbidden by the position of the words.

That ellipsis, however, is actually a list of 21 names of commentators who think otherwise, to wit, that this construction can preserve the adverb as a bullet point for another scriptural quotation (or, as Meyer words it, the formula for linking on a new citation). For my own part, I have done some Greek phrase searching, and I have found the following passage in John Chrysostom, Homily 14 on 1 Timothy (Greek text here or here):

And the [monastic] songs themselves too are suitable and replete with love toward God. In the nights, they say, lift up your hands unto God; and again [καὶ πάλιν]: With my soul have I desired you in the night, yea, with my spirit within me will I seek you early [Isaiah 26.9], and also the songs of David, that cause fountains of tears to flow. For when he sings, saying [Ὅταν γὰρ ᾄδῃ λέγων]: I am weary with my groaning, all the night I make my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears [Psalm 6.6]; and again [καὶ πάλιν]: I have eaten ashes like bread [Psalm 102.9]; and again [καὶ πάλιν]: What is man that you are mindful of him [Psalm 8.4]? Man is like to vanity, his days as a shadow that passes away [Psalm 144.4]; be not afraid when one is made rich, when the glory of his house is increased [Psalm 49.16]; and again [καὶ πάλιν]: Who makes men to be of one mind in a house [Psalm 68.6], and [καὶ]: Seven times a day do I praise you, because of your righteous judgments [Psalm 119.164]; and again [καὶ πάλιν]: At midnight will I rise to give thanks unto you because of your righteous judgments [Psalm 119.62], and [καὶ]: God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave [Psalm 49.15], and [καὶ]: Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me [Psalm 23.4]; and again [καὶ πάλιν]: I will not be afraid for the terror by night, nor for the arrow that flies by day, nor for the pestilence that walks in darkness, nor for the destruction that wastes at noonday [Psalm 91.5-6]; and [καὶ πάλιν]: We are counted as sheep for the slaughter [Psalm 43.22], he shows forth their ardent love toward God. And when, again, they sing with the angels [Ὅταν δὲ πάλιν μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ᾄδωσι], for angels also are singing then, saying [λέγοντες]: Praise the Lord from the heavens [Psalm 148.1], while we are yawning, scratching, snoring, or simply lying supine while considering countless deceits, what kind of thing is it for them to spend the whole of the night in this [activity]?

Where Hebrews 1.5-6 has one scriptural quotation introduced by καὶ πάλιν and then another by ὅταν δὲ πάλιν, Chrysostom has a relentless flood of quotations introduced by καὶ πάλιν and then another by ὅταν δὲ πάλιν. It does not appear to me that the monks are singing with the angels again; rather, it appears to me that the again is just another bullet point, albeit one phrased differently because of the subordinate clause introduced by ὅταν. (It would be great to get some people versed in Greek either to back me up in this or to let me know where I have gone wrong.)

So I do think that the again can be read as just another bullet point here, with no need to read the verse as a second occasion for leading the son into the world.

It can, but should it? The verse states that the angels are to worship him at this moment of introduction into the inhabited world (τὴν οἰκουμένην). This angelic worship would accord nicely if we take Hebrews 2.5 as applying to this whole discourse on angels and suppose that the author has been talking all along about the inhabited world to come (τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν), which world we might suppose, and not without reason, would be best inaugurated by a second introduction of the son, since, if we take his first introduction as the one in which he took on a body (Hebrews 10.5) and partook of blood and flesh (Hebrews 2.14), it is all too tempting to accept those ensuing days of his flesh (Hebrews 5.7) as the time frame when he was apparently lower than the angels. And I am not certain that the angels worshiping him in this time frame is a good match for him being lower than the angels.

Also, if we take this as a second introduction, then Hebrews 9.28 is right there waiting for us with its explicit second appearance... unless Bernard Muller is correct that Hebrews 9.27-28 is an interpolation, a suggestion that is not completely without force for me.

I realize that is a lot of stuff to work through; I highly recommend copying and pasting the relevant verses into a single file so you can peruse them all at once. It is easy to forget that some of them are there if you do not take measures to keep them all before you.

So what do you think? Should Hebrews 1.6 be read as saying that the angels are to worship the son upon his first introduction to the world (taking again as a bullet point)? Or should it be read as saying that the angels are to worship him upon his second introduction (taking again with the verb)? And, of course, why?

Ben.

Hi Ben

Hesitantly I think that the first part

For to which of the angels did he ever say: You are my son; today I have begotten you? And again [καὶ πάλιν]: I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me? A

is referring to the status of the Son in heaven before the creation of the world. While the second part

And whenever again [ὅταν δὲ πάλιν] he should lead the firstborn into the inhabited world he says: And let all the angels of God worship him.

refers to the status of the Son after being sent into the world.

I.E. the two parts are referring to an earlier and later state of affairs, but not to two sendings, but to the situation before sending and the situation after.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben

Hesitantly I think that the first part

For to which of the angels did he ever say: You are my son; today I have begotten you? And again [καὶ πάλιν]: I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me?

is referring to the status of the Son in heaven before the creation of the world. While the second part

And whenever again [ὅταν δὲ πάλιν] he should lead the firstborn into the inhabited world he says: And let all the angels of God worship him.

refers to the status of the Son after being sent into the world.

I.E. the two parts are referring to an earlier and later state of affairs, but not to two sendings, but to the situation before sending and the situation after.

Hi, Andrew.

So you do not see any tension in the son being lower than the angels at the time that the angels are enjoined to worship him?

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Ben

Hesitantly I think that the first part

For to which of the angels did he ever say: You are my son; today I have begotten you? And again [καὶ πάλιν]: I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me?

is referring to the status of the Son in heaven before the creation of the world. While the second part

And whenever again [ὅταν δὲ πάλιν] he should lead the firstborn into the inhabited world he says: And let all the angels of God worship him.

refers to the status of the Son after being sent into the world.

I.E. the two parts are referring to an earlier and later state of affairs, but not to two sendings, but to the situation before sending and the situation after.

Hi, Andrew.

So you do not see any tension in the son being lower than the angels at the time that the angels are enjoined to worship him?

Ben.

Again Hesitantly I think that the worship of the angels may be the worship given as Christ ascends back to Heaven as in the last chapter of the Ascension of Isaiah.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Again Hesitantly I think that the worship of the angels may be the worship given as Christ ascends back to Heaven as in the last chapter of the Ascension of Isaiah.

Andrew Criddle

So the oikoumene is heaven?

[andrewcriddle]

Again Hesitantly I think that the worship of the angels may be the worship given as Christ ascends back to Heaven as in the last chapter of the Ascension of Isaiah.

Andrew Criddle

So the oikoumene is heaven?

No oikoumene is IMO the earth or at least the created material world.

Christ at the time when he begins his ascent from earth back to Heaven (i.e. before he has returned to Heaven) is worshipped by the angels.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Again Hesitantly I think that the worship of the angels may be the worship given as Christ ascends back to Heaven as in the last chapter of the Ascension of Isaiah.

Andrew Criddle

So the oikoumene is heaven?

No oikoumene is IMO the earth or at least the created material world.

Christ at the time when he begins his ascent from earth back to Heaven (i.e. before he has returned to Heaven) is worshipped by the angels.

Andrew Criddle

Why does the phrase when he leads him into (or introduces him to) into the world suggest to you that the son is leaving the world? (I feel like I may be missing something crucial here.)

[andrewcriddle]

No oikoumene is IMO the earth or at least the created material world.

Christ at the time when he begins his ascent from earth back to Heaven (i.e. before he has returned to Heaven) is worshipped by the angels.

Andrew Criddle

Why does the phrase when he leads him into (or introduces him to) into the world suggest to you that the son is leaving the world? (I feel like I may be missing something crucial here.)

It is more likely I fear that I am wrong.

I'm paraphrasing it as the angels worshipped Christ during the period in which Christ was sent into the world by God.
But this may not be a plausible reading.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

No oikoumene is IMO the earth or at least the created material world.

Christ at the time when he begins his ascent from earth back to Heaven (i.e. before he has returned to Heaven) is worshipped by the angels.

Andrew Criddle

Why does the phrase when he leads him into (or introduces him to) into the world suggest to you that the son is leaving the world? (I feel like I may be missing something crucial here.)

It is more likely I fear that I am wrong.

I'm paraphrasing it as the angels worshipped Christ during the period in which Christ was sent into the world by God.
But this may not be a plausible reading.

Andrew Criddle

Ooohhh, you are thinking of an entire period of time (days of his flesh, and all that), not the actual act of coming out of or going into the world.