"Son of Man" or "Human Beings"?: Hebrews 2:5-9 and a Response to Craig Blomberg

Introduction

In the summer of 2006, approximately 150 scholars and students from around the world met at Scotland's oldest university, the University of St. Andrews.¹ The purpose of this conference was to present papers and discuss how the epistle to the Hebrews intersects with Christian theology. The meeting was second in a series of conferences aimed at bringing biblical scholars and Christian theologians together for cross-disciplinary dialogue. The conference produced two collections of essays, one of which contains an essay by Craig Blomberg, which is under consideration here. I was fortunate enough to attend both the Hebrews conference as well as Blomberg's presentation, which was subsequently published under the title, "‘But We See Jesus': The Relationship Between the Son of Man in Hebrews 2:6 and 2:9 and the Implications for English Translation."²

The purpose of this article is to evaluate Blomberg's argument favoring the anthropological interpretation of Heb 2:5-9 and to argue against his contention that the anthropological view be reflected in our modern English translations. He concludes that the TNIV does this admirably, and, in his view, "accomplishes all the necessary tasks" of translation.³ The point that I stress in the following pages is that Blomberg's preferred TNIV (as well as the NRSV) actually goes too far as a translation. Rather than leaving room for the Christological interpretation of these verses—whether or not one maintains this interpretation—a translation such as the TNIV makes the Christological view of these verses extremely difficult.⁴

I will begin by giving a brief overview of Blomberg's essay. This will be followed by an assessment and critique of Blomberg's exegesis. If, exegetically, his interpretation is questionable and another interpretation is viable, then we must conclude that it is inappropriate to rule out a viable interpretive option. Next, I will discuss the matter of translation and why gender-neutral language goes too far in this specific passage of Hebrews. The purpose of this article is not to argue for one particular interpretation (anthropological or Christological) or one particular translation ("essentially literal" or "functionally equal"), nor is it necessarily or specifically to show what I perceive to be some of the difficulties of gender-neutral translation.⁵ Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Blomberg's preferred translation of this text (TNIV) says too much in

Hebrews 2, and actually obscures an interpretation that is widely-held both in today's Hebrews scholarship as well as in the early church.⁶ As such, this translation does a disservice to readers and should be revised.

Overview of Blomberg's essay

The point of Professor Blomberg's essay is straightforward, and he is very clear and efficient in his argumentation. After voicing his displeasure with Poythress's recent analysis,⁷ Blomberg provides a brief introduction to the thorny exegetical issues surrounding this oft-debated text. He also gives a helpful summary of the two chief interpretations of Heb 2:6 and 2:9 (anthropological vs. Christological). He then states that though he is frequently inclined to "both-and" positions on matters of theological conundra, on the interpretation of these verses he is quite convinced of a "purely anthropological approach to verses 5-8."⁸ The balance of the essay is given to an exegetical defense of this interpretation, which is itself not a new interpretation.⁹ His contribution is in his application of his exegetical decisions to the issue of the translation of the passage for English Bibles. He concludes that the TNIV and NRSV are preferable over such "essentially literal" translations, such as the "somewhat retrograde"¹⁰ ESV. As I noted above, the purpose of this article is not necessarily to defend a particular interpretation or published translation,¹¹ but to assess Professor Blomberg's overall point regarding the application of his exegesis to translation. Some attention, however, must be given to his exegesis since it is upon this that his conclusion rests. To this matter we now turn our attention.

The Matter of Exegesis

The anthropological interpretation is not as obvious and clear as Blomberg suggests. He has painted himself into a bit of a corner given that he denies any Christological overtones at all until verse 9,¹² arguing for a purely anthropological interpretation of the verses from Psalm 8.

The γὰρ ("for") in v. 5, he argues, ties these verses to 2:1-4 (exhortation), and not to 1:13-14 (exposition). He writes, "The signs and wonders and other gifts of the Spirit represent God's foretaste of humanity's coming inheritance," and he adds that these Spirit-wrought "tokens of spiritual redemption and victory" were given to people and not angels. Thus, he concludes, verse 5 paves the way for the anthropological interpretation of verses 6 and following.¹³

While it is true that such distributions of the Spirit (πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς) are for people and not angels, there are two problems with Blomberg's view of verse 4. First, "distributions" of the Spirit are not the same as "gifts of the Spirit," and what is in view here is the actual distribution of the Spirit himself, and not "gifts that the Spirit gives" such as the charismatic spiritual gifts of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 12-14.¹⁴ The grammar makes an objective genitive¹⁵ here more natural, and the distribution of the Spirit himself fits well in the flow of verses 3-4, which themselves recall early church tradition (see Acts 2:1-4ff.; 8:14-17; 10:44-46; 19:6). Second, the whole point of such miracles and distributions is not who gets them (whether humans or angels), but rather that such divine actions corroborate the message that was first spoken by the Lord, then to those who heard, and finally to the author and his congregation; this is God's "testimony" to the authenticity of the gospel message.¹⁶ The emphasis is not on humanity who gets these gifts instead of angels, as Blomberg asserts.¹⁷

Further, Blomberg discounts the discourse analysis of Guthrie and Quinn on these verses,¹⁸ yet does not interact with their work. Discourse analysis simply must come into play in the course of interpreting Hebrews; this "word of exhortation" (13:22), being a sermon in written form, is an intricately-crafted literary gem that moves back and forth from exposition to exhortation (kerygma and parenesis), drawing its hearers' attention back to his kerygmatic argument by way of inclusio and hook word.¹⁹ The intervening exhortation (parenesis) is one of many warnings that punctuate the landscape of this homily. Verses 1-4 of Hebrews 2 break off the exposition of 1:5-14 in order to warn them not to neglect the message spoken by God through his Son in these "latter days" (cf. 1:1-2). Parenesis "interrupts" kerygma in 2:1-4, which then returns to kerygma in verse 5.²⁰ Yet Blomberg asserts that there is "no necessary reason" why the original audience would have heard 2:5 and thought to "jump back" to the thought flow of 1:5-14.²¹ Yet this "jumping back" is precisely what the author does repeatedly throughout his sermon. The topic of priesthood is introduced at 2:17-18 (before the exhortation of 3:1-4:13) and resumed at 4:14-16 (after this exhortation). The topic of Melchizedek and his priesthood is introduced at 5:11 (before the exhortation of 5:11-6:20) and then resumed in 6:20/7:1 (after this exhortation).²² In short, contrary to Blomberg's objections, "exhortative digression" is an integral part of Hebrews' discourse. The audience would have understood a resumption of argument after such a brief interlude.²³

One final point concerning Blomberg's exegesis of Heb 2:5 needs to be addressed—the meaning of "the coming world" (τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν). He claims that Adam and Eve were created and given dominion over "a coming world" that "is only just beginning to open up to them."²⁴ The problem with this is that this is not how the Genesis narrative reads. Genesis 1:26-31 recounts the creation of man and woman in the Imago Dei, which comes after the world that they were commanded to rule had been created (Gen 1:1-25). The Cultural Mandate of verses 26-28 was not to rule over "a coming world" (Blomberg), but to rule over the "fish of the sea and birds of the air" etc. that had already been created. Blomberg's interpretation of the Genesis narrative is unusual, and does not seem to flow from the natural reading of the creation account. Adam and Eve were made viceregents over this world, not "a coming world," or "a world that was coming into existence," and this is still the world (albeit fallen) over which humanity is presently summoned to rule. Presently, we are to rule over this world as God's vice regents just as were our first parents. The Cultural Mandate did not change nor was it removed after the Fall in Genesis 3.

Instead, what the writer of Hebrews means regarding "the coming world" is what Lane refers to as "the heavenly world to come." Lane is representative when he writes,

The writer had already identified the entrance of the Son into τὴν οἰκουμένην, the heavenly world of reality, at his exaltation as the occasion when the angels of God were commanded to worship him (see 1:6). He now takes up the thought again by designating the new creation designated by the Son's enthronement as τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν. This distinctive designation, which finds equivalent expression in μέλλουσαν αἰῶνος, "the age to come" (6:5), or πόλιν ... τὴν μέλλουσαν, "the city to come" (13:14), reflects a class of statements in the Psalter that proclaim the establishment of the eschatological kingdom of God.²⁵

Blomberg's interpretation of "coming world" is unconvincing to this writer and to much of broader Hebrews scholarship as well, which interprets τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν ("the coming world") not as the "already existing cosmos" as Blomberg asserts,²⁶ but the one to come.²⁷ In contrast, F. F. Bruce rightly ascertains the flow of thought: "If then this world to come has not been entrusted to angels for its administration, to whom has it been placed in subjection? To the Son of God, whom his Father has ‘appointed heir of all things' (1:2)."²⁸

In addition, when making his case for οἰκουμένην in 2:5, he fails to note that the same term is used in 1:6. This omission is puzzling, especially when both contexts deal with angels. Perhaps such an omission was simply an oversight, but no major commentary fails to cite 1:6 when discussing 2:5, and Blomberg's omission is striking. In my view, 1:6 does not help Blomberg's case, and in fact makes his view of 2:5 even less likely. This is important since if τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν is the coming world and not the present one, then Blomberg's interpretation becomes less likely.

This brief exegetical discussion has focused attention on Heb 2:5 since it puts the whole of verses 6-8 either on an anthropological or Christological footing. From this, I conclude with several observations. First, the author demonstrates a kerygmatic flow of thought up to 2:5, and therefore provides a connection between 2:1-4 and 2:5ff. Second, the interpretation of "coming world" (τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν) is critical, since, as Blomberg himself states, if it is the coming eschatological age, then the Christological interpretation is all but required.²⁹ In short, we are asked to accept Blomberg's interpretation in spite of the following points: (1) his problematic interpretation of 2:5 and τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν, (2) the flow of thought of the writer's kerygma, (3) all other NT uses of Psalm 8 are clearly Christological (which Blomberg acknowledges), (4), the witness of much of current Hebrews scholarship, and (5) the historic witness of the early church (which Blomberg acknowledges). Instead, he elevates the usage of Psalm 8 in Jewish sources over the witness of the NT writers, and considers the usage of Psalm 110 in Heb 1:13 to be in contradiction with the Christological interpretation of this verse as it relates to the usage of Psalm 8 in Heb 2:6-8. Again, this latter point is striking given that the compatibility of these two texts is demonstrated in other parts of the NT (see Eph 1:20-22; 1 Cor 15:25-27; cf. 1 Pet 3:22; Phil 3:21) where the already-not yet of NT eschatology is clearly in view. Such an alreadynot yet interpretation resolves any interpretational difficulties between Psalm 8 and 110. Additionally, Lane is correct to declare, "The tandem arrangement of these OT texts ... provides evidence for a common exegetical tradition upon which Christian writers drew."³⁰

My own interpretation is as follows: These verses continue the Christological line of thought that was interrupted by the exhortation of 2:1-4. What we see is an excerpt from Psalm 8 followed by the author's comments on it; such was a common practice in first century Jewish exposition. Through Psalm 8 the writer of Hebrews declares that all things are in subjection to the Ideal Man, Jesus Christ. Yet, it is also true that this full and final subjection has not yet been fully realized as Psalm 110 (recall 1:13). Thus, the common New Testament theme of the already and not yet is in play here, with the certainty of the theological reality awaiting its consummation in history and time.

In its original setting Psalm 8 referred to humanity and pointed back to the subjection of the world to Adam and Eve as God's vice-regents over the creation. We see in Genesis 1-2 the command to subdue the earth, rule over it, and to be fruitful in it (Gen 1:26-28; the Cultural Mandate). However, in his usage of Psalm 8, the writer of Hebrews is not interested in the psalm for what it says about humanity's rule, but rather in the inaugurated rule of the "Son of Man," Jesus Christ.³¹ The emphasis is on the exaltation and incarnation of the Son, and the usage of Psalm 8 accentuates the identification of Christ with humanity. Though the earth was made subject to man, due to the entrance of sin into the world, such dominion has never occurred. Rather, what is seen is a fallen world and the deplorable effects of sin. Yet, this psalm is consistently applied in the New Testament to Christ (Matt 21:16; 1 Cor 15:25-27; Eph 1:22; cf. 1 Pet 3:22; Phil 3:21). What our author means is that it is only Christ, as the true representative of humanity, who can fulfill this psalm. Christ has come to restore what man has lost. Hughes aptly writes, "Only in union with him [Christ] can man become man as God meant and made him to be."³² The psalm represents "ideal humanity," to which man has never attained due to sin. The psalm is therefore only perfectly fulfilled in the Ideal Man, Jesus Christ.³³ As Hooker states, "He has been crowned with the glory and honour promised to humanity in Psalm 8."³⁴ Christ fulfills these words in a far greater sense. As Adam and Eve were to have dominion over the creation, so also Christ is to have an eternal dominion over the world to come. In keeping with his use of the Old Testament elsewhere (such as 2:12-13; 10:5-10 ³⁵), the meaning of this passage has been "Christologically transposed into a higher key." Christ is the true representative of humanity, and as such He fulfills this psalm.

Theologically, the author's use of Psalm 8 is strategic. Notice that there are elements both of exaltation and incarnation. Regarding exaltation we get the statements, "you have crowned him with glory and honor" and "you have put all things in subjection under his feet." Regarding the incarnation, we get the statements, "you have made him for a little while lower than the angels." Many Hebrews scholars make the helpful point that the focus on Christ "shifts" from his status as enthroned ruler and sustainer of the universe (in Hebrews 1) to his role as the Son of Man as identified with humanity in 2:5-18. The focus shifts from enthronement to incarnation, from His place in heaven to His role on earth. As such, Psalm 8 is used by the writer of Hebrews since it contains both elements and is therefore transitional. Psalm 8 contains both ideas of "all things in subjection" to Him, as well as His being positionally "lower than the angels" (as a man) for "a little while."³⁶

If the interpretation proposed here is indeed accurate, then the purely anthropological interpretation of Psalm 8 ³⁷ is far less likely. This, in turn, would contrast with Blomberg's preferred anthropological translation as found in the TNIV. Such a translation obscures the Christological interpretation, which is well-attested in contemporary Hebrews scholarship. Moreover, the TNIV rendering rules out an interpretation that goes back to the earliest interpreters of the infant Church. To the matter of translation we now turn.³⁸

The Matter of Translation

The TNIV reads as follows; the gender-neutral terms are underlined.

⁵It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. ⁶But there is a place where someone has testified:
     "What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings  
     that you care for them?
     ⁷You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory 
     and honor
     ⁸and put everything under their feet." In putting everything under them, 
     God left nothing that is not subject to them.
Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. ⁹But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

As one can see, any reference to Jesus as "son of man" here is obscured, if not eliminated, by the translation of ἄνθρωπος and υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου with the gender-inclusive "mere mortals" and "human beings" in verse 6. Despite Blomberg's insistence to the contrary, readers of the TNIV are hard-pressed to interpret this view in any other way other than what the translation demands—the anthropological interpretation. Though the marginal note is better and somewhat helpful ("what is a human being that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?"), we question whether TNIV readers will take care to read these notes with consistency. At minimum, I would suggest that the text and marginal note readings should be reversed.

Gender neutral language is unnecessary here given that it obscures the interpretation that was most often held in ancient Christianity, as well as being the interpretation of leading Hebrews scholars over the past several decades. For example, as I scan the commentaries on my own shelves, I find the following who maintain the Christological interpretation: Lane writes, "The writer regarded the declarations of Ps 8:6-7 as independent statements descriptive of three stages in the experience of Jesus: (A) incarnation and humiliation...; (B) exaltation... ; and (C) final triumph..... [the writer of Hebrews] made the entire exposition subservient to the perspective of the exaltation glory into which Jesus has entered."³⁹ In his recent 2008 commentary, Thompson states, "The continuity with 1:5-14 implies the christological interpretation of the psalm."⁴⁰ Similarly, Bruce maintains the same, yet goes further arguing for Second Adam language.⁴¹ Noting the flow of thought from verse 5 to verse 6 he asks, "If then this world to come has not been entrusted to angels for its administration, to whom has it been placed in subjection? To the Son of God, whom his Father has ‘appointed heir of all things' (1:2)."⁴² Attridge argues this way, averring, "For Hebrews the psalm is not, primarily at least, a meditation on the lofty status of humankind in the created order, but an oracle that describes the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus."⁴³ See also Ellingworth, who writes, "the primary reference is to Christ, but that what is said of Christ in the psalm has immediate implications for believers."⁴⁴ To these could be added the scholarship of Bauckham,⁴⁵ Hooker,⁴⁶ Hughes,⁴⁷ G. Guthrie,⁴⁸ D. Guthrie,⁴⁹ Owen,⁵⁰ Phillips,⁵¹ as well as those in ancient Christianity.⁵²

As one can see, many of the best interpreters of Hebrews, whether modern or ancient, pastoral or scholarly, interpret these verses Christologically. The point that pertains to a modern translation is this: If so many of the best resources argue for the Christological view, then should any translation obscure such a viable and well-supported interpretation? It seems preferable and wise that where there is such an option as is present here, then the translator should not encroach on the domain that rightfully belongs to the exegete, pastor, or teacher.

What is perhaps most surprising is Blomberg's insistence that the TNIV does not obscure a possible Christological interpretation. He asserts that the TNIV "leaves the door open" for the Christological interpretation, while "naturally suggesting the anthropological interpretation."⁵³ Yet, I do not see how the text's rendering leaves the door open at all—one must flee to the marginal note for any hope of a Christological interpretation. This is precisely the issue here—Blomberg acknowledges the fact that a Christological understanding of this passage cannot be had by means of the TNIV translation. The "open door" to which he refers is merely the marginal note. It is true that "the translation committees of the NIV have made clear from their first edition onwards that marginal readings are always to be considered part of the text."⁵⁴ However, I submit that in such a case as this, it would be preferable for the translation itself not to take a side on this disputed point. In other words, it would be preferable for the translation itself to leave open both possibilities since the meaning of this text is so contested. Further, it is questionable as to whether a marginal note is sufficient when the text reading is so biased towards a specific interpretation, and as to whether the average reader would actually access the marginal notes.

Should anyone wish to have a translation that supports the anthropological interpretation, Blomberg concludes, "but leaves the door open for the Christological one in the text itself, without resorting to marginal alternatives, then the NRSV fits the bill admirably."⁵⁵ The NRSV translation renders verse 6 thusly, "What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals that you care for them?" It is puzzling to me that Blomberg asserts that the NRSV leaves the door open for the Christological interpretation in the text itself. He writes, "Here there is no ‘mere' in the text to trouble those who want to see Christ immediately in view from the outset."⁵⁶ Yet I do not see how the absence of the term "mere" makes the NRSV any better than the TNIV. How would the reader of the NRSV even know that the absence of a term ("mere") leaves the door open for the Christological interpretation?

I will conclude this section with a notable quote from Professor Morna Hooker, in her plenary address at the St. Andrews 2006 conference on Hebrews and Christian theology. Hooker had these words to say,

Now the author's interpretation of "man" and "son of man" in Psalm 8 is remarkable, even though modern translations, or many of them, do their best to insure that the readers of the English versions miss the significance of the passage totally, because they insist on using politically correct terms, such as "human beings," and "mortals." It seems to me that you've got to stick with "man" and "son of man" however much you may dislike the terms in order to grasp the author's point.⁵⁷

It is somewhat interesting that such an accomplished female New Testament scholar as Professor Hooker would be so adamant in her disdain for this gender-neutral language. While her point is that such translations obscure her preferred interpretation, which is Christological, my point is that a translation should not obscure such a wellattested interpretation to the point where it is unlikely for the average reader to be able to ascertain such an interpretation. While I do not expect Professor Blomberg to agree, I assert that such translations as the NASB, ESV, RSV, CSB, NET, NIV, NAB, NKJV do a fine job of translating this verse, albeit without the "political correctness" (to use Hooker's description) of the NRSV and TNIV. Further, since each of these particular English translations translate υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου as "son of man" and not "Son of Man" (notice the titular capitals) they should not be considered "Christological translations."⁵⁸

While it is true in some measure that "all translation is interpretation," there is the matter as to how much interpreting a translator should do. Further, there is a difference between lexical/linguistic interpretation and the kind of exegetical/theological interpretation of the TNIV, as seen here in Heb 2:6. I have argued, the gender-inclusiveness of the TNIV and NRSV overstep the boundaries of good translation practice at this point and in doing so obscure a well-attested and historical interpretation of these verses.⁵⁹ For this reason these translations are inadequate.

Conclusion

In the preceding pages, I have attempted to demonstrate a specific weakness in the TNIV (cf. NRSV) translation of Heb 2:6. This specific text has been the subject of much attention in previous years, and my specific purpose was to interact with Blomberg's rationale for his position on genderneutral translation of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2. First, I gave an overview of Blomberg's essay, in which his point is that the anthropological interpretation is so clear that it should be reflected in the text's published translation. The gender-neutrality of the TNIV in this passage "accomplishes all the necessary tasks" of translation.⁶⁰ Next, I interacted with and critiqued his exegesis of this passage, and then went on to question the translation of the TNIV. The point is simple, and is in fact the point of the present essay: If it could be shown, on exegetical grounds, that the anthropological interpretation is not as clear-cut as Blomberg suggests and that another interpretation is indeed quite viable, then the translation itself ought not rule out either interpretation. I find his interpretation to be unpersuasive; Blomberg is asking too much from his readers: we are asked to accept his interpretation in spite of: (1) his problematic interpretation of 2:5 and τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν, (2) the flow of thought of the writer's kerygma, (3) all other NT uses of Psalm 8 are clearly Christological (which Blomberg acknowledges), (4), the witness of much of current Hebrews scholarship, and (5) the historic witness of the early church (which Blomberg acknowledges). Instead, he elevates the usage of Psalm 8 in Jewish sources over the witness of the NT writers and considers the use of Psalm 110 in Heb 1:13 to be in contradiction with the Christological interpretation of this verse as it relates to the usage of Psalm 8 in Heb 2:6-8. I suggest that this asks too much.

Further, what is one to make of Blomberg's insistence that the TNIV "accomplishes all the necessary tasks" of translation? I suggest that in the matter of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2, gender-neutral language does not serve its readers. I conclude that on this point the TNIV is a retrogression from the NIV, which does a fine job in translating this text. The TNIV obscures the historical and, as I have argued, correct interpretation of the passage in question. I am not arguing that the translation must be "Christological," such as "What is Man ... the Son of Man." Rather, I suggest that the translation itself be left neutral in this instance, making allowances for either interpretation to flow from the translation. Interpretation on this level, I aver, is exactly the role of the pastor or commentator, and not the role of the translator.

Postscript:

Shortly after the preceding article was complete came the interesting and timely announcement from Zondervan that the TNIV would no longer be produced once the NIV is revised for 2011 and the NIV2011 goes to market (http://www.nivbible2011.com/index.php). Whether or not it will retain or revise certain gender-neutral readings (such as the passage from Hebrews 2 discussed in the preceding pages) remains to be seen. This writer is hopeful concerning the possibility of improvements to such a widely-used translation, and would call upon readers of JBMW to pray for the Committee on Bible Translation, Biblica, and Zondervan as they work to complete a noble and difficult task.