Gender Neutral Confusion and Hebrews 2

Although there is much to be said for using inclusive and gender neutral language, sometimes things can go horribly wrong.

In a Bible study group recently we were looking at Hebrews 2. As is common, there were a variety of English translations being used by different people in the group. Some were using the more recent version of the NIV (either the 2011 version or TNIV). As we interacted over 2:6-8, the gender neutral pluralization wreaked havoc as we tried to understand the text. It was a classic case of gender neutral translation at its worst. At best the pluralization biased the interpretation of the text, and at worst it mistranslated the text and hindered people from a correct understanding by obscuring the meaning. You can see the differences in the versions below (gender neutral pluralization highlighted):

But 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? You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor and 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. (TNIV)

For in one place the Scriptures say, “What are mere mortals that you should think about them, or a son of man that you should care for him? Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. You gave them authority over all things.” Now when it says “all things,” it means nothing is left out. But we have not yet seen all things put under their authority. (NLT)

But there is a place where someone has testified: “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor and 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. (NIV 2011)

It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honour, putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. (ESV)

The problem is that the pluralization slants the whole of 2:6-8 to be talking about humans in general. Yet there is a significant question mark as to whether the author is applying it all to Jesus (singular!). Clearly in 2:9 the language of Psalm 8 is applied to Jesus. Yes, there is some debate as to whether 2:6-8 is used in Hebrews to refer to Jesus or to humans or both (with different commentators taking different positions), but that debate is muted if gender neutral pluralization is used.

Of course, the pluralized translations do have footnotes showing they are not oblivious to the problem, but still, in this case, I think it would be better if the roles of main text and foot note were reversed. Or at least if they used the commonly accepted singular uses of they/their/them rather than pluralizing (since it is supposed to be a current English translation).

In any case, others have already written much about these issues in general (eg here and here). Nonetheless this specific case is a fresh reminder to always read our Bibles carefully and with understanding.

Oh, and by the way, personally, I take 2:8 as relating to humans, but I take Psalm 8 as historically speaking about creation and at the same time eschatologically speaking of the new creation--"the world to come" (Hebrews 2:5)--with Jesus as the prototypical new man/"last Adam".

The use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12...Who is speaking to whom?

At first glance the way the author of Hebrews 1 uses Psalm 102:25-27 may seem perplexing. Continuing from 1:8 ("But to the son..."), he seems to be quoting Psalm 102:25-27 as words directed by God to the Son, the Christ or Messiah. Yet when we first read the words of the Psalm, they may seem more like they are directed towards God rather than the Messiah, especially as much of the rest of the Psalm seems to be the words of someone, say the Messiah, speaking to God, rather than the other way around (cf the opening words in verse 1, "Hear my prayer, O LORD, let my cry come to you!"). So how do we make sense of the use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12?

Here are the main options I have found:

1. The author of Hebrews boldly and matter-of-fact-ly takes a clear reference to God, the LORD, and attributes it to Jesus. While it may seem like a misuse of Scripture, the argument goes that it is done on sound theological basis and logical syllogism: since Jesus is God, even LORD (= YHWH), therefore any reference to God or LORD in the Old Testament can be legitimately also transferred to Jesus. It doesn't matter at all whether there are any specific indicators for the quotation that it has reference to the Christ, because the basis of usage is not on the "Messiah-ship" of Jesus, but rather just to do with his "LORD-ship". It can also take its lead from the argument of Jesus in John 10:35-36. This is a position we see in the commentary by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (pp.67-68).
2. The author of Hebrews attributes to Jesus a reference to God because the reference also has Messianic indicators. This option is a bit more focused and nuanced than the first option, but includes the argument of the first option. Not only does the author feel free to use a reference to God on the basis of the divinity of Christ, but also because the Psalm is referring to God in ways that should also be considered Messianic or relating to the work and coming of the Christ. Calvin's commentary takes this approach. He says, "I indeed allow that Christ is not named in any part of the Psalm; but it is yet plain that he is so pointed out, that no one can doubt but that his kingdom is there avowedly recommended to us. Hence all the things which are found there, are to be applied to his person; for in none have they been fulfilled but in Christ...".
3. The author of Hebrews understands the quotation to actually be words of God addressed to the Messiah. This option sees Psalm 102:25-27 as words spoken by God addressed to the Psalmist (or perhaps some other person), understood to be the Messiah. The beginning of the quotation of God's address starts in the middle of verse 23, according to the LXX translation, and this option understands the author of Hebrews as following the same reading as does the LXX. (The difference between the LXX and traditional Hebrew rendering is accounted for by the question of what Hebrew vowels to use in a certain word.) This option also finds strength in accounting for the general Messianic nature and recognition of the Psalm, as well as less awkwardly assimilating into the presentation of the author Hebrews, since it straight-forwardly takes Psalm 102:25-27 as words of God addressed to the Son (if we accept the meaning of the LXX translation, and then we have all the quotations of 1:5, 1:6, 1:8-9, 1:10-12 and 1:13 as words of God to the Son). This is an approach espoused by Don Carson in his devotional reading notes. Also in an article by Stephen Voorwinde in Vox Reformata. It still has a little awkwardness in that it may seem anachronistic for God to address the Messiah as "God" and "YHWH". However, this is not insurmountable, for similar reasons as in the options above. Also, anachronistic reading is mainly an issue if we have problems with the divine authorship of the Scriptures.

In thinking about this question, I also toyed with another option. Perhaps the author of Hebrews was making a more oblique reference, or that this quotation was not meant to be taken on its own merits, but in combination with the other quotations. Perhaps he did understand that Psalm 102 was referring to God, but that the same things are transferred by inheritance to the Son, since the Son sits at the right hand of God, being exalted to the same authority (cf 1:4 and 1:13). Such an option squares more naturally with the traditional Hebrew reading of Psalm 102 while avoiding the difficulties of not sufficiently distinguishing between God and the Son (which the author clearly does distinguish in chapter 1). However, on balance, given that it is a somewhat convoluted option, it is probably best to go with option 3 above, as a more straight-forward and very acceptable option.

Packer on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics

I was reading an article by J. I. Packer called "Encountering Present-Day Views of Scripture" (originally from a 1978 publication), in the book Honouring the Written Word of God: Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer Volume 3. I thought this quote was good regarding a common malpractice in hermeneutics because of a view of inerrancy. Genesis 1 being a particular flashpoint in relation to the creation-evolution/age-of-the-earth debates, as also OT prophecy as related to millenial views and the prospects of ethnic Israel and Judaism. If you don't read Scripture the same way as someone else, there can be too quick a jump to a charge or suspicion of doubting the trustworthiness, authority, or inerrancy of the Scriptures. Anyhow, here is the quote:

A warning should perhaps be voiced here against the psychological trap (for it is psychological, a matter of falsely associated feelings, rather than logical, a formal mistake in inference) of supposing that the confession of inerrancy involves a commitment to treat all narrative and predictive passages in Scripture as if they were written according to the conventions that would apply to ordinary English prose used today for these purposes, rather than the conventions of their own age and literary genre. Put thus, the mistake sounds too silly for anyone to make, but in fact it is made frequently: hence Pinnock's complaint that not enough care is taken to attach the necessary hermeneutical qualifications to inerrancy as an idea. And one can see how the mistake happens: people feel, sincerely if confusedly, that the only natural, straightforward way to express their certainty that the contents of Scripture are contemporary in their application is to treat Scripture as contemporary in its literary form. So, for example, Genesis 1 is read as if it were answering the same questions as today's scientific textbooks aim to answer, and Genesis 2 and 3 are read as if they were at every point prosaic eyewitness narratives of what we would have seen if we had been there, ignoring the reasons for thinking that in these chapters "real events may be recorded in a highly symbolic manner," and books like Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation are expounded in total disregard of the imaginative conventions of apocalyptic. But it does not follow that be-cause Scripture records matters of fact, therefore it does so in what we should call matter-of-fact language.