An Exegetical Study of the Construction εἰς υἱόν in Hebrews 1:5
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Study of the Construction εἰς υἱόν in Hebrews 1:5 is based on a b-greek discussion from January 18th, 2014. The initial query centers on the author’s choice of the construction καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν in Hebrews 1:5, a quotation from Psalm 2:7, questioning its significance compared to a simple predicate nominative construction such as υἱός. The discussion notes that the predicate nominative form appears to be slightly more common in the LXX and GNT.
The main exegetical issue concerns whether the use of the preposition εἰς with the accusative (εἰς υἱόν) conveys a distinct nuance, specifically indicating a change of status or designation, as opposed to merely stating existence or identity (predicate nominative). The initial discussion posits that the εἰς + accusative construction might denote a ‘status or change of status,’ which could align with the semantic range of εἰς indicating a goal or suitability (BDAG). This interpretation is explored through comparative examples from Ruth 4:15 and Hebrews 8:10, suggesting a dynamic aspect to the relationship or identity described. Conversely, the predicate nominative construction, as seen in Genesis 17:8, is presented as potentially focusing more on the being rather than a gained status. The complexity of this distinction is highlighted by verses like Revelation 21:7, which uses both constructions in close proximity, thus necessitating a careful grammatical and theological analysis.
καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν (Hebrews 1:5, Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- No significant textual variants in the core phrase καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν compared to Nestle 1904. Both editions present an identical reading for this specific clause.
Textual criticism confirms the reading of Hebrews 1:5 as καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν across major critical editions, including NA28, which aligns with Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT. Lexically, the preposition εἰς (BDAG) carries a range of meanings, including “extension involving a goal” (BDAG 1) or functioning as a “marker of goals involving affective/abstract/suitability aspects” (BDAG 4). This semantic range allows for interpretations that suggest a transition or designation of status, moving into a particular role or identity. This construction, particularly when combined with a form of the verb εἶναι (‘to be’), is widely recognized as a Semitism, reflecting the Hebrew syntax where the verb ‘to be’ (היה) followed by the preposition לְ (lĕ, ‘to/for’) and a noun often signifies ‘to become’ or ‘to serve as’ (e.g., to become a people, a son, a father). Consequently, ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν might be understood not simply as ‘he will be my son’ in a static sense, but rather ‘he will become my son’ or ‘he will be for me a son’ in a functional or designative sense, implying a relationship established or affirmed.
Translation Variants
The grammatical structure ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν presents an interpretive challenge regarding the precise nuance intended by the author of Hebrews. The primary point of contention is whether the use of εἰς + accusative in conjunction with the verb ‘to be’ (ἔσται) emphasizes a dynamic aspect—a becoming or designation of a new status—as opposed to a more static statement of identity implied by a simple predicate nominative (ἔσται μοι υἱός, ‘he will be my son’).
Proponents of the ‘status change’ interpretation highlight the common use of εἰς in Greek to denote purpose, result, or direction into something. When paired with the verb εἶναι, especially in a context quoting a Hebrew original (Psalm 2:7, which uses לְבֶן, ‘as a son’), it strongly suggests a Hebraic idiom for “to become” or “to be for the purpose of.” Examples cited in the initial discussion support this: Ruth 4:15 (ἔσται σοι εἰς ἐπιστρέφοντα ψυχὴν, ‘he will be to you for the restorer of life’) and Hebrews 8:10 (ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν, ‘they will be for me a people’). In these instances, the construction seems to mark a transition into a specific role or a re-establishment of a covenantal relationship, rather than merely describing an existing state. For instance, in Hebrews 8:10, Israel was already God’s people, but the new covenant implies a renewed or redefined relationship, hence ‘they will become my people’ in a new sense.
Conversely, the predicate nominative construction, such as in Genesis 17:8 (ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς θεός, ‘I will be their God’), is often interpreted as focusing on the inherent being or unchanging reality of a state. Here, God declares his unalterable relationship with Abraham’s descendants. However, the distinction is not always clear-cut, as illustrated by Revelation 21:7, which employs both constructions in close proximity: ἔσομαι αὐτῷ θεὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι υἱός (‘I will be his God and he will be my son’). The second clause here uses the predicate nominative for ‘son,’ while other versions might use εἰς υἱόν in similar contexts. This fluidity suggests that while εἰς + accusative might lean towards a functional or designative emphasis, the predicate nominative can also convey a similar sense of destiny or established relationship, particularly in a biblical context heavily influenced by Semitic thought.
Rhetorically, the use of εἰς υἱόν in Hebrews 1:5, within a Christological argument establishing the Son’s superiority, could underscore the unique and designated status of Jesus as the Son, particularly in his exalted role. It moves beyond a mere statement of his divine nature to emphasize his active role and position within the divine economy, especially in relation to the inheritance mentioned in Hebrews 1:4.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The phrase καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν in Hebrews 1:5, influenced by its Semitic background, likely carries a nuance of designation, purpose, or a dynamic ‘becoming’ rather than a static statement of being. The author’s choice of the εἰς + accusative construction, while not necessarily indicating that Jesus was not previously the Son, emphasizes his appointed or revealed status as Son, particularly in the context of the divine decree in Psalm 2:7 and his subsequent exaltation. This understanding aligns with the larger Christological argument of Hebrews, which highlights the Son’s unique position and function.
- And he will be for me a Son. This translation emphasizes the relational aspect and the unique position conferred upon the Son, reflecting the “for the purpose of” or “in the capacity of” sense of εἰς.
- And he will become my Son. This option foregrounds the dynamic element of designation or appointment, particularly appropriate if the context implies a fulfillment of prophecy or a new stage in the Son’s redemptive work.
- And he will be designated as my Son. This rendering explicitly brings out the idea of official appointment or declaration, capturing the authoritative pronouncement from Psalm 2:7 as applied to Christ’s unique status.