# Help with Hebrews 2:6-8 and Psalm 8:4-6



## ElainaMor (Jan 22, 2015)

First I am sorry if this has been discussed here before, I searched and couldn't find anything so I decided to post. I am reading through Hebrews using the NLT and Hebrews 2:6-8 is translated:

6 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?
7 Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor. 
8 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.

This is different from how I remember this verse being worded in my NKJV, specifically saying "them" instead of "he." I looked it up in a couple different translations and it seems like the NIV 2011 and NLT are the only ones that translate Hebrews 2:6-8 and Psalm 8:4-6 this way. Is it an inaccurate translation of this passage? or just a word choice that had to be made by the translation team?

Thanks for any help.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 22, 2015)

The underlying Greek word for "him", or "them", in Heb. 2:6-8 is the Greek word for man. The ending of the Greek word specifies whether it is singular or plural. In these verses it is singular so it means "him" not "them".

How do various English translation deal with this word?
"him" - KJV, NKJV, NIV(1984), ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV
"them" - NLT, NIV(2011)

The entire context is Heb. 2:5-9. The "him" being referred to is finally given in verse 9, "but we see Jesus".


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 22, 2015)

Part of the problem is simply that the "translation" is in it's predecessor's tradition (_The Living Bible,_ a paraphrase), and puts the text into "modern idiom" rather than presenting you with the writer's own thoughts, presented in his own ancient idiom (which it is then the reader's duty to enter for understanding).

New Living Translation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"What is MAN (Heb. enosh, Gk. anthropos)..." The Hebrew is from an adjective, turned into a noun; the context is generally determinative whether it is singular or plural. The Greek is singular, in both the NT and the LXX (Gk. OT).

The Heb. term apparently relates to human _mortality,_ he is a _mortal._ The Gk. term may be used in a gender-specific way, or to speak of mankind still utilizing a singular idea.

The translators/paraphrasors have mucked up (in my opinion) the Heb. poetry and the Gk. rendering that is pretty faithful to the original, presumably in their effort to be politically-correct. "Man" should be singular: "What is *a man*," says David, "that you should be mindful of him...," in parallel with the singular "son of man" (Heb. "ben-adam."), "and *the son of man* that you visit him."

The fact that "mortal-man" is singular further emphasizes the fact that ALL humanity is one in this humility, that we are in some sense reducible to one essence. Making "him" into "them" doesn't aid in interpretation--it obscures. It reduces both the quality of the translation, and the depth of meaning inherent in words. Poetry frequently has thick and deep meaning.

The following vv focus on the "son of man," who is the ultimate reference of v6 (NT). Again, the translators have decided to pluralize all the "hims" (Gk. "autos" used repeatedly in singular accusative, genitive, and dative forms). In this, they even fail to cohere with the writer of Hebrews' intent: which is clearly to put the focus on Jesus, the Son of Man of prophecy.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 22, 2015)

Elaina, 

The word "anthropos" (man) in Heb. 2:6 is being used in the sense of "mankind," so the pronoun "them" was chosen to reflect that plurality. As it has already been pointed out, the actual Greek pronoun used in verses 6-8 is singular and literally means "him." The pronoun "him" is simply a poetic way to personify "mankind." I don't care for paraphrases or dynamic equivalence because they take interpretive liberties, right or wrong, such as the one we see here. They can cause unnecessary confusion so it's best to stick with a good formal equivalent


----------



## KeithW (Jan 23, 2015)

I don't follow how "him" in vv.6-8 can mean "mankind". We have to look to the entire context (mentioned previously) to see if "him" is more clearly defined.



ESV said:


> You made *him *for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned *him *with glory and honor, (Heb. 2:7)


This verse is paralleled in v.9. Who "Him" is is specifically identified.



ESV said:


> But we see *him *who for a little while was made lower than the angels, *namely Jesus*, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God *he *might taste death for everyone. (Heb. 2:9)


----------



## Nomad (Jan 23, 2015)

KeithW said:


> I don't follow how "him" in vv.6-8 can mean "mankind". We have to look to the entire context (mentioned previously) to see if "him" is more clearly defined.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The writer to the Hebrews quotes Psalm 8. The primary/immediate reference there is "man" generically. "Him" refers to "man." Hebrews applies the passage in a secondary and prophetic sense to Christ. In my previous post I focused on the OP's question regarding the right or wrong use of "them" vs "him." The pronoun "them" is not wrong with regard to the original meaning of Psalm 8, but it does destroy the poetic expression found there. "Them" would be wrong in Heb. 2:9 because at that point the writer applies the psalm to Christ. There is no conflict as long as the primary and secondary meanings of Psalm 8 are kept in mind.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 23, 2015)

What you are seeing here is the gender-neutral translation workaround. If the word is generic "man," the GN translations will have "them." This obscures references to the Son of Man in several places. It is also unnecessary. "Man" can still work as a generic reference to the human race by the literary figure of synechdoche (a part for the whole).


----------



## KeithW (Jan 24, 2015)

I don't follow the reasoning of why "them" must be maintained in light of Scripture itself telling us who is being referred to.

Hebrews 2:6-8 is a quotation from Psalm 8:4-6. It was pointed out previously that Hebrews 2:9 identifies who "him" is, "namely Jesus". In addition, Hebrews 2:8 has commentary on it from elsewhere in the New Testament, and describes who "him" is.



KJV said:


> Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. (Heb. 2:8)


Speaking of "Christ" in 1 Cor. 15:23 the passage goes on to say,



KJV said:


> For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. (1 Cor. 15:27)


And Eph. 1:20 in speaking of "Christ" the passage goes on to say,



KJV said:


> And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:22)


It certainly seems like Scripture itself provides commentary on identifying who "him" is in Heb. 2:6-8.


----------



## mshingler (Feb 2, 2015)

Ps. 8 refers to "man," created in the image of God and given dominion over the creation. Vss. 5ff. allude to the dominion mandate from Gen. 1:28. However, the Ps. also, ulimately, points forward to Christ, the 2nd Adam and mediator of the new covenant, in whom the image of God and dominion are restored. 
I agree that the translation "them" obscures the meaning though. "Man" is represented as a unity under the federal headship of Adam and/or Christ.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Feb 2, 2015)

This follows the trail of Psalm 1,2 which many say are a pair ... up to 8 and it's clear that Psalm 2 is singular... kiss the son... so in the strongest sense I say singular

Poetically book 1 of Psalms concerns man and parallels Genesis... in Psalm 8 it can in a sense represent David, Christ, Adam, or mankind poetically.. in the strongest sense I think it's Christ and Psalm 8 shows up in Hebrews 2, better than the angels, Ephesians the establishment of the church, the triumphal entry Palsm Sunday in the gospels, and the resurrection chapter in Corinthians.... Mary also touches on it in the magnificat in Luke 2 
so the NT applies Psalm 8 to Christ at least 5 times

While it poetically Psalm 8 can also refer to Adam... frankly it goes without saying that Adam is not nearly worth singing about in comparison to Christ 

By the way ... the question of 'what is man that you should be so mindful of him...' of Psalm 8 also shows up about 7 or 8 Psalms in from the end of Psalms as well.... It helps open... it helps close... Ps 144:3 O Lord, what is man that you regard him,
or the son of man that you think of him?

A similar translation problem happens around Psalm 40 where most translations have blessed is he who considers the poor and one or two say blessed are they..... the blessed man opens Book 1 in 1,2 and closes book 1 in 40,41 .... the blessed man of Psalm 1,2 who is in singular is opposed but exalted in Psalm 8... the blessed man wraps the exodus celebration psalms with psalms 112 and 119 as well

I know I'm kinda tedious and repetivie
sorry about that


----------

