Does Paul suggest that Christ was not perfect? Hebrews 5

[98cwitr]

7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

In looking at the language used, it would stand to reason that Paul is insinuating that Christ "learned" obedience, and that He had to be "made perfect," and thus was not always perfect?

 

[Tree of Life]

Paul did not write Hebrews. But the author of Hebrews does say that Christ had to be made the perfect high priest for us. In order to do this he had to take humanity upon himself and suffer under God’s curse and suffer temptations common to man. These were new experiences for Christ.

 

[Hammster]

In looking at the language used, it would stand to reason that Paul is insinuating that Christ "learned" obedience, and that He had to be "made perfect," and thus was not always perfect?

Perfect here means made complete by reaching a goal. So the author is saying that Christ needed to learn obedience in His humanity, and thus was complete by reaching His goal.

I think the picture of Abraham being willing to sacrifice Issac is a good comparison.

 

[Hank77]

This is one thing I believe this verse/s are saying.
In the Garden He cried out to the Father, [para. "Take this cup from me... Your will Father, not mine."] In this obedience unto death He was made perfect, or the perfect sin offering for mankind.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In looking at the language used, it would stand to reason that Paul is insinuating that Christ "learned" obedience, and that He had to be "made perfect," and thus was not always perfect?

Why do you say it that way - "looking at the language used" ???
Do you know the original - have you been able to "look at the language used" with understanding ?
(English doesn't count to understand "the language used" btw - it is too often too different from the original. )

 

[bcbsr]

In looking at the language used, it would stand to reason that Paul is insinuating that Christ "learned" obedience, and that He had to be "made perfect," and thus was not always perfect?

I think that goes along with Heb 4:15 "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" with the idea of Christ learning from experience what it was like for us to obey and for us to experience temptation, to attain sympathy, to qualify as our high priest.

"Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted." Heb 2:17,18

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

He was obedient to death specifically of the cross which was a curse to Jews and a slaves death to gentiles. Shameful treatment that He despised Hebrews 12:2 accepted when taking the form of mankind He humbled Himself to obedience to the manner of death prophesied. That the form of human needed for Him to embrace is as a slave seems significant but it was as a slave to the heavenly purpose. The shame was human imposed.

 

[RDKirk]

Perfect here means made complete by reaching a goal. So the author is saying that Christ needed to learn obedience in His humanity, and thus was complete by reaching His goal.

Yes, this is it.

"Perfect" in the Greek (here and elsewhere, such as Matthew 5:48) teleos, means "to be complete, to have reached your designed destiny."

For instance, the teleos of an acorn is to be a great oak tree. So Jesus had to live as a man and fulfill what had been prophesied, what had been planned for Him before creation. At that point he had reached His completeness to be Savior and High Priest, and as He said, "It is finished."

 

[MartyF]

One has to submit to God. Even Jesus.

 

[RDKirk]

One has to submit to God. Even Jesus.

More precisely, the Son submitted to the Father.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

More precisely, the Son submitted to the Father.

In His death and in His living. As an example to all humans to emulate in their own life what is obedience to the Father. He was unique in His perfecting of His mission. Death was of a broken heart imo.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, this is it.

"Perfect" in the Greek (here and elsewhere, such as Matthew 5:48) teleos, means "to be complete, to have reached your designed destiny."

For instance, the teleos of an acorn is to be a great oak tree. So Jesus had to live as a man and fulfill what had been prophesied, what had been planned for Him before creation. At that point he had reached His completeness to be Savior and High Priest, and as He said, "It is finished."

For clarification perhaps: as far as you learned, could perfect more simply be being what Yahweh (God) Intends TODAY (not sometime later when more fully 'complete', before reaching final 'destiny' )
i.e. reaching the point TODAY of being a DOer of Yahweh's Word TODAY, completely as He Says, by faith in Jesus of course - abiding in Him TODAY, walking in union with Jesus TODAY, as written of the disciples in the NT Epistles (they lived daily "perfect", "IN UNION WITH JESUS" (ONE with JESUS and the FATHER) ) ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

One has to submit to God. Even Jesus.

Why ?
"One" does not "have to" submit to God.
Even "Jesus" did not "have to" submit to God , did He ?

 

[MartyF]

Why ?
"One" does not "have to" submit to God.
Even "Jesus" did not "have to" submit to God , did He ?

You may have decided to follow another master.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why ?
"One" does not "have to" submit to God.
Even "Jesus" did not "have to" submit to God , did He ?

You may have decided to follow another master.

Why did you change the topic/subject ? You did not say I "have to" submit to God.
You said :

One has to submit to God. Even Jesus.

Do you really think God took away free will from "One", and/or from "Jesus" !? Or from yourself ?

 

[MartyF]

"have to"

You like arguing Semantics. . .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You like arguing Semantics. . .

No, it is much more important than you realize.

Have you not seen so many threads about free will ?

Do you think God would take away your free will ? He wants you to serve Him WILLINGLY AND JOYOUSLY all the time, every day,
NOT "HAVE TO".....

 

[MartyF]

No, it is much more important than you realize.

No, it isn’t. Doctrine doesn’t save people.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No, it isn’t. Doctrine doesn’t save people.

Errors do not save people either.

 

[MartyF]

Errors do not save people either.

My conscience is clear.