(Part 2) Top products from r/ConservativeBible

These sources will be more philosophical and less exegetical. After learning the philosophical concepts, I've laid them up against scripture as I've read and I've found that the classical stuff answers more questions and leaves less unanswered than any other system I've run across so far.

• The One and the Many - W. Norris Clarke for a primer on classical metaphysics. That will help for terms such as "essence," "form," etc.
  
• All that is in God - James Dolezal will help put some of the pieces together once you get comfortable with the main terms used. He's a bit grumpy, but his points are good.
  
• Augustine's De Trinitate in whatever good translation you can find.
  
• Retrieving Eternal Generation ed. Sanders and Swain for the relations between the persons.
  
• Constant re-reading of the creeds of the church.

My Logos Bible software gives καίπερ in the NT in 5 instances, namely Philippians 3:4, Hebrews 5:8, 7:5 and 12:17, and 2 Peter 1:12. All of the instances of καίπερ are translated with though or although. Especially 12:17 seems to indicate that you cannot translate it with "because":

> "17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. "
>
>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 12:17.

It cannot be that he was rejected "because" he sought it with tears. Jesus offered up prayers and supplications with tears in 5:7, and he is not rejected because of it. Rather, his reverence gets noticed.

BDAG ( https://www.amazon.com/Greek-English-Lexicon-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226039331/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=bdag&qid=1571748897&sr=8-1 ) only lists "although" as a translation, and has many verses to back it up

>καίπερ conj. (since Od. 7, 224; SIG 709, 18; 1108, 8; PGiss 47, 22; PSI 298, 17; LXX, TestJos, Joseph., Just.) although w. ptc. (so usu., also Diod S 8, 9, 2; 10, 19, 2; 17, 114, 1; Wsd 11:9; Jos., Ant. 1, 319; 3, 280; TestJos 10:5; w. finite verb Just., A I, 4, 4) Phil 3:4; Hb 5:8; 7:5; 12:17; 2 Pt 1:12. Also 1 Cl 7:7; 16:2; ISm 3:3; MPol 17:1; Hv 3, 2, 9; Hs 8, 6, 4; 8, 11, 1 (B-D-F §425, 1; Rob. 1129; FScheidweiler, καίπερ nebst e. Exkurs zum Hb: Her 83, ’55, 220–30).—M-M.

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 497.

What may help in the interpretation is if you look at "son" as a spiritual being rather than as a literal child. I don't know if you're aware of Michael Heiser's work on spiritual beings (https://youtu.be/pKPid4i4SmI)(his book The Unseen Realm, his podcast or his videos) but according to him, sons (of God) are a type of spiritual being like angels, demons, God's heavenly host, etc.

The interpretation then becomes: "Even though Jesus was in a high position, maybe undeserving or generally unaffected by suffering because of him being a son of God, he learned obedience through what he suffered." Hebrews 1:2 tells us that God created the world through His Son, so it may be a little strange that this very son with God learns obedience by suffering.

This may fit because in the previous verse, 5:7, Hebrews talks about "in the days of his flesh". This is then contrasted with his spiritual status as son in verse 8 if you accept my speculation.

​

I think "because" is not a fitting translation. I understand why you're puzzled by the formulation and I find it a bit difficult to explain my ideas around Christ's sonship without me sounding a little wacky.

The Exodus by Richard Elliot Friedman is a good moderate-liberal academic-light book on the historicity of the Exodus/Conquest. Probably can't beat Lost World of Israelite Conquest by John Walton.