Hebrews 2:16

Having asserted the incarnation of the Lord Christ, the captain of our salvation, and showed the necessity of it, from the ends which were to be accomplished by it, and therein given the reason of his concession that he was for a season made less than the angels, the apostle proceeds in this verse to confirm what he had taught before by testimony of the Scripture; and adds an especial amplification of the grace of God in this whole dispensation, from the consideration of the angels, who were not made partakers of the like love and mercy.

Hebrews 2:16. Οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλὰ σπέρματος ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται.

Οὐ γὰρ δήπου. The Syriac quite omits δήπου, and reads only לָא גֵּיר, “non enim;” “for he did not.” V. L., “nusquam enim.” Που he renders “usquam,” “anywhere? and on the consideration of the negative particle, οὐ, “nusquam,” “nowhere.” Beza, “non enim utique,” as ours; “for verily” [he took] “not,” not reaching the force or use of δήπου. Arias, “non enim videlicet;” which answers not the intent of this place. Erasmus fully and properly, “non enim sane usquam,” “for verily not anywhere;” that is, in no place of the Scripture is any such thing testified unto: which way of expression we observed our apostle to use before, Hebrews 1:5.

᾿᾿Αγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται. Syr., מֵן מַלָאכֵא נְסָב, “ex angelis assumpsit,” “he took not of” (or “from among”) “the angels;” that is, of their nature. V. L., Arias, “angelos apprehendit,” “he doth not take hold of angels.” Beza, “angelos assumpsit,” “he assumed not,” “he took not angels to himself: ἐπιλαμβάνεται for ἐπέλαβε, by an enallage of time; which ours follow, “he took not on him the nature of angels.” But this change of the tense is needless; for the apostle intends not to express what Christ had done, but what the Scripture saith and teacheth concerning him in this matter. That nowhere affirms that he takes hold of angels.

The remaining words are generally rendered by translators according to the analogy of these: “sed apprehendit,” “assumit,” “assumpsit, semen Abrahae,” “he laid hold of,” “he takes,” “he took the seed of Abraham;” only the Ethiopic reads them, “Did he not exalt the seed of Abraham?” departing from the sense of the words and of the text. The constant use of this word ἐπιλαμβάνω, in the New Testament, is “to take hold of;” and so in particular it is elsewhere used in this epistle, Hebrews 8:9, ᾿Επιλαβομένον, “In the day that I took them by the hand.” In other authors it is so variously used that nothing from thence can be determined as to its precise signification in this or any other place. The first and proper sense of it is acknowledged to be “to take hold of,” as it were with the hand. And however the sense may be interpreted, the word cannot properly be translated any otherwise than “to take.” As for what some contend, that the effect or end of taking hold of is to help, to vindicate into liberty, whence by Castalio it is rendered “opitulatur,” it belongs to the design of the place, not the meaning of the word, which in the first place is to be respected. [7]

[7] ᾿Επιλαμζ. is now translated differently from the A. V., by almost all expositors. “He doth succor.” Stuart. “He giveth his aid.” Conybeare Howson. “He doth lay hold on.” Craik. “The church fathers and the theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries supplied a φύσιν to the genitive, and rendered thus, ‘He has not assumed the nature of angels, but that of the seed of Abraham.' Castalio was the first to oppose this monstrous interpretation; after him the Socinians and Arminians. Since 1650 the right interpretation has been the general one.” Ebrard. ED.

Hebrews 2:16. For verily not anywhere doth he take angels, but he taketh the seed of Abraham.

In the words there is

First the reference that the apostle makes unto somewhat else, whereby that which he declareth is confirmed, “For verily not anywhere;” that is, that which he denieth in the following words is nowhere taught in the Scripture: as Hebrews 1:5, “For unto which of the angels said he at any time;” that is, ‘There is no testimony extant in the Scripture concerning them to that purpose.'So here, ‘Nowhere is it spoken in the Scripture that Christ taketh angels.'And what is so spoken, he is said to do. And thus also the affirmative clause of his proposition, “But he taketh the seed of Abraham,” is to be referred to the Scripture. There it is promised, there it is spoken, and therein it is done by him.

Secondly, That which he asserteth hath the nature of a discrete axiom, wherein the same thing is denied and affirmed of the disparates expressed, and that univocally in the same sense: “He took not angels, but he took the seed of Abraham.” And this, we being referred to the Scripture for the proof and confirmation of, gives light and perfect understanding into the meaning of the words. For how doth Christ in the Scripture take the seed of Abraham, in such a sense as that therein nothing is spoken of him in reference unto angels? It is evident that it was in that he was of the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh; that he was promised to Abraham that he should be of his seed, yea, that he should be his seed, as Galatians 3:16. This was the great principle, the great expectation of the Hebrews, that the Messiah should be the seed of Abraham. This was declared unto them in the promise; and this accordingly was accomplished. And he is here said to take the seed of Abraham, because in the Scripture it is so plainly, so often affirmed that he should so do, when not one word is anywhere spoken that he should be an angel, or take their nature upon him. And this, as I said, gives us the true meaning of the words. The apostle in them confirms what he had before affirmed, concerning his being made partaker of flesh and blood together with the children. This, saith he, the Scripture declares, wherein it is promised that he should be of the seed of Abraham, which he therein takes upon him; and which was already accomplished in his being made partaker of flesh and blood. See John 1:14; Romans 9:5; Galatians 4:4; Galatians 3:16. This, then, the apostle teacheth us, that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, according to the promise, took to himself the nature of man, coming of the seed of Abraham, that is, into personal union with himself; but took not the nature of angels, no such thing being spoken of him or concerning him anywhere in the Scripture. And this exposition of the words will be further evidenced and confirmed by our examination of another, which, with great endeavor, is advanced in opposition unto it.

Some, then, take the meaning of this expression to be, that the Lord Christ, by his participation of flesh and blood, brought help and relief, not unto angels, but unto men, the seed of Abraham. And they suppose to this purpose, that ἐπιλαμβάνεται is put for ναλαμβάνεται, “to help, to succour, to relieve, to vindicate into liberty.” Of this mind are Castalio and all the Socinians: among those of the Roman church, Ribera; Estius also and a Lapide speak doubtfully in the case: of Protestants, Cameron and Grotius, who affirms, moreover, that Chrysostom and the Greek scholiasts so interpret the place and words; which I should have marvelled at, had I not long before observed him greatly to fail or mistake in many of his quotations. Chrysostom, whom he names in particular, expressly referreth this whole verse unto the Lord Christ's assumption of the nature of man, and not of the nature of angels. The same also is insisted on by Theophylact and OEcumenius, without any intimation of the sense that Grotius would impose upon them.

The Socinians embrace and endeavor to confirm this second exposition of the words: and it is their concernment so to do; for if the words express that the Lord Christ assumed human nature, which necessarily infers his pre-existence in another nature, their persuasion about the person of Christ is utterly overthrown. Their exceptions in their controversial writings unto this place have been elsewhere considered. Those of Enjedinus on this text are answered by Paraeus, those of Castalio by Beza, and the objections of some others by Gomarus. We shall, in the first place, consider what is proposed for the confirmation of their sense by Schlichtingius or Crellius; and then the exceptions of a very learned expositor unto the sense before laid down and confirmed. And Schlichtingius first argues from the context:

“Praeter ipsa verba,” saith he, “quae hunc sensum nullo modo patiuntur ut postea dicemus, contextus et ratiocinatio auctoris id repudiat; qui pro ratione et argumento id sumere non potuit debuitve, quod sibi hoc ipso argumento et ratione probandum sumsisset. De eo enim erat quaestio, cur Christus qui nunc ad tantam majestatem et gloriam est evectus, non angelicam sed humanam, morti et variis calamitatibus obnoxiam habuerit naturam? hujus veto rei, quo pacto ratio redderetur, per id quod non angelicam sed humanam naturam assumpserit; cum istius ipsius rei, quae in hac quaestione continetur, nempe quod Christus homo fuit natus, nune causa ratioque quaeratur. At vero si haec verba, de juvandis non angelis, sed hominibus, deque ope iis ferenda intelligamus, pulcherrime omnia cohaerent; nempe Christum hominem mortalem fuisse, non angelum aliquem, quod non angelis sed hominibus juvandis, servandisque fuerit destinatus.”

But the foundation of this exposition of the context is a mistake, which his own preceding discourse might have relieved him from; for there is no such question proposed as here is imagined, nor doth he in his following exposition suppose it. The apostle doth not once propose this unto confirmation, that it behoved the Lord Christ to be a man, and not an angel. But having proved at large before, that in nature and authority he was above the angels, he grants, Galatians 3:7, that he was for a little while made lower than they, and gives at large the reason of the necessity of that dispensation, taken from the work which God had designed him unto: which being to “bring many sons unto glory,” he shows, and proves by sundry reasons, that it could not be accomplished without his death and suffering; for which end it was indispensably necessary that he should be made partaker of “flesh and blood.” And this he confirms further by referring the Hebrews unto the Scripture, and in especial unto the great promise of the Messiah made unto Abraham, that the Messiah was to be his seed; the love and grace whereof he amplifies by an intimation that he was not to partake of the angelical nature. That supposition, therefore, which is the foundation of this exposition, namely, that the apostle had before designed to prove that the Messiah ought to partake of human nature, and not of angelical, which is nothing to his purpose, is a surmise suited only to the present occasion. Wherefore Felbinger, in his Demonstrationes Evangelicae, takes another course, and affirms that these words contain the end of what was before asserted, Galatians 3:14-15, namely, about Christ's participation of flesh and blood, which was, not to help angels, but the seed of Abraham, and to take them into grace and favor. But these things are both of them expressly declared in those verses, especially Galatians 3:15, where it is directly affirmed that his design in his incarnation and death was to destroy the devil, and to free and save the children. And to what end should these things be here again repeated, and that in words and terms far more obscure and ambiguous than those wherein it was before taught and declared? for by “angels” they understand evil angels; and there could be no cause why the apostle should say in this verse that he did not assist or relieve them, when he had declared in the words immediately foregoing that he was born and died that he might destroy them. Neither is it comely to say, that the end why Christ destroyed the devil was that he might not help him; or the end why he saved the children was that he might assist them. Besides, the introduction of this assertion, οὐ γὰρ δήπου, will not allow that here any end is intimated of what was before expressed, there being no insinuation of any final cause in them.

The context, therefore, not answering their occasion, they betake themselves to the words:

“Verbum ἐπιλαμβάνεται,” saith he, “significat proprie, manu aliquem apprehendere; sive ut illum aliquo ducas, sive ut sustentes; hinc ad opitulationem significandum commode transfertur; quos enim adjutos volumus ne cadant, vel sub onere aliquo succumbant, aut si ceciderint erectos cupimus, iis manum injicere solemus, quo sensu Sir 4:11. De sapientia dictum est, Καὶ ἐπιλαμβάνεται τῶν θητούντων αὐτήν, hoc est, ‘opitulatur quaerentibus se;'eadem est significatio verbi ἀντιλαμβάνεται, quod qui aliquem sublevatum velint illi ex adverso manum porrigere solent.”

It is acknowledged that ἀντιλαμβάνεται doth frequently signify as here is alleged, namely, “to help and assist,” as it were by putting forth the hand for to give relief. But if that were intended by the apostle in this place, what reason can be assigned why he should waive the use of a word proper unto his purpose, and frequently so applied by himself in other places, and make use of another, which signifying no such thing, nor anywhere used by him in that sense, must needs obscure his meaning and render it ambiguous? Whereas, therefore, ἀντιλαμβάνεται, signifies “to help and relieve,” and is constantly used by our apostle in that sense, it being not used or applied by him in this place to express his intention, but ἐπιλαμβάνεται, which signifies no such thing, nor is ever used by him to that purpose, the sense contended for, of help and relief, is plainly excluded. The place of Ecclesiasticus, and that alone, is referred unto by all that embrace this exposition. But what if the word be abused in that place by that writer? must that give a rule unto its interpretation in all other writers where it is properly used? But yet neither is the word used there for to help and relieve, but to take and receive. Wisdom, “suscipit,” “receiveth,” or taketh unto itself, “suo more,” those that seek it; which is the sense of the word we plead for, and so is it rendered by translators. So the Lord Christ, “suo modo,” took to himself the seed of Abraham, by uniting it unto his person as he was the Son of God. In the very entrance also of his discourse this author acknowledgeth that ἐπιλαμβάνεται, doth not directly or properly signify “to help” or “to relieve,” but signifying “to take hold of,” is transferred unto that use and sense. I ask where? by whom? in what author? If he says in this place by the apostle, that will not prove it; and where any will plead for the metaphorical use of a word, they must either prove that the sense of the place where it is used enforces that acceptation of it, or at least that in like cases in other places it is so used; neither of which are here pretended.

But he proceeds:

“Quod hic dicit, ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι, Sir 4:18, per βοηθῆσαι, effert; de eadem enim re utrobique agitur, et rationem consequentiae argumenti, quod in hoc versiculo proponit illic explicat.”

This is but imagined; the contrary is evident unto every one, upon the first view of the context. Here the apostle discourseth the reason of the humiliation of Christ, and his taking flesh; there, the benefit of his priestly office unto them that do believe. ᾿Επιλαμβάνομαι is therefore properly “assumo,” “accipio,” “to take unto,” or, “to take upon;” and the apostle teacheth us by it, that the Lord Christ took unto him, and took on him, our human nature, of the seed of Abraham.

That the genuine sense of the place may be yet more fully vindicated, I shall further consider the exceptions of a very learned man unto our interpretation of the words, and his answers unto the reasons whereby it is confirmed.

First, he says that “ ἐπιλαμβάνεται, being in the present tense, signifieth a continued action, such as Christ's helping of us is; but his assumption of human nature was a momentaneous action, which being past long before, the apostle would not express it as a thing present.” It is generally answered unto this exception, that an enallage is to be allowed, and that ἐπιλαμβάνεται is put for ἐπελάβετο, which is usual in the Scripture. So John 1:31; John 21:13. But yet there is no just necessity of supposing it in this place. The apostle in his usual manner, disputing with the Hebrews on the principles wherein they had been instructed from the Old Testament, minds them that there is nothing said therein of his taking upon him the nature of angels, but only of the seed of Abraham. So that “he takes” is, “he doth so in the Scripture,” that affirms him so to do; and in respect hereunto the expression in the present tense is proper to his purpose. This way of arguing and manner of expression we have manifested on Hebrews 1:5.

Again he adds, “This expression, ‘He took not on him angels,'for, ‘the nature of angels,'is hard and uncouth, as it would be in the affirmative to say, ‘Assumpsit homines,'or ‘hominem,'‘He took men,'or ‘a man;'which we say not, although we do that he took human nature.” But the reason of this phrase of speech is evident. Having before affirmed that he was partaker σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, “of flesh and blood,” whereby the nature of man is expressed, repeating here again the same assertion with respect unto the promise, and negation of the same thing in reference unto angels, because their nature consisteth not of flesh and blood, he expresseth it indefinitely and in the concrete, “He took not them,” that is, not that in and of them which answers unto flesh and blood in the children, that is, their nature. So that there is no need to assert, as he supposeth some may do, that σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος ought to be repeated ἐκ τοὕ κοινοῦ, and referred unto those bodies which the angels assumed for a season in their apparitions under the old testament, there being only an ellipsis, easy to be supplied, of that in them which answers unto flesh and blood in the children.

Thirdly, “The apostle,” he saith, “showeth, John 21:17, that Christ ought in all things to be made like unto us, by this reason, ‘Quod non assumpsit angelos, sed semen Abrahae.'But if this be to take on him the nature of man, he comes to prove the same thing by the same; for to be made like unto us, and to assume human nature, differ only in words, and not really or in deed. But take ἐπιλαμβάνεται to signify ‘to help'or ‘relieve,'and all things agree. For because he came to help us and not angels, it became him to be made like unto us.” But herein lies a double mistake: First, In the scope and argument of the apostle; for those words in the beginning of the 17th verse are not an inference or conclusion from what is asserted in this verse, but an affirmation of the necessity of what is there asserted from that which follows in the same verse, “that he might be a faithful high priest.” Secondly, These words, “like unto us,” do not intend his conformity unto us in his participation of human nature, which he had on other reasons before confirmed, but in the sufferings and temptations which there he insists upon.

Fourthly, “The seed of Abraham,” he says, “is a collective expression, and denotes many; at least it must denote the person of some man, which Christ did not assume. And therefore it is the spiritual seed of Abraham that is intended; that is, believers. And the apostle so calls them, because the Hebrews were well pleased with the mention of that privilege.” But this will not abide the examination. The great promise of old unto Abraham was, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. The intendment of that promise was, that the Messiah should be his seed, of his posterity. That by this seed one individual was intended our apostle declares, Galatians 3:16; as Christ in like manner is said to be “of the seed of David according to the flesh,” Romans 1:3. Of this promise the apostle minds the Hebrews. So that his taking on him the seed of Abraham is not the assuming of many, nor of the person of any one of them, but merely his being made of the seed of Abraham according to the promise. And to bend these words unto any other sense than the accomplishment of the promise made to Abraham, that Christ should be of his seed, is plainly to pervert them. And this is all of weight that I can meet withal which is objected unto our interpretation of this place; which being removed, it is further established.

Lastly, In the disparate removed, by “angels,” the good angels, not fallen angels, are principally regarded. Of fallen angels he had newly spoken under the collective expression, “the devil,” who had the power of death. Nor are, it may be, the devils anywhere called absolutely by the name of angels; but they are termed either “evil angels,” or “angels that sinned,” “that left their habitation,” “that are to be judged,” “the devil's angels,” or have some or other peculiar adjunct whereby they are marked out and distinguished. Now, it cannot be that this word ἐπιλαμβάνεται, if it be interpreted “to help,” “assist,” or “relieve,” can in any sense be applied unto the angels that must be intended, if any; for the word must denote either any help, assistance, or relief in general, or that especial help and assistance which is given by Christ in the work of reconciliation and redemption. If the first be intended, I much question the truth of the assertion, seeing the angels owe their establishment in grace unto Christ, and also their advancement in glory, Ephesians 1:10. If it be to be taken in the latter sense, as is pretended, then the nature of the discrete axiom here used by the apostle requires that there be the same need of the help intimated in both the disparates, which is denied as unto the one, and affirmed as unto the other. But now the angels, that is, the good angels, had no need of the help of redemption and reconciliation unto God, or of being freed from death, or the fear of it, which they were never obnoxious unto. And what remains for the clearing of the mind of the apostle will appear yet further in the ensuing observations from the words.

I. The Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and man in one person; and this is fully manifested in these words. For,

1. There is supposed in them his pre-existence in another nature than that which he is said here to assume. He w as before, he subsisted before, or he could not have taken on him what he had not. This was his divine nature; as the like is intimated where he is said to be “made flesh,” John 1:14; to be “made of a woman,” Galatians 4:4; to be “manifested in the flesh,” 1 Timothy 3:16; to “take on him the form of a servant,” Philippians 2:8-9; as here, “he took the seed of Abraham.” He was before he did so; that is, as the Son, the Word of God, the Son of God, as in the places mentioned, eternally pre-existing unto this his incarnation: for the subject of this proposition, “He took on him,” etc., denotes a person pre-existing unto the act of taking here ascribed unto him; which was no other than the Son of God.

2. He assumed, he took to himself, another nature, “of the seed of Abraham,” according unto the promise. So, continuing what he was, he became what he was not. For,

3. He took this to be his own nature. He so took it as himself to become truly “the seed of Abraham,” to whom and concerning whom the promise was given, Galatians 3:16; and was himself made “of the seed of David according to the flesh,” Romans 1:3; and “as concerning the flesh came of the fathers,” Romans 9:5; and so was “the son of David, the son of Abraham,” Matthew 1:1. And this could no otherwise be done but,

4. By taking that nature into personal subsistence with himself, in the hypostasis of the Son of God. The nature he assumed could no otherwise become his. For if he had by any ways or means taken the person of a man to be united unto him, in the strictest union that two persons are capable of, a divine and a human, the nature had still been the nature of that other person, and not his own.

5. But he took it to be his own nature; which it could no ways be but by personal union, causing it to subsist in his own person. And he is therefore a true and perfect man: for no more is required to make a complete and perfect man but the entire nature of man subsisting; and this is in Christ as a man, the human nature having a subsistence communicated unto it by the Son of God. And therefore,

6. This is done without a multiplication of persons in him; for the human nature can have no personality of its own, because it was taken to be the nature of another person who was pre-existent unto it, and by assuming of it prevented its proper personality. Neither,

7. Did hence any mixture or confusion of natures ensue, or of the essential properties of them; for he took the seed of Abraham to be his human nature, which if mixed with the divine it could not be. And this he hath done,

8. Inseparably and for ever. Which things are handled at large elsewhere.

II. The redemption of mankind by the taking of our nature, was a work of mere sovereign grace.

He took the seed of Abraham; he took not the nature of angels. And for what cause or reason? Can any be assigned but the sovereign grace, pleasure, and love of God? nor doth the Scripture anywhere assign any other. And this will the better appear if we consider,

1. That for a sinning nature to be saved, it was indispensably necessary that it should be assumed. The nature of angels being not taken, those that sinned in that nature must perish for ever; and they that fancy a possibility of saving sinners any other way but by satisfaction made in the nature that had sinned, seem not to have considered aright the nature of sin and the justice of God. Had any other way been possible, why doth the perishing of angels so inevitably follow the non-assumption of their nature? This way alone, then, could it be wrought.

2. That we were carrying away all human nature into endless destruction; for so it is intimated: whence Christ's assumption of it is expressed by his putting forth his hand and taking hold of it, to stop it in its course of apostasy and ruin. Of angels, only some individual persons fell from God; but our whole nature, in every one to whom it was communicated from and by Adam, was running headlong to destruction. In itself there could be no relief, nor any thing to commend it unto God.

Here sovereign grace interposeth, the love of God to mankind, Titus 3:4. As to the angels, he “spared them not,” 2 Peter 2:4. He spared not them, and “spared not his Son” for us, Romans 8:32. And if we consider rightly what the Scripture informs us of the number and dignity of the angels that sinned, of their nature and ability to accomplish the will of God, and compare therewith our own vileness and low condition, we may have matter of eternal admiration suggested unto us. And there was infinite wisdom as well as sovereign grace in this dispensation, sundry branches whereof the apostle afterwards holds out unto us.