Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 2:16

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 2:16” utilice nuestra app.

For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels ] Rather, “for assuredly it is not angels whom He takes by the hand.” The word , “certainly,” “I suppose,” occurs here only in the N. T. or LXX., though common in Philo. In classic Greek it often has a semi-ironic tinge, “you will doubtless admit that,” like opinor in Latin. All are now agreed that the verb does not mean “to take the nature of,” but “to take by the hand,” and so “to help” or “rescue.” Beza indeed called it “execrable rashness” ( exsecranda audacia) to translate it so, when this rendering was first adopted by Castellio in 1551; but the usage of the word proves that this is the only possible rendering, although all the Fathers and Reformers take it in the other way. It is rightly corrected in the R. V. (comp. Isa 49:9-10; Jer 31:32; Heb 8:9; Mat 14:31; Wis 4:11 , “Wisdom takes by the hand those that seek her”). To refer “ he taketh not hold” to Death or the Devil is most improbable.

the seed of Abraham ] i.e. He was born a Hebrew. He does not at all mean to imply that our Lord came to the Jews more than to the Gentiles, though he is only thinking of the former.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For verily – Truly.

He took not on him the nature of angels – Margin, He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. The word used here – epilambanetai – means, to take hold upon; to seize; to surprise; to take hold with a view to detain for oneself. Robinson. Then it means to take hold of one as by the hand – with a view to aid, conduct, or succour; Mar 8:23; Act 23:19. It is rendered took, Mar 8:23; Luk 9:47; Luk 14:4; Act 9:27; Act 17:19; Act 18:17; Act 21:30, Act 21:33; Act 23:19; Heb 8:9; caught, Mat 14:31; Act 16:19; take hold, Luk 20:20, Luk 20:26; lay hold, and laid hold, Luk 23:26; 1Ti 6:12. The general idea is that of seizing upon, or laying hold of anyone – no matter what the object is – whether to aid, or to drag to punishment, or simply to conduct. Here it means to lay hold with reference to aid, or help; and the meaning is, that he did not seize the nature of angels, or take it to himself with reference to rendering them aid, but he assumed the nature of man – in order to aid him. He undertook the work of human redemption, and consequently it was necessary for him to be man.

But he took on him the seed of Abraham – He came to help the descendants of Abraham, and consequently, since they were men, he became a man. Writing to Jews, it was not unnatural for the apostle to refer particularly to them as the descendants of Abraham, though this does not exclude the idea that he died for the whole human race. It was true that he came to render aid to the descendants of Abraham, but it was also true that he died for all. The fact that I love one of my children, and that I make provision for his education, and tell him so, does not exclude the idea that I love the others also – and that I may make to them a similar appeal when it shall be proper.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Heb 2:16

The nature of angels

Angels

It must be a spiritual one,–for He maketh His angels spirits.

It must be very pure,–for they are the holy ones. Very lofty,–for they stand before the throne, and always behold Gods face. Very powerful, too, they must be,–for they excel in strength. And very busy they must be, and very humble,–for each has six wings, and with twain he covers his face, with twain he covers his feet, and with twain he does fly. And very accurate they must be,–for they bear their messages so faithfully. And very unselfish,–for they always give all the glory to God alone. They are not entirely spotless,–for He chargeth His angels with folly; and some did once fall. And they never seem to originate anything-they go where they are sent, they say what they are instructed, they do whatever they are told. Neither does their love appear to be so much their own love, as a love with which they are commissioned. And their office is not, for the most part, so much with the souls of men, to convert, or to influence, Or to comfort them, as with the outer circumstances of men–to minister to them in their dangers, in their wants, in their difficulties. And how does the nature of angels stand related to our own? Is it higher or lower? Originally, in Eden, I do not know; but I should say the angelic nature was then the lower, because that is said of man which is never said of angels, that he was made in the likeness of God, and because to man was given what was never given to angels–supremacy and sovereignty over all the works of God. The fallen nature of man is, on the whole, lower. But only a little–a little lower than the angels. But how is it with mans redeemed and renewed nature? Beyond a doubt, it is above angels; for such as Christs present glorified nature is, such is that. The angels never sing our song–theirs is jubilant, but ours is triumphant, their theme is creation, ours is grace; they praise God in His works, we adore and love Him in His Son. And do not you know that we shall judge angels, and that we shall reign with Christ for ever and ever. We bless God for His holy angels! We bless Him that there is anything so pure and beautiful in His creation for us to think of and to love. We bless Him that we have such presences, so stilling, so assuring, so restful. We bless Him for that incentive to all propriety in our solitary hours–an angels ear, and an angels eye. We bless Him for the debts we owe to those ethereal beings, of which we are yet but dimly conscious. We bless Him that they take charge of our daily walk, and our midnight slumbers, live bless Him that He commits it to creatures so lovely to exercise His merciful providences. We bless Him that they ministered so tenderly to their and our dear Lord in the days of His sojourn here, and that now they do all they do for us for that Jesuss sake. We bless Him that they take such pious interest in our spiritual welfare, and rejoice in the tears of which they know that the sadness is joy. We bless Him that those who look on us so kindly do also behold His face. We bless Him that when we come to die, it is they, those heavenly watchers, who shall waft our spirits on their wings to heaven. We bless Him that we with them, and they with us, we shall mingle our songs and our services, and encircle the throne together with our common praise.

We bless Him that when Christ, and we with Christ, shall come back again to this earth, we shall be attended by The glory of the holy angels. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)

He took on Him the seed of Abraham

Christian sympathy

We are all of one nature, because we are sons of Adam; we are all of one nature, because we are brethren of Christ. All those common feelings, which we have by birth, are far more intimately common to us, now that we have obtained the second birth. Our hopes and fears, likes and dislikes, pleasures and pains, have been moulded upon one model, have been wrought into one image blended and combined unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Yes, and one thing needful; one narrow way; one business on earth; one and the same enemy; the same dangers; the same temptations; the same afflictions; the same course of life; the same death; the same resurrection; the same judgment. All these things being the same, and the new nature being the same, and from the same, no wonder that Christians can sympathise with each other, even as by the power of Christs sympathising in and with each of them. Nay, and further, they sympathise together in those respects too, in which Christ has not, could not have, gone before them; I mean in their common sins. This is the difference between Christs temptation and ours: His temptations were without sin, but ours with sin. Temptation with us almost certainly involves sin. We have still earthly principles in our souls, though we have heavenly ones, and these so sympathise with temptation, that, as a mirror reflects promptly and of necessity what is presented to it, so the body of death which infects us, when the temptations of this world assail it–when honour, pomp, glory, the worlds praise, power, ease, indulgence,sensual pleasure, revenge are offered to it–involuntarily responds to them, and sins–sins because it is sin; sins before the better mind can control it, because it exists, because its life is sin; sins till it is utterly subdued and expelled from the soul by the gradual growth of holiness and the power of the Spirit. Of all this, Christ had nothing. He was born of a pure Virgin, the immaculate Lamb of God; and though He was tempted, yet it was by what was good in the worlds offers, though unseasonable and unsuitable, and not by what was evil in them. He overcame what it had been unbecoming to yield to, while He felt the temptation. He overcame also what was sinful, but He felt no temptation to it. And yet it stands to reason, that though His temptations differed from ours in this main respect, yet His presence in us makes us sympathise one with another, even in our sins and faults, in a way which is impossible without it; because, whereas the grace in us is common to us all, the sins against that grace are common to us all also. We have the same gifts to sin against, and therefore the same powers, the same responsibilities, the same fears, the same struggles, the same guilt, the same repentance, and such as none can have but we. I do not of course mean to say that we are one and all at the same point in our Christian course, or have one and all had the same religious history in times past; but that, even taking a man who has never fallen from grace, and one who has fallen most grievously and repented, even they will be found to be very much like each other in their view of themselves, in their temptations, and feelings upon those temptations, than they might fancy beforehand. This we see most strikingly instanced when holy men set about to describe their real state. Even bad men at once cry out, This is just our case, and argue from it that there is no difference between bad and good. They impute all their own sins to the holiest of men, as making their own lives a sort of comment upon the text which his words furnish, and appealing to the appositeness of their own interpretation in proof of its correctness. And I suppose it cannot be denied, concerning all of us, that we are generally surprised to hear the strong language which good men use of themselves, as if such confessions showed them to be more like ourselves, and much less holy than we had fancied them to be. And on the other hand, I suppose, any man of tolerably correct life, whatever his positive advancement m grace, will seldom read accounts of notoriously bad men, in which their ways and feelings are described, without being shocked to find that these more or less cast a meaning upon his own heart, and bring out into light and colour lines and shapes of thought within him, which, till then, were almost in visible. Now this does not show that bad and good men are on a level, but it shows this, that they are of the same nature. They have common ground; and as they have one faith and hope, and one Spirit, so also they have one and the same circle of temptations, and one and the same confession. (J. H. Newman, D. D.)

On the Incarnation of Christ

I. WHAT IS NATURALLY INFERRED from Christs taking on Him the seed of Abraham.

1. The Divine nature of Christ.

2. The reality of Christs human nature.

3. The truth of His office, and the divinity of His mission.

4. His voluntary choice and design, to assume a condition here upon earth low and contemptible.

II. WHY CHRIST TOOK UPON HIM THE NATURE OF MAN, AND NOT OF ANGELS.

1. The transcendent greatness and malignity of the sin of the angels above that of men.

(1) As being committed against a much greater light, which is to be the proper guide and ruler of the will in all its choices.

(2) The sin of the angels commenced upon a greater liberty of will and freedom of choice. There was no devil to tempt them to become devils; no seducer of a stronger reason to impose upon theirs; they moved entirely upon the motives of an intrinsic malice.

2. The next, and perhaps the grand cause, that induced Christ to take upon Him the nature and mediation of men, and not of angels, might be this; that without such a Redeemer, the whole race and species of mankind had perished, as being all involved in the sin of their representative; whereas, though many of the angels sinned, yet as many, if not more, persisted in their innocence; so that the whole kind was not cashiered by a universal ruin, nor made unserviceable to their Creator, in the nobler instances of active obedience. (R. South, D. D.)

The Incarnation

I. The general scope of this passage you will all apprehend to be this, that the children of Adam, being now all children of wrath, ALL NEEDED A SAVIOUR; and the Saviour they needed must not be in the form of God, or of an angel; He must be in the likeness of sinful flesh; whatever else He is, HE MUST BE MAN. Accordingly, Jesus Christ, the Mediator, who was God from eternity, became man, in the fulness of time. Concerning God, even the Father, we know something from other sources than Revelation. Nature and Providence declare His eternal power and Godhead; whereas our acquaintance with the Son of God is derived from Revelation alone. But the Bible assures us that Jesus Christ is God–and it assures us also that He is man; and the assertion of His Godhead is equally positive as that of His manhood. As we are told, the Word was made flesh–that the Divine, and not any angelic nature, was incarnate; so, we may confidently infer, that the assumption of manhood by any inferior, or created spirit, would not have answered the mighty purposes of Gods mercy in our redemption. For the Divine wisdom will never employ a mightier agency than the occasion demands. Having thus stated the necessity, as this is evidently asserted in the Word of God, that our Saviour should unite in His person the nature of God and the nurture of man, I would proceed

II. To inquire, WHEREIN THAT NECESSITY CONSISTED?

1. I do not propose to inquire into the propriety of this dispensation, as it regards the Divine nature or the Divine government. We are, indeed, assured of the fact, that the incarnation of the divinity, and the atonement made by the God-man, were requisite, in order that the expression of mercy to sinners might not be inconsistent with the glorious character, which unites perfect holiness and rectitude with boundless love and compassion. God reveals these things to us only as far as our present necessities require; and further, with certainty of truth, we cannot go.

2. But, as regards ourselves, and their bearing on our interests, our Father in heaven is as liberal in His communications, as He is reserved in the other case. And I propose to suggest a few of the reasons which make it apparent, that, in order to perform the part of a Saviour to us, it behoved Christ, the Son of God, to take on Him the nature of man. That are our wants, our miseries, as sinners? We have broken the Divine law; and of course we are condemned. We need therefore, pardon or justification. This can be obtained only by a sacrifice. Therefore, we need a priest who may offer the sacrifice and reconcile us. Then, we are very weak; we need support. We are very stubborn; and therefore we need to have our hard hearts broken. We cannot regulate our actions; therefore, we need a law and a lawgiver: and we are exposed to powerful enemies, from whom, unless protected, we perish; and for all these reasons, it is manifest we need One who has the authority and power of a King. And yet further, we are most ignorant of that which we are infinitely concerned to know, which we are most unwilling to learn, and most ready to forget; which needs to be demonstrated to us, and impressed upon us with the most striking evidence; and so Christ is our Prophet. What is necessary to be shown is, that our Redeemer must be both Divine and human, otherwise He could not discharge any one of these three offices.

(1) It was needful that, in order to be a Priest, our Redeemer should be both God and man. If the Word had not become man, He could not have died mile could not have offered up a sacrifice, nor made expiation. A priest implies a sacrifice, as a father implies a child, a master a servant, a governor subjects. Wherefore He took human nature, and made it part of Himself, that He might have something to offer up to God. We need to advert here to two distinct and important considerations: the essence of a sacrifice, a real sacrifice, is obedience, contrary to the natural inclination or will of that which is sacrificed. The Divine nature of the Son could not be a sacrifice to God, having the very will of God itself. But every man has that distinct will which is of the essence of freedom and responsibility. The man Jesus had that will. It is impossible those sufferings He needed to endure that He might make His soul an offering for sin, should have been inflicted on our Priest, had He appeared to the world in the form of God. But that He might suffer from man whatever was necessary for mans redemption, He hid Himself under their own form, so that nothing of God might be visible but His moral glory, His holiness, His power, His rectitude, His unspeakable love, His unfathomable mercy: and men dared to inflict upon the Son of God so disguised, whatever the Divine government and their eternal salvation required. Our Priest, then, must be man. That He must be God, is too plain to need proof. A Divine sufferer alone could be a worthy sacrifice for the sins of the world. And now, oh, sinners, this wonderful Person is your Priest. The God-man made atonement, the God-man maketh intercession for you. Cling to His sacrifice; accept His mediation; plead His obedience with the Father.

2. But, secondly, because we are weak and wayward, and exposed to many foes, and powerful, therefore, we need a King. And none can be such a King as we need, but One who is both God and man. Almighty is His power, infinite His knowledge and wisdom, immeasurable His love, unfailing His rectitude; and He is bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. In all your frailties and ignorances and temptations manifold, remember that He your Divine Sovereign is man, and has suffered being tempted, and is qualified to succour you when ye are tempted. Let the almightiness and infinite love of your most gracious King, Gods Son, your Brother, assure your hearts that following Him, ye shall be conquerors, yea, more than conquerors.

3. It was necessary that our Prophet, He who should effectually teach us, should be not simply God, or mere man, but both: and none could so teach us who was not both God and man. It is a gross mistake to suppose that what mankind needed most was knowledge of good and evil; or that the possession of this knowledge, in even the highest perfection, is sufficient of itself to subdue the heart to the obedience and love of God. The Jews possessed this knowledge as much as we do. Even regarding the heathens themselves, I will make bold to affirm, there is scarcely a duty or rule of morality, laid down in the New Testament, but may be found expressed, with more or less clearness, in the writings of some one or more of their poets or philosophers. It was not necessary, therefore, that another temple of God should be reared of stones, or that, from that dead temple, the same dead law, the mere letter of outward and verbal instruction, should be promulgated. But when righteousness had grown a stranger upon earth, then God sent that Teacher, His Son, who should found a new, a living temple, of which He was the Foundation; and should be Himself a Living Law, not only informing men, but showing them, in His own life, what they should be; and overturning the notion that what He enjoined was impossible, by the undeniable performance of it by Himself in their own nature. He is an effectual Teacher, for He has power not only Himself to work the works of God, but to communicate that to others whereby they also may work them. His instruction is quickening and saving: He is the true light, for it is light which is the life of men. A perfect teacher of righteousness could neither be mere man, nor in the form of God. A mere man could not, as is evident from two plain reasons. He could not exemplify His own precepts–He could not prove that obedience was possible, and He could not give the Spirit, for the Spirit is God, and how could a man, a creature, communicate God the Creator? And yet, without the Spirit of God, no man can be taught of God. And now, let us suppose that Christ, the Prophet of the Church, had delivered His teaching to us in the form of God, that He taught us without being incarnate: might not the human heart have raised these plausible objections? Thou commandest me to keep Thy law, but Thou art God, and I am dust and ashes. Thou dost promise me the aid of Thy Spirit; but I have not seen or heard of any one in whom, by that aid, this end was accomplished. To prevent this murmur, and the reasons on which it might have rested, God became man, and, as man spoke to men from the same level on which they stood. We saw Him in humiliation, in sorrow, in the struggles of temptation, in the fears and agonies of death, ever in the battle, but ever aloft; and then finally victorious, when He seemed for ever vanquished, for, by yielding to death He conquered him and his ruler, in the irresistible might of weakness quelling all the powers of hell. This is our Redeemer, this our Saviour. This is He announced from of old, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. How wonderful, how glorious His person; uniting the majesty of the eternal God with the meanness of mortal man; qualified to do whatever was necessary to be done, to suffer whatever needed to be endured for the honour of God and the salvation of man! How mysterious is His condescension, how sublime His humility–the pure streams of His mercy overflowing the world, while the flames of His zeal consumed Himself. (R. Lee, D. D.)

On passing by angels to redeem wen

If He who made all things took upon Him mans nature, we may feel sure that there is in that nature some intrinsic excellence and greatness, one proof of which is that it is capable of being united with the Person of the Word who was in the beginning with God, and was God. But so, unquestionably, was the angels nature; for man is a little lower than the angels. Here were two fallen races before the eye of the Redeemer, and we cannot doubt that it was optional with Him to redeem either of them, or both. Why He did not redeem both must be left to sovereign wisdom.

I. FALLEN ANGELS, IF REDEEMED, WOULD NO DOUBT BECOME AS GREAT AND GLORIOUS AS BEFORE. We see in this world enough of degradation made by sin to keep us from doubting the power or sin to degrade fallen angels into devils, and devils into alliance with swine. But the memory of innocence and of bliss in heaven no doubt remains in them. What a good work it would have been to redeem that memory and restore that angel. How sad, one might say, to think that Christ would not redeem him, but went after South Sea Islanders and the aborigines of the British Isles, than whom none was ever more lost to shame, or more distant from God. And what a wicked world this, which He redeemed, has proved. Thus far the few are saved; the many hate God.

II. But in reply it may be said, HIS SUCCESS MIGHT HAVE BEEN NO BETTER HAD CHRIST MADE REDEMPTION FOR ANGELS INSTEAD OF FOR MEN. Angels might have invented objections to Him as men did; some might go so far as to deny His Godhead and incarnation, and ask whether a good God would let His innocent Son visit such an abode, to suffer and die for devils; and what virtue there could be in the sufferings of one for the sins of others; and whether it is just to substitute an innocent being for the guilty? It is the great mystery of wisdom that while God does His pleasure, it is in such a way that every man exercises his free choice.

III. THOSE WHOM DO NOT ACCEPT REDEMPTION PROVIDED FOR THEM BY THE SON OF GOD ARE TO BE ASSOCIATED HEREAFTER WITH A RACE OF SINNERS WHOM CHRIST DID NOT REDEEM. Nothing surely is better adapted to make us accept the offers of the gospel; for if Christ passed them by and came to save us, no fancy can picture what it must be to receive from His lips a consignment to their abode and to their society.

IV. THE SUBJECT OPENS TO US A VIEW OF HUMAN HAPPINESS FOR ALL WHO ACCEPT OF SALVATION. If the Redeemer sought the greater amount of happiness in those for whom He decided to make atonement, He surely will find it in us who enter heaven, not as a recovered seat from which we were ignominiously expelled, but a world new, untried, awakening in us sensations of wonder and joy which now it doth not enter into the heart of man to conceive. There will be a quality in our joy which could never be known to those who fell from heaven. And shall we lose it? Are we looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God? (N. Adams, D. D.)

Fallen humanity elected to redemption in preference to fallen angels

I. THERE ARE STRONG REASONS WHICH BLIGHT NAVE LED US TO SUPPOSE THAT GOD WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE PREFERENCE TO FALLEN ANGELS.

1. The superiority of angelic natures.

2. The probability of their greater misery.

3. Their greater competency of appreciating the redemptive act.

II. ALTHOUGH THERE RIGHT APPEAR STRONG REASONS FOR THE CHOICE OF FALLEN ANGELS, WE CAN DISCOVER MOST SATISFACTORY REASONS FOR THE ELECTION OF FALLEN MEN.

1. The election of men in preference to fallen angels furnishes a more striking manifestation of Divine justice.

2. A more striking manifestation of Divine independence.

3. A more striking manifestation of Divine condescension.

Lessons:

1. How cautious should we be in pronouncing judgment upon the conduct of God.

2. How devoutly earnest should mans acceptance of this redemption be.

3. How zealously should those who have become participaters of this redemption seek to extend it to others. (Homilist.)

Men chosen–fallen angels rejected

I. In the first place, the translation of our authorised version runs thus: HE TOOK NOT ON HIM THE NATURE OF ANGELS. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not take upon Himself the nature of angels, this condescension dictated to Him, that if He did stoop, He would descend to the very lowest degree; that if He did become a creature, He would become, not the noblest creature, but one of the most ignoble of rational beings, that is to say, man, therefore, He did not stoop to the intermediate step of angelship, but He stooped right down and became a man. Let us notice the wisdom and the love of this, and I think there will be something to cause us to glorify God for so doing.

1. If Christ had taken upon Himself the nature of angels, He could never have made an atonement for man.

2. Had our Saviour become an angel, He would never have been a fitting example for us. I cannot imitate an angelic example. If you would give me something to imitate, give me a man like myself, then I may attempt to follow him.

3. Sweetly, also, let us remember that if Christ had been an angel, He could not have sympathised with us. In order to sympathise with our fellow creatures we must be something like them. Suppose a man made of iron, or of brass, could he sympathise with our wearied lungs, or with our aching bones?

4. Once more, Christ became a man, and not an angel, because He desired to be one with His dear Church.

5. Again, if Christ had not taken upon Him the nature of man, then manhood would not have been so honourable or so comfortable as it is.

II. The literal translation, according to the marginal reading, is, HE TOOK NOT UP ANGELS, BUT HE TOOK UP THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, by which is meant, that Christ did not die to save angels, though many of them needed salvation, but He died to save fallen man.

1. I do not think it is because of any difference in the sin. When two criminals are brought before a judge, if one of them is to be saved, and the other punished, very likely the judge will say, Let the greatest offender die, and let the less offender be saved. Now, I do not know that Satan was a greater offender than man; I am not sure that the fallen angels sinned more than man did. Why, sir, you say, mans sin was a very little one; he only stole some of his Masters fruit. Aye, but if it was such a little thing to do, what a little thing it would have been not to do it! If it were so little a thing, how easily he might have avoided it I and, therefore, because he did it, it became all the greater sin.

2. But suppose there is not much difference in their sin, the next question is, which of those two beings is the most worth saving? Which would serve his Maker most, if his Maker should spare him? And I defy any of you to hold that a sinful man is a more valuable creature than an angel.

3. Sometimes the government will say, Well, here are two persons to be executed; we desire to save one; which of the two would be the most dangerous character to allow to continue an enemy? Now, which could hurt God the most, speaking as man would speak, a fallen angel, or a man? I answer, that fallen man can do but little injury to Divine government, compared to a fallen angel.

4. Perhaps it would be said, if one is to be saved, let that one be saved who would take the least trouble to save. Now, which could be saved with the greatest ease, should you suppose a fallen angel, or a fallen man? For my part, I can see no difference; but if there be any it strikes me that a restoration does not put things one-half so much out of order as a revolution; and to have restored the angels to the place from which they had fallen, speaking as a man must speak, would not have been so hard as to have taken fallen man out of the place from which he had fallen, and placed him where fallen angels bad once stood.

5. But, you may say, God saved man because He pitied him. But then why did not He pity the devils? I know two men living on three or four shillings a week. I pity one of them very much, indeed; but the other, who is no better off, I pity him the most, for he once knew better times. Man, it is true, fell out of Eden; but Satan fell out of heaven, and is the more to be pitied on account of the greatness of his fall; and, therefore, if pity had ruled the day, God would have decided for the fallen angels, and not for fallen men. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Kindred aids rescue

There is no sympathy like that of those who are bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. Let some stranger see a child fall into yonder river, and his irresistible impulse is to plunge in and rescue that child. But his zeal to do so is mere indifference compared with the heartrending agony that tears the soul of the childs mother. Some years since, in a wild valley of Dauphine, in France, an eagle, we are told, swooped down from its lofty eyrie, clutched a helpless infant in its sharp talons, and soared aloft with it to the peak of an almost inaccessible mountain. The peasants, looking on with horror at the sight, in confusion and excitement, knew not what to do. But not so the mother. Hearing of the disaster, love gave wings to her feet, and so she leaped, nay, flew almost, from crag to crag, until, mounting higher and higher, she reached the summit and clasped the uninjured captive to her bosom. Kinship intensifies sympathy. It is just of that the apostle would have us to gather a clear and strong idea. Christ is bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, one of ourselves; bound up with us in the bundle of life, bound to us by ten thousand close and tender ties, along which there thrill and throb the vibrations of a strength–a Divine, a supernatural strength, that flows down indeed to the heart of even the feeblest and lowliest of His sufferers upon earth. (Bp. of Algoma.)

Humiliation of Jesus

The founder of the Russian empire left his palace and capital, the seductive pleasures and all the pomp and royalty, to acquire the art of ship-building in the dockyard of a Dutch sea-port. He learned it that he might teach it to his subjects; he became a servant, that he might be the better master, and lay in Russia the foundations of a great naval power. Nor has his country been ungrateful; her capital, which bears his name, is adorned with a monument to his memory, massive as his mind; and she has embalmed his deathless name in her heart and in her victories. Yet, little as men think of Jesus, lightly as they esteem Him, a far greater sight is here. There, in a king becoming a subject that his subjects might find in him a king, there was much for men; but here there is much both for men and angels to wonder at, and praise through all eternity. The Son of God stoops to toil. What an amazing scene! (T. Guthrie. D. D.)

The secret of true philanthropy

Great philanthropic programmes must begin at Bethlehem, and comprehend the mysteries of Golgotha, if ever they would ascend from Bethany into the heavens. He who would make life redemptive mission must go to the very base of society, and begin his work there. Men invariably fail when they begin at the high twig rather than the buried root. To serve man, Christ became man. So in serving others we must identify ourselves with them. Christ was in the darkness, but the darkness was not in Him. This identification of Himself with the human race made Christ accessible to all classes. Man needed for a season–only for a season, as one summer in the year is enough–a visible manifestation of God. So by coming to us, and being like us, trod humbling Himself to the death of the Cross, He saved us. We, too, in our philanthropic work must go down. Kings are only the blossomings of the great communal tree. Down to the roots is the cry of the true philanthropy. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Christs close contact with humanity

You remember that happy story of the wild negro child who could never be won till the little lady sat down by her, and laid her hand upon her. Eva won poor Topsy by that tender touch. The tongue failed, but the hand achieved the victory. So was it with our adorable Lord. He showed us that He was bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh; He brought Himself into contact with us, and made us perceive the reality of His love to us, and then He became more than a conqueror over us. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

He was one of its

On the centenary of the birth of Robert Stephenson there was a very large demonstration at Newcastle. The town was paraded by a vast precession who carried banners in honour of the distinguished engineer. ]n the procession there was a band of peasants, who carried a little banner of very ordinary appearance, but bearing the words, He was one of us. They were inhabitants of the small village in which Robert Stephenson had been born, and had come to do him honour. They had a right to a prominent position in that days proceedings, because he to whom so many thousands did honour was one of them. Even so, whatever praise the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers can ascribe to Christ in that grand celebration when men shall be no more, we from earth can wave our banners with the words written upon it, He was one of us.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels] , . Moreover, he doth not at all take hold of angels; but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. This is the marginal reading, and is greatly to be preferred to that in the text Jesus Christ, intending not to redeem angels, but to redeem man, did not assume the angelic nature, but was made man, coming directly by the seed or posterity of Abraham, with whom the original covenant was made, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and it is on this account that the apostle mentioned the seed of Abraham, and not the seed of Adam; and it is strange that to many commentators should have missed so obvious a sense. The word itself signifies not only to take hold of, but to help, succour, save from sinking, c. The rebel angels, who sinned and fell from God, were permitted to fall downe, alle downe, as one of our old writers expresses it, till they fell into perdition: man sinned and fell, and was falling downe, alle downe, but Jesus laid hold on him and prevented him from falling into endless perdition. Thus he seized on the falling human creature, and prevented him from falling into the bottomless pit but he did not seize on the falling angels, and they fell down into outer darkness. By assuming the nature of man, he prevented this final and irrecoverable fall of man; and by making an atonement in human nature, he made a provision for its restoration to its forfeited blessedness. This is a fine thought of the apostle, and is beautifully expressed. Man was falling from heaven, and Jesus caught hold of the falling creature, and prevented its endless ruin. In this respect he prefers men to angels, and probably for this simple reason, that the human nature was more excellent than the angelic; and it is suitable to the wisdom of the Divine Being to regard all the works of his hands in proportion to the dignity or excellence with which he has endowed them.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels: the Spirit having asserted the deliverance of the children from their slavery to the devil, shows here the means by which it was effected, even by the gospel Prophet, being a man, and not an angel; he took their nature to himself, that by death he might deliver them: may signify no where, or in no wise; is read by some, to take hold of, and so make this work denied of God the Son, that he did not take hold of the falling angels, to save or recover them: but the Spirit speaks not one word of lapsed angels in either this or the foregoing chapter, and so it cannot refer to them; and for good angels, they never departed or fell, that he should stretch out his hand to save them. And it cannot be understood otherwise than affirmatively here, which must needs have another sense, because the same act is denied and affirmed. The word therefore signifieth to assume, or to take to one, to assume or take into union. He united not to his person the angelical nature, the individual substance of an angel, so as to redeem those sinning lapsed spirits.

But he took on him the seed of Abraham; but he assumed into union with his person the seed of Abraham; which seed is not to be understood here collectively, for either his carnal or believing seed; but it is the one singular, eminent Seed of Abraham, in and by whom, himself, his seed, and all nations were to be blessed, Gen 22:18, compare Gal 3:16, the man Christ Jesus. This man, God the Son took of the virgin Mary, the offspring of Abraham, and united him to his person, and of God and this Seed united into one person, became our Lord Jesus Christ, so as he might bring the blessing of salvation to the chosen of God in all nations. The assumption of this eminent Seed into the unity of his own person, is here asserted by the Spirit, and denied concerning any angel, there being no promise ever made to them for it, Zec 13:7; Luk 1:31,35; Ga 4:4; 1Ti 2:5. If the verb signify no such assumption in human authors, as some cavil, it is because the matter to which it is here applied was never treated on among them; and it is common with the Spirit to make words which are ordinary with men, transcendent, when he applieth them to the great mysteries of God, as Trinity, Son, adoption, &c.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

16. For verilyGreek,“For as we all know“; “For as you willdoubtless grant.” Paul probably alludes to Isa 41:8;Jer 31:32, Septuagint,from which all Jews would know well that the fact here statedas to Messiah was what the prophets had led them to expect.

took not on him,c.rather, “It is not angels that He is helping (thepresent tense implies duration) but it is the seed of Abrahamthat He is helping.” The verb is literally, to help bytaking one by the hand, as in Heb8:9, “When I took them by the hand,” c. Thus it answersto “succor,” Heb 2:18,and “deliver,” Heb 2:15.”Not angels,” who have no flesh and blood, but “thechildren,” who have “flesh and blood,” He takes holdof to help by “Himself taking part of the same” (Heb2:14). Whatever effect Christ’s work may have on angels, He isnot taking hold to help them by suffering in their nature to deliverthem from death, as in our case.

the seed of AbrahamHeviews Christ’s redemption (in compliment to the Hebrews whom he isaddressing, and as enough for his present purpose) with reference toAbraham’s seed, the Jewish nation, primarily not that heexcludes the Gentiles (Heb 2:9,”for every man”), who, when believers, are the seed ofAbraham spiritually (compare Heb 2:12;Psa 22:22; Psa 22:25;Psa 22:27), but direct referenceto them (such as is in Rom 4:11;Rom 4:12; Rom 4:16;Gal 3:7; Gal 3:14;Gal 3:28; Gal 3:29)would be out of place in his present argument. It is the sameargument for Jesus being the Christ which Matthew, writing his Gospelfor the Hebrews, uses, tracing the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham,the father of the Jews, and the one to whom the promises were given,on which the Jews especially prided themselves (compare Rom 9:4;Rom 9:5).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels,…. Good angels; for they are all along spoken of in this book; and it would have been impertinent to have said this of evil angels: and this is to be understood not of a denying help and assistance to the angels; for though they have not redemption from Christ, which they needed not, yet have they help from him; they are chosen in him, and are gathered together under him; and he is the head of them, and they are upheld and sustained by him in their being, and well being: but of a non-assumption of their nature; there was no need of it with respect to good angels, and there was no salvation designed for evil ones; and to have assumed the nature of angels, would have been of no service to fallen man; an angelic nature is not capable of death, which was necessary to atone for sin, save men, and destroy Satan: this negative proposition is very strongly put, “he never took”, as the Vulgate Latin version more rightly renders it; at no time, in no place; nor is it said in any place of Scripture that he did; this is a certain truth, and not to be disputed. The Syriac and Arabic versions render it, “he took not of, or from angels”; he took not any individual from among them:

but he took on him the seed of Abraham; not all his posterity, but some individual, as the word seed is sometimes used, Ge 4:25. Christ assumed human nature as derived from Abraham; for the Messiah was to spring from Abraham, and is promised, as that seed of his, in whom all nations should be blessed; and he was particularly promised to the Jews, the seed of Abraham, to whom the apostle was writing; and it was with a view to Abraham’s spiritual seed, the children of the promise, that Christ partook of flesh and blood: the word here used signifies to catch hold of anyone ready to perish, or to lay hold on a person running away, and with great vehemence and affection to hold anything fast, that it be not lost, and to help persons, and do good unto them; all which may be observed in this act of Christ’s, in assuming an individual of human nature, in Abraham’s line, into union with his divine person; whereby he has saved those that were gone out of the way, and were ready to perish, and done them the greatest good, and shown the strongest affection to them: and from hence may be learned the deity and eternity of Christ, who was before Abraham, as God, though a son of his as man; and his real humanity, and that it was not a person, but a seed, a nature he assumed; and also the union and distinction of natures in him: and Christ’s taking human, and not angelic nature, shows the sovereignty of God, and his distinguishing grace and mercy to men.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Verily ( ). “Now in some way,” only here in N.T.

Doth he take hold (). Present middle indicative and means to lay hold of, to help, like in verse 18.

The seed of Abraham ( ). The spiritual Israel (Ga 3:29), children of faith (Ro 9:7).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Verily [] . N. T. o. Doubtless, as is well known.

Took not on him [ ] . Rend. he doth not take hold. Comp. Mt 14:31; Mr 8:23; Act 18:17. Absolutely, in the sense of help, Sir. 4 11. The Greek and Latin fathers explained the verb in the sense of appropriating. He did not appropriate the nature of angels. Angels did not need to be delivered from the fear of death.

The nature of angels [] . The nature is not in the Greek, and does not need to be supplied if ejpilambanetai is properly translated. Rend. not of angels doth he take hold. It is not angels who receive his help. The seed of Abraham. The one family of God, consisting of believers of both dispensations, but called by its O. T. name. See Psa 105:6; Isa 41:8, and comp. Gal 3:29. The O. T. name is selected because the writer is addressing Jews. The entire statement in vers. 16, 17 is not a mere repetition of vers. 14, 15. It carries out the line of thought and adds to it, while at the same time it presents a parallel argument to that in vers. 14, 15. Thus : vers. 14, 15, Christ took part of flesh and blood that he might deliver the children of God from the fear of death and the accusations of Satan : vers. 16, 17, Christ takes hold of the seed of Abraham, the church of God, and is made like unto his brethren, tempted as they are, in order that he may be a faithful high priest, making reconciliation for sin, thus doing away with the fear of death, and enabling his people to draw near to God with boldness. Comp. ch. Heb 4:15, 16. Christ gives that peculiar help the necessity of which was exhibited in the O. T. economy under which the original seed of Abraham lived. The fear of death, arising from the consciousness of sin, could be relieved only by the intervention of the priest who stood between God and the sinner, and made reconciliation for sin. Jesus steps into the place of the high priest, and perfectly fulfills the priestly office. By his actual participation in the sorrows and temptations of humanity he is fitted to be a true sympathizer with human infirmity and temptation (ch. 5 2), a merciful and faithful high priest, making reconciliation for sin, and thus abolishing the fear of death.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; (ou gar depou angelon epilambanetai) “For he takes or receives not, of course, (of the nature) of angels; The nature or course of angels is not redemptive, but of service, Heb 1:14. And angels do not have flesh or procreate or reproduce.

2) “But he took on him,” (alla epilambanetai) “But (in contrast) he takes hold of the nature or of the flesh-line order,” the seed of Abraham’s flesh, according to Divine promise, Gen 12:1-3.

3) “The seed of Abraham,” (spermatos Abraam) “Of the seed-line (family) of Abraham; from the thrice repeated promise that his seed should become a mighty nation thru whom all earth should be blessed – thru 1) Abraham, 2) Isaac, and 3) Jacob, .

Jesus is that promised redeemer, the redemptive seed of Abraham, Gal 3:13-18.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

16. For verily, or, For nowhere, etc. By this comparison he enhances the benefit and the honor with which Christ has favored us, by putting on our flesh; for he never did so much for angels. As then it was necessary that there should be a remarkable remedy for man’s dreadful ruin, it was the design of the Son of God that there should be some incomparable pledge of his love towards us which angels had not in common with us. That he preferred us to angels was not owing to our excellency, but to our misery. There is therefore no reason for us to glory as though we were superior to angels, except that our heavenly Father has manifested toward us that ampler mercy which we needed, so that the angels themselves might from on high behold so great a bounty poured on the earth. The present tense of the verb is to be understood with reference to the testimonies of Scripture, as though he set before us what had been before testified by the Prophets.

But this one passage is abundantly sufficient to lay prostrate such men as Marcion and Manicheus, and fanatical men of similar character, who denied Christ to have been a real man, begotten of human seed. For if he bore only the appearance of man, as he had before appeared in the form of an angel, there could have been no difference; but as it could not have been said that Christ became really an angel, clothed with angelic nature, it is hence said that he took upon him man’s nature and not that of angels.

And the Apostle speaks of nature, and intimates that Christ, clothed with flesh, was real man, so that there was unity of person in two natures. For this passage does not favor Nestorius, who imagined a twofold Christ, as though the Son of God was not a real man but only dwelt in man’s flesh. But we see that the Apostle’s meaning was very different, for his object was to teach us that we find in the Son of God a brother, being a partaker of our common nature. Being not therefore satisfied with calling him man, he says that he was begotten of human seed; and he names expressly the seed of Abraham, in order that what he said might have more credit, as being taken from Scripture. (49)

(49) See Appendix K

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

It was necessary for Christ to become human in order to sympathise with men through experience. Heb. 2:16-18

Text

Heb. 2:16-18

16 For verily not to angels doth He give help, but He giveth help to the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Heb. 2:18 For in that He himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted.

Paraphrase

Heb. 2:16 Moreover, by no means doth He take hold of the angels who sinned, to save them; but of those who are the seed of Abraham by faith He taketh hold, to deliver them from death, and to conduct them to heaven.

Heb. 2:17 Hence it was necessary He should be made like His brethren (Heb. 2:11.) in all things, and particularly in afflictions and temptations, that, having a feeling of their infirmity, and being capable of dying, He might become a merciful as well as a faithful high-priest in matters pertaining to God, in order, by His death, (Heb. 2:14.), to expiate the sins of the people, and to intercede with God in their behalf.

Heb. 2:18 Besides by what He suffered Himself when tempted, He knows what aids are necessary to our overcoming temptations, so that He is able and willing, in the exercise of His government as king mentioned (Heb. 2:9.) to succour them who are tempted.

Comment

For verily not to angels doth He give help

Jesus coming was for man, not angels.
It is also translated, He took not on Him the nature of angels. (KS)

He did not, as the next verse verifies.

He came not as an angel, but as man.

That He preferred us to angels was not owing to our excellency, but to our misery.

but He giveth help to the seed of Abraham

There are two groups for consideration:

The physical seed.

He came to the house of Israel, but this consideration alone limits the verse.

The good tidings announced concerning the birth of the Saviour in Bethlehem was for all men.

The spiritual seed, which includes all men of faith.

Gal. 3:9 : are of faith are blessed.

Gal. 4:28 : Now we, brethren . . . are children of promise.

Rom. 9:8 : The children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.

Wherefore it behooved Him in all things

He felt a moral necessity, an obligation to do something for man:

The nature of God, loving, just, merciful, would require God to seek man.

Jesus was of the nature of God, so He would feel obligated to save man.

Two things should be considered in the expression, all things:

Man has a twofold being.

Flesh.

Affection, feeling or emotion.

Jesus came as flesh, and He had sympathy, feeling, and emotion.

to be made like unto His brethren

Who were His brethren?

Some suggest His flesh and blood relatives.

Some suggest His Jewish brethren.

Some suggest His brethren in the church.

His brethren in the fleshmankind in generalmay be considered, for the emphasis is on becoming like man, and not upon the word, brethren.

that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest.

Might become suggests that living in the flesh was needed in order to qualify Him:

We do not like to limit Jesus, but from our standpoint we cannot now excuse ourselves and say that Deity does not know our feeling since Jesus suffered as man.

We become the most sympathetic when we have experienced the same thing as the one who needs our sympathy. Merciful is suggestive:

In Old Testament times, sins punishment had no mercy. cf. Heb. 10:28 : Die without mercy.

Jesus was merciful:

His coming was an act of mercy.

He showed compassion on earth.

Joh. 8:11 : go and sin no more.

Luk. 7:13. He had compassion on her.

Mat. 9:36 : Jesus was moved with compassion.

Since Christ experienced all of life, we readily believe that He will be merciful to us.

faithful

Christ proved His faithfulness:

Luk. 9:51 : He stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.

Mat. 26:39 : not My will but Thine be done.

Mat. 26:52 : Put up again thy sword into its place.

Heb. 3:2 : Jesus . . . was faithful.

Jesus was faithful to His purpose in this life. Therefore we feel He will be faithful as our High Priest.

High Priest in all things

On earth He was our sacrifice, in heaven He is our High Priest:

The High Priest on earth made sacrifices, then went into the Holy Place to make restitution for the sins of the people.

Jesus serves in the Holy Place as our Priest.

Heb. 3:1 : High Priest of our confession.

Heb. 10:21 : having a great High Priest.

in things pertaining to God

Jesus had many opportunities to leave Gods way:

Men sought to make Him bow to their traditions.

The devil sought to receive His devotion. Matthew 4 He was pleasing to God rather than to men:

Baptism, Mat. 3:17 : well pleased.

Transfiguration, Mat. 17:5 : well pleased.

Act. 2:33 : being at right hand of God.

to make propitiation for the sins of the people

The word, propitiation means a covering, an appeasement, and is also translated reconciliation.

His atonement is referred to.

This is the priestly function of Christ.

The Catholic Bible uses the word expiate.

For in that He Himself had suffered being tempted.

Alternate translations should be seen here:

A.S. footnote: for having been himself tempted in that wherein He hath suffered.

This suggests that there is suffering in temptation.

Temptation here means no other thing than experience or probation, says Calvin. (p. 76)

Jesus is a good example of the distress of the soul: Luk. 22:44 : great drops of blood.

Mat. 26:38 : My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death.

Men who are not dishonest, but have great temptations before them, undergo great distress of soul.

Catholic Bible: Himself has suffered and has been tempted:

This makes the experiences separate.

Of course He did experience suffering apart from being tempted.

He is able to succor them that are tempted

There are three things needed by the one tempted:

Strength to withstand.

Php. 4:13 : through Christ.

1Co. 10:13 : God . . . will not suffer: you to be tempted above that ye are able to bear.

Eph. 6:13 : . . . may be able to withstand.

Consolation for the spirit.

Mat. 5:11 Blessed are ye.

1Pe. 1:6-7 : Rejoice.

Rom. 8:28 : to them that love God, all things work together for good.

Jas. 1:2; Jas. 1:12.

Deliverance.

2Pe. 2:9 : The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly.

1Co. 10:13 : a way of escape.

The Great Shepherd will walk down the valleys and will prepare a table for us in the presence of our enemies.

Study Questions

301.

Does Christ help angels, according to this chapter (Heb. 2:16)? Why not?

302.

Why would He help us instead of angels?

303.

Does this verse limit His help to the Jews?

304.

What is meant by seed of Abraham?

305.

Are we the seed of Abraham, too? cf. Gal. 1:1; Gal. 4:28; Gal. 3:7; Gal. 3:29; Rom. 9:6-8.

306.

Heb. 2:17 gives us another reason for Christ coming in human flesh. What is it?

307.

What is meant by behooved?

308.

What is meant by all things?

309.

What is characteristic of man besides flesh?

310.

Would all things refer to emotionlove, sympathy, etc.?

311.

How could Christs life on earth make Him a merciful high priest?

312.

Was the Old Testament priesthood merciful? cf. Heb. 10:28.

313.

Tell of Jesus compassion on earth.

314.

Are we the most sympathetic when we have suffered similar experiences?

315.

Tell of Christs faithfulness.

316.

What might be included in all things?

317.

Is the expression, pertaining to God, significant?

318.

Did God ever express pleasure in Christ on earth?

319.

What is meant by propitiation?

320.

What does Heb. 2:18 suggest about temptation? Does it describe its effect on the one tempted?

321.

Does all temptation come through suffering, or are two different things named here?

322.

What are the things needed by the person tempted?

323.

Do we have the promise of Christs strength?

324.

Do we have consolation?

325.

Is there deliverance in Christ?

326.

What temptations did Jesus face?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(16) He took not on him the nature of angels.The rendering of the margin approaches very nearly the true meaning of the verse; whereas the text (in which the Authorised version differs from all our earlier translations) introduces confusion into the argument. Having spoken in Heb. 2:14 of our Lords assumption of human nature, the writer in these words assigns the reason: For surely it is not of angels that He taketh hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham. Though the words take hold, which occur twice in the verse, probably cannot directly signify help (as is often maintained), they distinctly suggest laying hold for the sake of giving help; and a beautiful illustration may be found in some of the Gospel narratives of our Lords works of healing (Mar. 8:23; Luk. 14:4). It is probable that the language used here is derived from the Old Testament. In Heb. 8:9, a quotation from Jeremiah 31, we read, In the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Isa. 41:8-9, however, is perhaps a still closer parallel (for the word used in the Greek version is very similar, and no doubt expresses the same meaning): Thou Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend; thou of whom I have taken hold from the ends of the earth. If the writer had these verses in his thought, it is hardly necessary to inquire why he chooses the expression seed of Abraham, instead of one of (apparently) wider meaning, such as Heb. 2:7-8, might seem to require. But even apart from this passage of Isaiah, and the natural fitness of such a phrase in words addressed to Jews, we may doubt if any other language would have been equally expressive. For as to the means, it was by becoming a child of Abraham that the Saviour took hold of our race to raise it up; and as to the purpose, St. Paul teaches us that the seed of Abraham includes all who inherit Abrahams faith.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

16. Took not on him This verb signifies primitively to grasp, to take hold of; generally with some degree of force or earnestness. This taking is for the purpose of aid, or to possess and appropriate. Hence a difference of opinion between commentators; some of whom render it as in our translation, and others (as Alford) translate it simply “helpeth.” The word truly includes both ideas, namely, to forcibly grasp, to seize, and a purpose thereby to aid, to rescue, to redeem. Our author did not mean simply to help, otherwise he would have used the ordinary Greek verb for to help; but he means to help by grasping forcibly the seed of Abraham. And the very word seed implies a lineage genetically assumed. The previous Heb 2:14-15, affirm Christ’s partaking our nature to deliver us from fear of death; this verse confirms that thought by specifying his omitting angels and redemptively assuming manhood; and Heb 2:17 urges the perfect fitness of that assumption.

Seed of Abraham A touching fact for these Hebrews, sons of Abraham, whose special lineage Christ assumed. He was their Abrahamic brother, and they were of the Messianic family of man. Why shrink from that suffering cross, which was truly glorious to the Sufferer and honouring to a Hebrew?

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For truly not of angels does he lay hold with help, but he lays hold with help of the seed of Abraham.’

He now stresses the ones to whom help is given, who ‘are laid hold of in order to give them help’. The idea of the ‘help’ given is strong, as revealed by the word ‘laid hold with help’. He gives saving help, leading many sons to glory. And it is not angels that He thus seeks to help, it is the seed of Abraham (compare Isa 41:8).

(The basic meaning of the verb is ‘to lay hold of’, but it developed into also meaning ‘to lay hold of in order to help’, and therefore came to mean ‘to help’).

‘For truly not of angels does he lay hold with help.’ ‘Not to/of angels’ is a theme of the passage. Compare Heb 2:5. Having demonstrated that the Son was superior to the angels, he is now stressing His graciousness in stooping below the angels in order to ‘lay hold with help’ of men, and redeemed man’s new superiority over the angels. He stooped low that redeemed man might be exalted above the angels.

Note first the inference that He might theoretically have given help to the angels. Thus they are inferior to Him. We do not know whether he means the good or the evil angels. Perhaps he means both according to their need. But the former need no saving help, and for the latter Scripture offers no hope.

‘But he gives help to the seed of Abraham.’ These words are pregnant with significance. They define those to whom His saving help comes. Abraham was the one called by God to leave the world for a land that He would give him, dwelling in tents because he looked for his permanent inheritance from God (Heb 11:8-10). Out of fallen mankind he was especially chosen in order to bring ‘blessing’ to that world which he had left (Gen 12:3), a blessing which would come through his true seed (Gen 22:18). Thus are separated out to be given His help those who are to be blessed, those who are called out of the world and chosen by God to be the true seed of Abraham, His elect. It is those who are of faith who are the sons of Abraham (Gal 3:7 in the context of the whole chapter; Rom 4:1-22). So the seed of Abraham indicates all who have responded to, and are faithful to, God, those who are truly like Abraham and have left the world in order to seek God’s inheritance (Heb 11:8-10).

(It should be noted that the Old Testament salvation history makes abundantly clear that no nation is simply blessed as a nation, regardless of response and behaviour. At Sinai Israel were potentially blessed, but they soon discovered that if they were faithless and disobedient their blessing turned into a curse. The same was true throughout their history, as is also true that those who desired to come within the covenant from the world outside were welcome to do so on the same terms as those already within the covenant.

Thus the seed of Abraham were at all times seen as those who responded fully to the covenant, whether true born Israelite, or adopted covenanter, the latter of whom, if we think of a true born Israelite as being directly descended from Jacob/Israel, actually outnumbered the former, consisting of the servants of Abraham and their descendants who remained faithful to the patriarchs, the mixed multitude of Exo 12:38, others who joined with them when they were settled in the land who were not Canaanites but belonged to related groups, and many witnessed to by their names as coming from a foreign source, and so on. Paul sees this as occurring also when Gentiles who become Christians are grafted into the olive tree – Romans 11).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Heb 2:16. For verily he took not on him, &c. The version of the margin is here to be preferred, wherewith the Vulgate agrees. The word is used several times in the New Testament with a genitive case, as in this place, and always in the sense of taking hold. See ch. Heb 8:9. Mat 14:31. Mar 8:23. Luk 9:47. 1Ti 6:12; 1Ti 6:19. The apostle’s reasoning stands thus: “Christ took part in flesh and blood, because his design was to lay hold of, that is, to save, the seed of Abraham,all the followers of the faith of Abraham, and not the angels; and upon that account it was highly requisite, that he should be made like unto the seed of Abraham, his brethren in sufferings and grace; in order to which, it was necessary for him to take part with them in flesh and blood; Heb 2:17.” It may be here asked, why the apostle should say, that Christ came to help the seed of Abraham; and not the seed of Adam? The reason is, he was writing to persons zealous of the law, and who could not bear the notion of the Gentiles being admitted to equal privileges with themselves. Therefore, under the words the seed of Abraham, (which, in St. Paul’s language, implied all that were of faith, be they of what nation soever,) he artfully, and without giving offence to the Hebrews, expresses the full truth. Abraham was the father of all them that believe, Rom 4:11 and in this sense is the expression here used, to take in all that followed the faith of Abraham, whether they were Jews or Gen

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 2:16 . The necessity for the assumption of flesh and blood on the part of the Redeemer is more fully brought to light by means of an establishing of the characteristic . . ., Heb 2:15 . This assumption was necessary, since the object of this redemption was confessedly not angels, i.e. beings of a purely spiritual nature, but descendants of Abraham , i.e. beings of flesh and blood.

] or , as it is more correctly written, does not signify: “nowhere” (Luther, Zeger, Calvin, Schlichting, Limborch, Bisping, al .; Vulg.: nusquam ), in such wise that should be referred to a passage in the O. T., and the sense would result: nowhere in the O. T. is it spoken of, that, etc. [51]

For such reference must at least have been indicated by the context, which is not the case. stands rather, according to purely classical usage (in the N. T., for the rest, it is found only here; with the LXX. not at all), to denote, in ironical form of expression, the presupposition that the statement to be expressed is a truth raised above all doubt, which must be conceded by every one. It corresponds to our “assuredly,” “surely” ( doch wohl ), “I should think,” to the Latin “opinor.” Comp. Hartung, Partikellehre , I. p. 285; Klotz, ad Devar . p. 427.

] to take a helping interest in any one (comp. Sir 4:11 ), here to deliver him from the guilt and punishment of sin (comp. , Heb 2:15 ; and , Heb 2:17 ; wrongly, because . . ., Heb 2:15 , stands not in reciprocal relation with , but with the antithesis , Heb 2:16 ; Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 59, 2 Aufl.: “in order that the fear of death might not in our life terrify and enslave us”). The present , since the is something still continuing. The interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Erasmus, Luther, Clarius, Vatablus, Zeger, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Wolf, and many others: not angels, but the seed of Abraham, that is to say: not the nature of angels, but the nature of the seed of Abraham did Christ assume , has fallen into deserved disrepute; [52] only Castellio, however, first perceived its grammatical impossibility. The proposal of Schulz to supply from Heb 2:14-15 as the subject to : “ for certainly he (death, or the lord of death) does not lay hold of , or carry off, angels, but the posterity of Abraham does he lay hold of ,” is indeed grammatically permissible; logically, however, it does not commend itself, inasmuch as Heb 2:17 stands in close connection with Heb 2:16 , but at Heb 2:17 , as Heb 2:14-15 , the subject again is naturally Christ .

] without article, like the following , generically . The author here excludes the angels from the province of the redemption which takes place through Christ. He is thus brought into contradiction with the teaching of Paul (comp. Col 1:20 ) a position which is wrongly denied by Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 59 f.; Delitzsch, and Moll; by the first-named upon the untenable ground that “the design in this connection was not to say whom Jesus helps and whom He does not help, but what He is for those with whom He concerns Himself, for whom He exerts Himself!”

] does not denote mankind in general (Bengel, Bhme, Klee, Stein, Wieseler, Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters , p. 491 f., al .), in such wise that the expression should be taken in the spiritual sense, or “the congregation of God, reaching over from the O. T. into the N. T., which goes back to Abraham’s call and obedience of faith for its fundamental beginning, Israel and the believers out of all mankind, the whole good olive tree, which has the patriarchs as its sacred root, Gal 3:29 ; Rom 4:16 ; Rom 11:16 ” (Delitzsch, Hofmann, II. 1, p. 60, 2 Aufl.; Kluge, Kurtz), which must have been introduced and made manifest by the context; but the Jewish people (comp. , Heb 2:17 ; , Heb 13:12 ). For Apollos, who (according to sec. 1 of the Introduction ) is to be regarded as the author of the epistle, the conviction of the universality of Christianity must, it is true, have been not less firmly established than for Paul himself. He has mentioned, however, in place of the genus i.e. in place of mankind in general only a species of this genus , namely, Jewish humanity; just because he had only to do with born Jews as the readers of his epistle. Grotius: Hebraeis scribens satis habet de illis loqui; de gentibus alibi loquendi locus. Rightly at the same time does de Wette remark that Paul, even under a precisely identical state of the case, would hardly have expressed himself as is here done. Comp. also Reuss ( Nouvelle Revue de Thologie , vol. V., Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 208): “Nous doutons, que Paul et pu traiter un pareil sujet en s’imposant un silence absolu sur un principe, qui tait, vrai dire, le centre de son activit apostolique.”

[51] Ebrard still finds in ver. 16 a proof from the O. T. Only he supposes the author did not here feel it needful to cite a single passage, but that it sufficed to remind of a universally acknowledged fact of the O. T.!

[52] M‘Caul alone has espoused it afresh.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

(16) For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (17) Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (18) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

There is somewhat so very gracious in what is here said, of the Son of God, passing by the nature of Angels, and taking on him the seed of Abraham; that I would beg my Reader’s indulgence to be somewhat more particular, in marking the distinguishing mercy. And in order that we may have the clearest apprehension of the subject, according to what is stated of it in scripture, it will not be amiss; first to make enquiry into the circumstances of that class of Beings, whose nature the Son of God passed by, when he took upon him the nature of man: before that we consider that class of Beings to whom Jesus manifested such distinguishing love in taking their nature. We have a large account of Angels, if taken altogether, in the word of God, to shew their high rank and dignity in the scale of being. They are evidently of the same family as man, considered as in Christ their head, Eph 3:15 . The elect Angels, so called, 1Ti 5:21 , are spoken of, as deriving, both their being and well being from, and in Christ, Col 1:18 . And as their Creator, they are commanded to worship him, Heb 1:6 . They ministered to his Person, upon earth, at his incarnation, Luk 2:13 ; at his temptation, Mat 4:11 ; in his agony in the garden, Luk 22:43 ; at the tomb, on his resurrection, Mat 28:7Mat 28:7 ; his ascension, Act 1:10-11 , and when the Lord shall come again to judge the world, they will attend him, Mat 26:27 , and the Church of his redeemed shall see the heavens open, and they shall behold them ascending, and descending, upon the Son of Man, Joh 1:51 ; Gen 28:12 . But while these very blessed things are spoken of Angels, in proof of their high dignity and character, we are taught in this precious scripture; that the Son of God, verily took not on him the nature of Angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Let us humbly look into some of the causes, as far as Holy Scripture hath explained the subject, by way of marking the distinguishing mercy.

And first, to begin our enquiry of the scripture account of Angels. It appears, from several parts of the word of God, that there are Angels, which stand in a somewhat nearer relation to Christ, than that of being created by Him; for they are called, Elect Angels, 1Ti 5:21 , by which it may reasonably be supposed, that some influence, or power, is manifested by Christ towards them, which differs wholly from what simply belongs to Creating, and Preserving them in Being with the whole Creation of God. For in this sense, Hell itself is preserved, and the fallen Angels, which are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, to the judgment of the great day, Jud 1:6 . But then, this influence, or power, of special grace and favor differs totally from that, which is shewn the elect of Christ among men. With those, there is an union with Christ and they form Christ’s mystical body. He is the head of his body the Church. And they are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, Col 1:18 ; Eph 5:30 . Such things are never said of Angels. Moreover, Christ is the Redeemer of his elect men, which by nature in the Adam-fall, are all involved in ruin. But Christ is never said to be the Redeemer of Angels, in any part of the word of God. Indeed the Elect Angels needed not redemption, Christ hath kept them from falling. And for the fallen Angels, cast out of heaven, no Redeemer was ever to be provided, according to the Covenant of eternity. Hence we discover, the striking difference, respecting Angels and Men.

Secondly. It appears, however, from scripture, that as the Elect Angels, not only owe their Being, and their well Being to Christ; so are they in some special way, or manner, in the same family with Elect Men; and with them are Worshippers of Christ. When Jehovah bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith; And let all the Angels of God worship him, Heb 1:6 . And agreeably to this command, when John saw heaven open, and the Church praising Christ; he saith, that he heard also the voice of many Angels round about the throne, joining in the song, Rev 5:11-12 . From hence we must infer, that the kingdom of Christ, is composed of Angels and Men and that they are Worshippers together of Christ as God-Man Mediator. I might enlarge much on this point. But dare not: The limits of a Poor Man’s Commentary will not admit. But when we consider, what the word of God relates on this subject; that the Angels are ministering spirits sent forth to minister to them that are heirs of salvation; Heb 1:14 , that they evidently attend the assemblies of God’s people; for women professing godliness are commanded to cover their heads in worship, because of the Angels; 1Co 11:10 , and that they rejoice over the conversion of the Lord’s people, when brought out of the Adam-darkness; these things seem somewhat to imply, that Elect Angels are of the same family, in point of service and worship, as Elect Men; only they are not united to Christ, and have not that relationship with Jesus, which we have, by his taking our nature upon him.

Thirdly. It should seem moreover probable, by what John saw in his vision, that though in point of intellect, Elect Angels being wholly spiritual, are higher than men; on which account perhaps it is said, that when at the resurrection the Church shall arise a spiritual body, of that which was sown natural; we shall be like the Angels, Mat 22:30 . Yet, their knowledge of Christ, and his redemption-work, is not derived from the heavenly Court, but from the earthly Courts of our worship. It is said by the Holy Ghost, in the Epistle to the Church at Ephesus, that it is to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers (meaning Angels) might be known by the Church, the manifold wisdom of God, Eph 3:10 . From hence it should seem that as the Elect Angels, which are ministering servants, and attend the assemblies of God’s people; where Christ is proclaimed in his fulness and glory; they hear and learn: and hence they rejoice in beholding the conversion of sinners, which brings such glory to the Lord.

But I pause. I shall pursue this part of the subject no further. It is no doubt, a pleasing consideration to regard, what the scripture hath said, concerning the Elect Angels. And it is pleasing also, to consider them, as in this way connected into one family of worship, in the adoration of Christ with ourselves. And I can conceive, that the consciousness of their presence, in our assemblies of worship, though invisible to us, would occasion, if properly considered, no small solemnity, and not unfrequently holy joy. Yea, such a thought, under grace, might be productive of much good, if we sometimes considered with what compassion they must behold heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ, when they observe us cold, and too often inattentive in the great concerns of salvation! But I add no more.

It is time to attend to the account of Christ’s regard to us before Angels. Though so much may be said of Angels; and is said of them; yet we are here told, concerning Jesus, that verily he took not on him the nature of Angels: but he took on him the seed of Abraham. This is our mercy. This, our highest dignity and honor. And the Holy Ghost blessedly assigns the causes.

And, first. It is the human nature, not the angelic, Christ betrothed to himself. Before the foundation of the world, the Church was chosen in him. Jesus was set up from everlasting, as the Head and Husband of his people: and then he himself saith, his delights were with the sons of men, Eph 1:4 ; Psa 8:9 .

Secondly. It was the Elect Church, and not the Elect Angels, which became ruined by the fall. Consequently the nature he had to redeem, that nature he took. To have taken the nature of Angels to redeem the nature of Man would have been unsuitable and improper. Hence, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: by one man, came also justification to life, Rom 5 throughout. An Angel’s nature could not have corresponded to purposes of this kind.

Thirdly. A deliverance from the condemnation of the broken law of God required a sacrifice. For without shedding of blood, there is no remission, Heb 9:22 . But had Christ taken an Angel’s nature, he could have made no offering for sin. Redemption could only be effected, by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all; whereby hath perfected forever them that are sanctified, Heb 10:1-14 .

Fourthly. It was a law in Israel, that no man, who was a stranger in the Land, should be king over the people. Thou shalt in any wise set him to be king over thee, who is one of thy kindred, Deu 17:15 . To whom then, did the right of government belong, but to Jesus? Here was indeed One born for it; to whom all his Mother’s children might bend before, Gen 49:8 ; Phi 2:9-11 .

And, lastly, to mention no more. The Holy Ghost here saith, that in all things, it behoved Christ to be made like unto his brethren; that he might be a merciful, and faithful High Priest, in things pertaining to God. So then, this union of nature, this blessed compound of God and Man in one Person, was that only, which could answer the vast purposes of Jehovah, in the work of redemption. It may be said, indeed, that as God, he could not acquire either a greater knowledge of our wants, in taking upon him our nature; or a greater disposition to mercy towards us, by this union. But it must be said also, at the same time, that if it added not to his knowledge or his disposition to mercy; yet it gave him a more perfect personal apprehension of them, in a knowledge by fellow feeling, how they acted upon our nature; and how the relief from them might best affect us. Besides, by taking the nature of man, he taught man how to come to him, under exercises. Ye know the heart of a stranger, (said the Lord) for ye were strangers. So I can tell Jesus. He knoweth our frame by his own. Had he taken the nature of Angels, of what use would it have been, to have said to Jesus, he knoweth the nature of Angels, what consolation would this have been to flesh and blood? Oh! precious Jesus! never, never, let me lose sight of this sweet scripture, with all the blessed encouragements arising out of it: my God, my Jesus, took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham, that he might be a merciful, and faithful high Priest to God!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Ver. 16. For verily he took not ] . Or, for nowhere took he, q. d. We find not anywhere, either in the Scriptures or in any Church record.

But he took ] He assumed, apprehended, caught, laid hold on, as the angel did on Lot, Gen 19:16 , as Christ did on Peter, Mat 14:31 , as men use to do upon a thing they are glad they have got and are loth to let go again. It is a main pillar of our comfort, that Christ took our flesh, for if he took not our flesh, we are not saved by him. But he not only took it, but overtook it by running after it, as the shepherd doth the sheep that is run away. A shepherd witha sheep upon his shoulder, engraved upon the communion cup, in the primitive times of the gospel, imported the same notion that here seems implied.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

16 .] Epexegetic of Heb 2:15 , by pointing out a fact well known to us all (see on below), that it was to help a race subject to death, that Christ came). For, as we well know ( is a word of pure classical usage, see Xen., Plut., al. in Bleek: not found except here in the N. T. nor in the LXX. Its force will be reached by combining that of the two simple particles. , with an assertion, gives decision and confidence: universalizes this decision and confidence: implies the success of an universal appeal for the truth of what is said. See Hartung, ii. 285: Klotz, Devar. p. 427 ff., where the various uses are fully gone into. Bengel compares , ch. Heb 7:14 ), it is not angels that He helpeth, but it is the seed of Abraham that He helpeth (I have rendered thus, to preserve the emphasis on the two contrasted words, and . , to receive in addition, ‘insuper accipere,’ also to take hold of or upon, is found in the N. T. and the LXX, in the middle form only; and thus signifies, with the dynamic force of personal agency, to lay hold upon, to seize. It usually, after the analogy of itself, has a gen. case: occasionally, e. g. Act 9:27 ; Act 16:19 ; Act 18:17 , an accusative. When a person is the object, it may be used in a bad sense, to seize hold of , in order to overpower or lead away, e. g. ( ), Plato, Gorg. p. 527 A: Luk 23:26 al.: as (more usually) in a good sense, to take by the hand , in order to help or lead, e. g. , Xen. Rep. Ath [20] i. 18: Mat 14:31 ; Mar 8:23 ; Luk 14:4 ; see also Jer 31:32 in our ch. Heb 8:9 . From this latter meaning is easily derived that of helping , adopting for protection: e. g. ref. Sir., . : the Schol. on sch. Per. 742 ( , ), , . And thus is the word best explained here: as referring back to the just spoken of, and exactly answering to the below in Heb 2:18 . This help is not by Him rendered to angels : He is not the Captain of their salvation. And herein there is no contradiction to Col 1:20 ; for the reconciliation which Christ has effected even for the things in the heavens, is not delivering them from fear of death, or bringing them through sufferings to glory, whatever mystery it may involve beyond our power of conception.

[20] Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 326 373

next comes under consideration. And we must here, as ever, render, and understand, according to the simple sense of the words used, regarding the circumstances under which they were used. Accordingly, we must not here understand mankind , as some have done: nor again with others, can we suppose the spiritual seed of Abraham to be meant (Gal 3:7 ; Gal 3:29 ; Rom 4:11 f., Rom 4:16 ), because, as Bleek well remarks, the present context speaks not of that into which Christ has made those redeemed by Him, but of that out of which He has helped them. The seed of Abraham then means, the Jewish race , among whom Christ was born in the flesh, and whom He did come primarily to help: and the peculiarity of the expression must be explained with Estius, “Gentium vocationem tota hac epistola prudenter dissimulat, sive quod illius mentio Hebris parum grata esset, sive quod institute suo non necessaria:” and with Grotius, “Hebris scribens satis habet de iis loqui: de gentibus aliter loquendi locus.”

I must not omit to mention, that the above manner of interpreting this verse, now generally acquiesced in, was not that of the ancient expositors. By them it was generally supposed that referred to our Lord’s taking upon Him of our nature: and they for the most part make it into a past tense, and render as E. V., “ He took not upon him the nature of angels, but He took upon him the seed of Abraham ,” so Chrys. ( , ), Thl. ( ), Thdrt. ( , . . . .), Ambros. (de Fide iii. 11, vol. ii. (iii. Migne) p. 512, al.), Primasins, the Syr. (“Non ex angelis sumsit sed ex semine Abrahami sumsit”): and so also Erasm., Luth., Calv., Beza, Owen, Calov., Wolf, and many others. On this I will give the substance of Bleek’s remarks: “This interpretation has been favoured both by the preceding and following context, and also by the circumstance that in the Greek Church the words and are in use as representing the union of the two natures in Christ, the divine being the or , and the human the or . But supposing that might be similarly used, certainly the middle with a genitive cannot; and even independently of this, the formula ‘to take on him the seed of Abraham, or the angels,’ would be a most unnatural way of expressing ‘to take the nature of either of these.’ And the ancients themselves seem to have felt, that this formula of itself could not hear such a meaning. They assume accordingly that the Writer represents man and his nature, through sinfulness, alienated and flying from God and the divine nature, and the Son of God pursuing, overtaking, and drawing it into union with Himself. So Chrys., c., Thl.; so the Schol. in Matth.: , , . . . : so also Primasins, Erasmus-not., Justiniani, a-Lapide, and Hammond.” It needs little to shew how far-fetched and forced this interpretation of the words is, if it is intended to give the sense of assuming the nature of man . Nor would the present of the verb suit this sense: which present some explain as if it represented the testimony of Scripture , i. e. the prophetic or official present, as , ‘No where do we find it in Scripture that Christ has taken, or is to take,’ &c. So Erasm., Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, Wolf. But such sense altogether would be irrelevant in the context. Seeing that it has been in the preceding period maintained, that Christ was flesh and blood like those whom He is to sanctify, we should not surely have introducing the same thought again, but this verse must somehow express why that other happened. Again, had that former thought been here expressed a second time, the following one could not have been joined to it by an : for the sense would be this: He was to take on Him human nature: therefore must He in all things be made like His brethren, = as they take on them human nature. And even were we, with c. and Thl., to lay an emphasis on , thus seeing that He was to take human nature on Him at all, He must also in every thing become like other men, we might admit such a sense, if succeeded by, ‘and therefore must He die,’ or the like: but that which here follows, . . ., would be wholly out of place. The first who detected the error of this rendering was Castellio ( 1563), who translates the word “ opitulatur ,” which Beza calls “execrunda audacia.” Then the R.-Cath. expositors Ribera and Estius took up the true rendering, which was defended more at length and thoroughly by Camero (whose note see in the Critici Sacri) and Schlichting; and so adopted without further remark by Grotius. The conflict against this latter expositor and the Socinians (who all thus explain the word), induced many other Commentators, especially Lutherans, to hold fast obstinately to the old interpretations: see above. But this pertinacity, from the palpable untenableness of the sense, could not prevail widely nor long. The right view is taken by Witlich, Braun, Akersloot, Limborch, Calmet, Bengel, Peirce, Cramer, Michaelis, Ernesti (who however is wrong in saying it was the interpretation of the Greek Fathers), Storr, and the moderns almost without exception. Of these latter, Schulz has ventured to doubt the correctness of it, and to propose a new view viz. that Death, or the Angel of Death, is the subject of the sentence; “for on angels truly he taketh not hold, but on the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.” And this sense is doubtless both allowable and admissible in the context; but it is most improbable that the subject in this verse should be a different one from that in the foregoing, seeing that the same person, the Son of God, is also the subject, without fresh mention, in Heb 2:17 , which is so intimately connected with this).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

verily = certainly. Greek. depou. Only here.

took, &c. = taketh not (App-105) hold of angels.

took. Greek. epilambanomai. First occurance: Mat 14:31. Compare Act 9:27.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

16.] Epexegetic of Heb 2:15, by pointing out a fact well known to us all (see on below), that it was to help a race subject to death, that Christ came). For, as we well know ( is a word of pure classical usage, see Xen., Plut., al. in Bleek: not found except here in the N. T. nor in the LXX. Its force will be reached by combining that of the two simple particles. , with an assertion, gives decision and confidence: universalizes this decision and confidence: implies the success of an universal appeal for the truth of what is said. See Hartung, ii. 285: Klotz, Devar. p. 427 ff., where the various uses are fully gone into. Bengel compares , ch. Heb 7:14), it is not angels that He helpeth, but it is the seed of Abraham that He helpeth (I have rendered thus, to preserve the emphasis on the two contrasted words, and . , to receive in addition, insuper accipere, also to take hold of or upon,-is found in the N. T. and the LXX, in the middle form only; and thus signifies, with the dynamic force of personal agency, to lay hold upon, to seize. It usually, after the analogy of itself, has a gen. case: occasionally, e. g. Act 9:27; Act 16:19; Act 18:17, an accusative. When a person is the object, it may be used in a bad sense, to seize hold of, in order to overpower or lead away, e. g. ( ), Plato, Gorg. p. 527 A: Luk 23:26 al.: as (more usually) in a good sense, to take by the hand, in order to help or lead, e. g. , Xen. Rep. Ath[20] i. 18: Mat 14:31; Mar 8:23; Luk 14:4; see also Jer 31:32 in our ch. Heb 8:9. From this latter meaning is easily derived that of helping, adopting for protection: e. g. ref. Sir., . : the Schol. on sch. Per. 742 ( , ),- , . And thus is the word best explained here: as referring back to the just spoken of, and exactly answering to the below in Heb 2:18. This help is not by Him rendered to angels: He is not the Captain of their salvation. And herein there is no contradiction to Col 1:20; for the reconciliation which Christ has effected even for the things in the heavens, is not delivering them from fear of death, or bringing them through sufferings to glory, whatever mystery it may involve beyond our power of conception.

[20] Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 326-373

next comes under consideration. And we must here, as ever, render, and understand, according to the simple sense of the words used, regarding the circumstances under which they were used. Accordingly, we must not here understand mankind, as some have done: nor again with others, can we suppose the spiritual seed of Abraham to be meant (Gal 3:7; Gal 3:29; Rom 4:11 f., 16),-because, as Bleek well remarks, the present context speaks not of that into which Christ has made those redeemed by Him, but of that out of which He has helped them. The seed of Abraham then means, the Jewish race, among whom Christ was born in the flesh, and whom He did come primarily to help: and the peculiarity of the expression must be explained with Estius, Gentium vocationem tota hac epistola prudenter dissimulat, sive quod illius mentio Hebris parum grata esset, sive quod institute suo non necessaria: and with Grotius, Hebris scribens satis habet de iis loqui: de gentibus aliter loquendi locus.

I must not omit to mention, that the above manner of interpreting this verse, now generally acquiesced in, was not that of the ancient expositors. By them it was generally supposed that referred to our Lords taking upon Him of our nature: and they for the most part make it into a past tense, and render as E. V.,-He took not upon him the nature of angels, but He took upon him the seed of Abraham, so Chrys. ( , ), Thl. ( ), Thdrt. ( , . …), Ambros. (de Fide iii. 11, vol. ii. (iii. Migne) p. 512, al.), Primasins, the Syr. (Non ex angelis sumsit sed ex semine Abrahami sumsit): and so also Erasm., Luth., Calv., Beza, Owen, Calov., Wolf, and many others. On this I will give the substance of Bleeks remarks: This interpretation has been favoured both by the preceding and following context, and also by the circumstance that in the Greek Church the words and are in use as representing the union of the two natures in Christ, the divine being the or , and the human the or . But supposing that might be similarly used, certainly the middle with a genitive cannot; and even independently of this, the formula to take on him the seed of Abraham, or the angels, would be a most unnatural way of expressing to take the nature of either of these. And the ancients themselves seem to have felt, that this formula of itself could not hear such a meaning. They assume accordingly that the Writer represents man and his nature, through sinfulness, alienated and flying from God and the divine nature, and the Son of God pursuing, overtaking, and drawing it into union with Himself. So Chrys., c., Thl.; so the Schol. in Matth.: , , . . . : so also Primasins, Erasmus-not., Justiniani, a-Lapide, and Hammond. It needs little to shew how far-fetched and forced this interpretation of the words is, if it is intended to give the sense of assuming the nature of man. Nor would the present of the verb suit this sense: which present some explain as if it represented the testimony of Scripture, i. e. the prophetic or official present, as , No where do we find it in Scripture that Christ has taken, or is to take, &c. So Erasm., Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, Hammond, Wolf. But such sense altogether would be irrelevant in the context. Seeing that it has been in the preceding period maintained, that Christ was flesh and blood like those whom He is to sanctify,-we should not surely have introducing the same thought again, but this verse must somehow express why that other happened. Again, had that former thought been here expressed a second time, the following one could not have been joined to it by an : for the sense would be this: He was to take on Him human nature: therefore must He in all things be made like His brethren, = as they take on them human nature. And even were we, with c. and Thl., to lay an emphasis on , thus-seeing that He was to take human nature on Him at all, He must also in every thing become like other men,-we might admit such a sense, if succeeded by, and therefore must He die, or the like: but that which here follows, …, would be wholly out of place. The first who detected the error of this rendering was Castellio ( 1563), who translates the word opitulatur, which Beza calls execrunda audacia. Then the R.-Cath. expositors Ribera and Estius took up the true rendering, which was defended more at length and thoroughly by Camero (whose note see in the Critici Sacri) and Schlichting; and so adopted without further remark by Grotius. The conflict against this latter expositor and the Socinians (who all thus explain the word), induced many other Commentators, especially Lutherans, to hold fast obstinately to the old interpretations: see above. But this pertinacity, from the palpable untenableness of the sense, could not prevail widely nor long. The right view is taken by Witlich, Braun, Akersloot, Limborch, Calmet, Bengel, Peirce, Cramer, Michaelis, Ernesti (who however is wrong in saying it was the interpretation of the Greek Fathers), Storr, and the moderns almost without exception. Of these latter, Schulz has ventured to doubt the correctness of it, and to propose a new view-viz. that Death, or the Angel of Death, is the subject of the sentence; for on angels truly he taketh not hold, but on the seed of Abraham he taketh hold. And this sense is doubtless both allowable and admissible in the context; but it is most improbable that the subject in this verse should be a different one from that in the foregoing, seeing that the same person, the Son of God, is also the subject, without fresh mention, in Heb 2:17, which is so intimately connected with this).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 2:16. ) [you will grant, we may suppose]. A particle expressive of courtesy, and implying some degree of conjecture, ; but by the being added, promoting , confirmation [Heb 2:3, assurance]. The whole verse has a wonderful power of explanation; comp. , ch. Heb 7:14. Not angels, therefore us; there is no third party.-, of angels) without the article. That is, they are not angels without flesh and blood, of whom He lays hold.-) Christ lays hold of, or takes, in the words quoted; about to bring assistance, about to deliver, Heb 2:15; Heb 2:10-11. The same word occurs, ch. Heb 8:9; Mat 14:31. If the apostle were speaking of the very incarnation of the Son of GOD, there would be in the antithesis the singular number , an angel, or the angelic nature; as it is, since occurs in the plural, , seed, is taken as a collective noun.[21]- , seed of Abraham) So he calls the whole human race, but by Synecdoche, because the reference is to Genesis; and there the promise is found which was given to Abraham, and which belonged especially to his descendants: and Christ was born of the race of Abraham. It is to be added to these observations, that the apostle is writing here to the descendants of Abraham, and it was not suitable to say, , of the seed of Adam, because the first and second Adam are opposed. And yet the Gentiles are not excluded; for the seed of Abraham is not opposed to them, but to the angels; and all believers are the seed of Abraham. [See Heb 2:12, respecting the great congregation; comp. Psa 22:23; Psa 22:26; Psa 22:28.-V. g.] I think the omission of the article before corresponds to the construct state of the Hebrew. The omission of the article would not so much include the Gentiles, as exclude the carnal Jews.

[21] , as a collective noun, expresses not the seed or nature which He assumed, but the whole race which He, as it were, takes by the hand to help. Thus , collective, is a just antithesis to the plural, .-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

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.

Heb 2:16. , .

. The Syriac quite omits , and reads only , non enim; for he did not. V. L., nusquam enim. he renders usquam, anywhere? and on the consideration of the negative particle, , nusquam, nowhere. Beza, non enim utique, as ours; for verily [he took] not, not reaching the force or use of . 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, Heb 1:5.

. Syr., , 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: for , 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 , in the New Testament, is to take hold of; and so in particular it is elsewhere used in this epistle, Heb 8:9, , 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] . 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 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.

Heb 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 Heb 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 Gal 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 Joh 1:14; Rom 9:5, Gal 4:4; Gal 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 is put for , 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 Christs 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, Gal 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, Gal 3:14-15, namely, about Christs 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 Gal 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, , 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 , 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, , hoc est, opitulatur quaerentibus se;eadem est significatio verbi , quod qui aliquem sublevatum velint illi ex adverso manum porrigere solent.

It is acknowledged that 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, , 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 , 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 , 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, , Sir 4:18, per , 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. 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 , being in the present tense, signifieth a continued action, such as Christs 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 is put for , which is usual in the Scripture. So Joh 1:31; Joh 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 Heb 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 , 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 ought to be repeated , 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, Joh 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 to signify to helpor 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, Gal 3:16; as Christ in like manner is said to be of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom 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 devils angels, or have some or other peculiar adjunct whereby they are marked out and distinguished. Now, it cannot be that this word , 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, Eph 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 was 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, Joh 1:14; to be made of a woman, Gal 4:4; to be manifested in the flesh, 1Ti 3:16; to take on him the form of a servant, Php 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, Gal 3:16; and was himself made of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom 1:3; and as concerning the flesh came of the fathers, Rom 9:5; and so was the son of David, the son of Abraham, Mat 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 Christs 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, Tit 3:4. As to the angels, he spared them not, 2Pe 2:4. He spared not them, and spared not his Son for us, Rom 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.

Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

The Sovereignty Of Gods Grace

The sovereignty of Gods grace is set before us most clearly in Heb 2:16. It is written, For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

When our Lord Jesus Christ came to save fallen creatures, he passed by the fallen angels and laid hold upon the seed of Abraham. He did not take hold of the seed of Adam, but he took hold of the seed of Abraham, Gods elect, and delivered them from the bondage of death by the irresistible power of his grace.

We were lost, rushing headlong to destruction, until Christ reached down the hand of his sovereign power and delivered us. Every saved sinner is a brand plucked from the burning (Zec 3:2), snatched out of the jaws of hell, snatched out from among perishing men by sovereign mercy and irresistible grace. He passed by the fallen angels, passed by the sons of Adam, and took hold upon the seed of Abraham.

God our Savior reserves the right of absolute sovereignty in the exercise of his saving grace and in the application of his mercy. As he is sovereign in creation and in providence, our God is absolutely sovereign in the salvation of sinners.

You cannot read through the Bible without being confronted with the fact of divine sovereignty on almost every page. Today we hear much talk about the fundamentals of the faith. Yet, those who boast of being uncompromising fundamentalists seldom ever mention the gospel doctrine of divine sovereignty. When they do mention it, it is only to denounce it and poke fun at those who believe it.

Let men, if they dare, deny it, ridicule it, and rebel against it as they will. Gods indisputable sovereignty is a fundamental doctrine of Holy Scripture, a vital point of Christian theology.

If you doubt the prevalence and importance of this doctrine of Gods sovereignty in grace, I challenge you to read the Word of God through one more time. Begin at the Book of Genesis and go right through the Book of Revelation. You will find the gospel doctrine of divine sovereignty repeatedly declared, explained, and illustrated throughout the Sacred Volume. It is set forth, not in a few isolated verses, but upon every page of Inspiration. God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy (Rom 9:15-16).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

he took

not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of. Cf. Septuagint. Isa 41:9.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

verily: Heb 6:16, Heb 12:10, Rom 2:25, 1Pe 1:20

took not: etc. Gr. taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold

the seed: Gen 22:18, Mat 1:1-17, Rom 4:16-25, Gal 3:16, Gal 3:29

Reciprocal: Psa 8:5 – thou Joh 11:35 – General

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Heb 2:16. Nature is not in the original text because angels are not natural beings. The thought is that Jesus did not come into the world with a body like those of the angels, for then He could not have died (Luk 20:36). He came instead as a fleshly descendant of Abraham.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 2:16. Verily is feeble, as is even assuredly. The word means, it is known, admitted, and admitted everywhere; it is nowhere questioned.

He took not on him; rather, on angels (or in later English, of angels) He laid not hold, but on the seed of Abraham He laid hold, i.e to help and save them (see the same word in Heb 8:9). It is not angels whom Christ delivers (Heb 2:15), nor is it angels He succours (Heb 2:18), but the seed of Abraham, the theocratic name of the people of God peculiar to Paul. This is now generally accepted as the meaning of the verse. In the early Church the phrase took not on Him was applied pretty generally, as in the Authorized Version, to the assumption of a human nature, and so it was understood by Calvin, Luther, Owen, and others. The active voice of the same Greek verb (here it is in the middle) is used by Greek writers in the sense of assuming a nature. But the tense is present, the voice is middle, and the word nature is not expressed, and can hardly be supplied, so that we seem shut up to the meaning which is admittedly found in Heb 8:9, and in other sixteen places where it is used in N. T., including 1Ti 6:19, and seven passages in the Acts.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

It may be rendered from the original thus: He catched no hold on angels, but on man he catched hold. A metaphor taken from a person that catches hold of another who is falling down some deep and dangerous precipice, to his inevitable destruction: such a good and kind office did the Son of God for us, when he suffered angels to fall headlong from that state of happiness in which they were created, into that abyss and gulf of misery into which they had plunged themselves by their voluntary transgression: the like unto which man also has done, had he not been seasonably catched by the Son of God in the arms of preventing grace and mercy.

Learn, That it was not the angelical, but the human nature; it was the nature of fallen man, and not of lapsed angels, which the Son of God did vouchsafe to assume, and to take into a personal union with his Godhead.

Question. Why would not Christ take upon him the nature of angels?

1. Probably because they were the first transgressors, and God might judge it decent that the first breach of the divine law should be punished with death, to secure obedience for the future:

Or, 2. Because the angels sinned without a tempter, they had no superior rank of creatures already fallen, as man had, to seduce and draw them from their obedience to their Creator’s will;

Or, 3. Because the angels sinned against more clear and convictive light and knowledge: there was nothing of weakness, deceit, or ignorance, to lessen the malignity of their sin; they did not sin by mispersuasion, but of purposed malice. But, after all, the reason why Christ took not hold on the angels, but on man, the seed of Abraham, must be ultimately resolved into the sovereignty of God’s will, who will be merciful.

Lord!, why mercy, thy milder attribute, should be exercised towards man, and justice, thy severer attribute, be executed upon angels; why vessels of clay be chosen, and vessels of gold rejected, must be resolved into that love which passeth knowledge; and we shall never fully understand the riches of this discriminating grace, until thy dear Son shall appear at the great day, as their judge and our justifier. Then shall we feel the comfort of these words, That Christ took not upon him the nature of angels, but in the seed of Abraham.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Why Did Jesus Come to Earth?

Jesus’ purpose on earth was not to release angels from slavery, but man (2:16). Lightfoot says, “The entire thought is that He laid hold of men in order to help them out of their distressed condition.” Since Jesus’ purpose was man’s salvation, He had to become a perfect high priest. He also had to make a perfect sacrifice for the sins of His people (2:17).

He suffered all the trials and temptations a man can suffer. Or, at the very least, He suffered one of each kind. This was done so that He might be the perfect high priest. He had to suffer the same trials as man to understand man’s problems. Lightfoot suggests the word “tempted” particularly refers to 2:9 “the suffering of death.” Certainly that does show Christ understands how far persecution and trials can go. It should also be a source of courage for those of us about to give up because of suffering (2:18).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Heb 2:16. For verily he took not on him Greek, , he took, or taketh, not hold of angels, to save them from the abyss of misery into which they are fallen, as not taking their nature upon him; but he took, or taketh, hold of the seed of Abraham And hath made a gracious provision for the salvation of all who shall by true faith approve themselves the genuine children of that holy patriarch. The apostle says, the seed of Abraham, rather than the seed of Adam, because to Abraham was the promise made. If the sin of the angels, who, as Jude tells us, (Heb 2:6,) kept not their own office, consisted in their aspiring after higher stations and offices than those originally allotted to them by God, as Judes expression intimates, we can see a reason why the Son of God did not take hold of them to save them, but took hold of the seed of Abraham; that is, of believers of the human species. The first parents of mankind sinned through weakness of nature and inexperience, and by their lapse brought death on themselves and on their posterity, notwithstanding their posterity were not accessory to their offence. Whereas the angels, through discontentment with their own condition, and envy of their superiors, perhaps also animated by pride, rebelled presumptuously against God. Wherefore, since they could not plead weakness of nature and inexperience in excuse of their sin, nor complain that the sin for which they were doomed to punishment was the act of another, they were justly left by the Son of God to perish in their sin. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

16. The tallest archangel commanding millions of the heavenly host could never have saved a solitary soul. He is doomed to fail on both of the essential fines of the mediatorship, i.e., the humanity and the divinity.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 16

The seed of Abraham, the nature of the seed of Abraham, that is, the nature of man. Such is the meaning, as the passage stands translated. There is reason to believe, however, that the original import of the passage is, He did not come to rescue and redeem the angelic race, but the seed of Abraham, that is, men.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

2:16 {15} For verily he took not on [him the {b} nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the {c} seed of Abraham.

(15) He explains those words of flesh and blood, showing that Christ is true man, and not by changing his divine nature, but by taking on man’s nature. He names Abraham, regarding the promises made to Abraham in this behalf.

(b) The nature of angels.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Here "the seed of Abraham" probably refers primarily to believers, the spiritual descendants of Abraham (Gal 3:29), rather than to Jews, the physical descendants of Abraham (cf. Isa 41:8-10). The original readers, saved Jews, were both the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham. The contrast is between angelic and human believers in the context. Jesus Christ does not give help to angels in the same way He gives help to Christians. He helps us uniquely as an elder brother and parent (Heb 2:11-15), a fellow human being.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles