Hebrews 2

CHAPTER II

The Warning: How Shall We Escape if We Neglect so Great Salvation? 2:1–4

Hebrews 2:1

1 The writer lets the facts concerning the incomparable greatness of the Son (chapter 1) merge into a strong warning for his readers. This is a warning and not merely an admonition. His word grips the hearts with the same firmness with which he grips the facts. The warning is only somewhat softened by the inclusion of himself, for the readers and not he are showing signs of defection.

For this reason (presented at length in chapter 1) it is necessary the more earnestly to give need to the things that were heard (by us) lest we ever get to be drifted past (them). This danger calls for the warning. “The more earnestly” (abundantly) = because these things were spoken to us by God, not only in the person of his prophets, but also in the person of his Son (1:1, 2), and because the danger of drifting past them has already appeared. With προσέχειν we supply νοῦν: “to keep holding the mind to something,” “to give heed,” here: “to continue to heed the things that we were made to hear” (the neuter plural aorist passive participle implying an agent who made them hear: God speaking in the prophets and in his Son and in the New Testament heralds). Δεῖ indicates any kind of necessity, here the one arising from what God made them get to hear (aorist ἀκουσθεῖσι); it is our “must.”

The verb παραρρέω = to flow or drift aside; the second aorist passive subjunctive means “get to be drifted past” like a ship that a contrary wind causes to drift past its harbor so that it is prevented from reaching its destination—a calamity, indeed. The passive veils the agent. In Eph. 4:14 Paul has a similar figure: “carried about with every wind of doctrine,” A strong current or wind was threatening to make these Jewish Christians drift away from the harbor of “salvation” (1:14; 2:2).

Since in the classics προσέχειν is used in connection with ships with the meaning “to turn or bring to their moorings,” it may be that the verb “drifting past” is chosen to match this thought. While the aorist is effective: “actually caused to drift past,” the indefinite μήποτε, “lest ever or at any time,” warns against its becoming actuality at any time; for this danger is not one of the present moment only. The way to overcome it is ever to keep the mind on the things heard, to tie fast to them ever more abundantly, with ever stronger cords.

Hebrews 2:2

2 This warning injunction is strongly fortified by a question which contains a deduction a minori ad majus or a fortiori, and this is made doubly strong by a repetition of the major premise. The argument thus becomes unanswerable. The only escape open is that of desperation, unreasonable refusal to yield, deliberate challenge of God and his Word and of the just judgments he has already executed. It will pay to let the mind dwell on this. Unbelief claims to be reasonable, rational; it is, in fact, the height of irrationality. It claims to act with sanity; it is wholly devoid of sanity.

It puts up arguments; its arguments do not rest on premises of facts; the towering facts demand the one, true, opposite conclusion. Unbelief damns itself by its own utterances, deliberately challenges God and Christ to its own doom in spite of the doom that all past unbelief has already met.

For if the word that was (once) spoken by means of angels became firm, and every transgression and refusal to hear received just payment in full, how shall we on our part escape on having neglected so great salvation, such as, after having received a start in being spoken through the Lord, was made firm for us by those who heard it, God supporting them with additional testimony by means of both signs and wonders and by means of manifold powers and apportionings of the Holy Spirit in accord with his volition?

“The logos spoken by means of angels,” historical aorist, is the law which was given by God on Sinai. It was first spoken by God (Exod. 20:1; Deut. 5:22) and was then given to Moses on tablets of stone. The law was not spoken by the angels. Just what their function was in this connection beyond causing the thunders, the lightnings, the terrible trumpetings, we do not know. Gal. 3:19 speaks of their participation as showing the law to be inferior to the gospel; while Acts 7:35, 53 speak of their participation as making God’s law more glorious than any other law. The angels are mentioned here because of 1:4–14.

They are only what 1:7, 14 state them to be. Angels participated in the giving of the law, in the utterance of the New Testament gospel the Lord himself was concerned (v. 3). God was, indeed, back of both; but the employment of angels indicates that the law was far inferior to the New Testament gospel of salvation. In fact, the law came in 430 years after the covenant that was made with Abraham, and that covenant God made directly, in person, without angels.

Even so, this law-word “became firm,” its threats went into effect, not one of them proved empty. Explicative καί states this fact: “and every transgression (stepping aside from the law) and refusal to hear (turning the hearing aside from it and listening to something else) received just payment in full” as the long history of the Jews proves. In Acts 7 Stephen reviews it. The last noun refers to the gift of pay or wages ἀπό, in full, all that was coming to the transgressors. “Recompense of reward” in our versions is not so clear.

Hebrews 2:3

3 If this is fact—and what Jew or former Jew would dare to deny it?—“how shall we on our part escape on having neglected so great salvation?” The question is far more effective than the declaration “we shall not escape” would be. “How shall we escape?” you, my readers, and I—tell me if you can, for I do not see how we possibly can. Note the mastery of the question and also the doubling of the question. The law demanded obedience, “salvation” was an unspeakably great gift. Yes, it was obedience to accept the gift, God asks it and wants to create it by his gift; but here is “so great salvation,” this wondrous gospel content with only the obedience of receptive faith needed to make it our own. The expression is not: “on rejecting so great salvation” it is: “on neglecting,” sich nicht bekuemmern, just letting it lie, remaining indifferent to salvation, the one supreme thing that every sinner needs. The aorist participle indicates the completion of the act: “after we have neglected”; it is usually called conditional: “if we neglect” (our versions).

The qualitative relative clause with all its modifications drives in the unanswerable question to its deepest depth: so great salvation, “of such a kind as (ἥτις), after having received a start in being spoken through the Lord, was made firm for us by those who heard it,” etc. This qualitative clause contains three considerations regarding the great salvation, all three of which intensify the conviction that we certainly shall not escape after having neglected salvation of this kind. The view that the relative applies only to the noun “salvation” and not also to the adjective “so great” is untenable, for the noun and the adjective go together.

The quality of this salvation is not described according to its substance, to what it contains and brings to us, all of that lies in the very idea of σωτηρία: rescue from mortal danger and safety here and hereafter; its divine quality is described according to the divine way in which it was confirmed for us, according to the stamps and seals God placed upon it. The fact that these seals are greater than those which the law of Moses received is beyond question; 1:1–3 have already stated this fact, only the details are brought out here, but in all their greatness.

The first great point is subsidiary to the second and is hence expressed by the participial phrase, literally, “having received (or taken) a start of being spoken through the Lord.” Ἔχω or λαμβάνω are used thus with ἀρχήν; the aorist participle marks the moment when the beginning was made while the present infinitive describes the Lord’s speaking in its progress. The Lord himself started to proclaim the New Testament salvation. We have his entire prophetic ministry; see Deut. 18:18, 19.

The δἱἀγγέλων used in v. 2 and διὰτοῦΚυρίου are undoubtedly to match; in the same way the passive λαληθείς used in v. 2 and the passive λαλεῖσθαι match although the one is aorist to indicate the past fact and the other a descriptive present to indicate the Lord’s speaking. The fact that “so great salvation” received a start in “being spoken” is not an incongruity in terms, it is compactness of expression. The readers know that the Lord offered and conveyed the salvation by word of mouth; it is still so conveyed. The infinitive depends on ἀρχήν; R. 1075 calls such infinitives complementary.

This statement is placed first because it is fundamental as far as making Christ’s salvation firm for us is concerned. Who this “Lord” is chapter 1, has verified from the Old Testament; his eternal superiority over the angels has been fully presented. The fact that the angels did not personally speak the word of the law the readers know; that the Lord did speak the salvation they also know since 1:2 has restated that fact. While the two διά differ they are, nevertheless, alike as far as expressing mediation is concerned. If it was fatal to disregard the law which God mediated by means of angels, who does not see that it would be even more fatal to disregard the actual salvation which God mediated by the Lord? This title “the Lord” instead of “our Lord Jesus Christ” is the more impressive.

The main point is found in the main clause: “was made firm for us by those who heard it”; the English is compelled to reverse the word order. Neither the writer nor his readers heard the Lord himself but got their hearing from those who did hear the Lord at firsthand. The fact that “the Lord,” being what he is according to chapter 1 would know how to transmit his salvation beyond these first hearers is beyond question. “Those who heard” does not refer to any and all of the first hearers but only to the chosen apostles.

According to Gal. 1:12 Paul cannot be included among those who obtained the Word from the apostles, which is one of the reasons he cannot have written Hebrews. The ὑπό and these apostolic first hearers extend the speaking done by the Lord to the writer and to the readers of this epistle: this so great salvation “was made firm (sure, solid, admitting of no doubt)” for them by the apostles. If we are correct in surmising that the readers were the Roman Jewish Christians, then Paul converted them, then they had heard also Peter, then this ὑπό phrase becomes vivid indeed. See the introduction.

The whole statement says nothing about faith; it is entirely objective; the basis of faith is firm. This is what the readers, who, like the writer, have believed but, unlike him, have begun to doubt, must see fully anew. This firm basis stands, will stand even though they should leave it. Yet, realizing its firmness, their faith, too, will cease to hesitate. Εἰςἡμᾶς is not “in us” but “for, in regard to us.”

Hebrews 2:4

4 Added to these two considerations is the third which again presents a great fact: “God supporting them with additional testimony by means of both signs and wonders,” etc. In the double compound σύν is associative but, as so often, with the idea of support and help; ἐπί, “upon,” adds the thought of adding God’s own testimony to that of these apostles. God gave his testimony in three ways: 1) by means of both signs and wonders; 2) by means of manifold powers; 3) by means of apportionings of the Holy Spirit, all three “in accord with his (God’s) volition,” θέλησις, the act of willing (θέλημα = what is willed).

First, the Lord attested and sealed the great salvation; next, he attested the apostles whom the Lord made hearers and thus witnesses; finally, God used three different seals in this attestation. In this way was this salvation made firm and placed beyond doubt “for us.”

“Signs and wonders” refer to the apostolic miracles which were great and glorious indeed. Others, too, like Stephen, were given this grace. “Signs” is the greater word because it is ethical and designates the miracles as signifying something; “wonders” or portents indicates only their astonishing character so that the New Testament never uses this word alone as it does “signs.” The latter is broader; a sign does not always need to be a wonder. Moreover, pagan religion had wonders and portents which, however, were never true signs. The term δυνάμεις sometimes means “power works,” which is another term for miracles that is derived from the omnipotence involved. Here, because of the adjective “manifold powers,” the word seems to refer only to the many powers which God bestowed upon the apostles as Stephen was “full of faith and power” (Acts 6:8). The next term is allied: “apportionings of the Holy Spirit,” among them being powers but also other charismatic gifts.

More than the plural “apportionings” and the absence of the Greek article with “Holy Spirit” are required to regard this as an objective genitive which divides the Holy Spirit into “portions” that God distributes. “Words in -μος expressing action” (R. 151) make it obvious that this is not an objective but a subjective genitive: the Holy Spirit makes the apportionings exactly as 1 Cor. 12:11 states: “dividing to every man severally as he wills”; B.-P. 795 interprets: “the different gifts proceeding from the Spirit.” Those who divide the Spirit have this alone done “in accord with his (God’s) volition” and not the bestowal of miracles and of powers.

This final phrase modifies the participle of the genitive absolute and thus applies to all the datives. We submit that it cannot modify μερισμοῖς because one word expressing action (“apportionings”) cannot be modified by another word expressing action (in accord with his “willing,” θέλησις). It seems that this is why the writer used these words expressing action and not μέρη and θέλημα. As to the miracles of the apostles, they never wrought these at will but only as, when, where, and how God willed; see the exposition of Acts 3:4 for the details.

Powerful as this warning is for us today, it must have been even more powerful for its first readers; especially also if our conclusion is correct that they were the great body of Jews that had been converted by Paul in Rome, who had also witnessed Peter’s and Paul’s death by martyrdom.

THE SECOND MAIN PART

The Incarnate Son’s Suffering 2:5–4:13

It Behooved Him to Partake of Our Flesh and Blood to Deliver Us, 2:5–18

Preliminary: To Man, not to Angels, God Subjected All Things, v. 5–8.

Hebrews 2:5

5 While γάρ connects this section with the preceding, the whole thought is a new subject which is followed by its own warning and hortation in 3:7–4:13. We do not agree with those who extend the first main part of the letter to 4:13 because they feel that the idea of the supremacy of the Son continues to that point. Supremacy is concluded at 2:4; with 2:5 humiliation begins, the humiliation of Christ’s suffering.

For not to angels did he subject the inhabited earth that is to come, concerning which we are speaking.

Much has already been said about “the angels,” their high position and office (1:7), to show how infinitely higher are the position and the royal rule of the incarnate Son. This presentation was concluded with the statement that all the angels are only officiating spirits for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation (1:14). “For” connects with this statement and means: “to explain still further,” yet this explanation is not with reference to the incarnate Son as it was in chapter 1 but with reference to us who are to inherit the world to come with its salvation, who are to be joint heirs (Rom. 8:17) together with “the (supreme) heir of all things” (1:2).

The great fact is that “not to angels did God subject the inhabited earth which is about to come,” the new earth (Rev. 21:1). Angels are not joint heirs with the supreme heir; angels are not to sit on the throne with this heir and to reign with him in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 3:21; Matt. 19:28; 2 Tim. 2:12); not with angels did the Son become associated but only with the seed of Abraham by assuming, not the nature of angels, but the human nature of Abraham’s seed.

Although angels seem to be so far above us, we have already been told that they are only officiating spirits who are commissioned to service for our sake (1:14). We are the royal heirs of the world to come and not they; to us and not to them has God subjected (literally, ranged in order under) “the inhabited earth, the one about to come” for us. “Concerning which,” the writer says, “we are speaking,” namely you, my readers, and I, in the discussion of this letter (this is not a majestic or an editorial plural). Have we not said διὰτοὺςμέλλονταςκτλ., in 1:14, “the ones coming to inherit,” just as we are now saying τὴν (γῆν) μέλλουσαν, “the inhabited earth, the one coming”? What we shall then be, and what it shall then be, is our real subject.

To call this new earth the oikoumene is striking since this participial term is usually used with reference to the present inhabited earth; yet this term may well be used, as is done here, with reference to the new, the coming earth in which there shall dwell salvation, righteousness, peace, glory, etc. Men strive to rule big areas of this sinful earth, wage bloody wars to this end, and in the end get only a few feet of it for their grave, their bones not resting safely even there (think of the Egyptian royal mummies). Our inheritance is the earth to come, where we shall reign with Christ on his throne forever, a boon that is not accorded even to the angels.

Hebrews 2:6

6Now one has somewhere solemnly testified, saying:

What is man that thou art remembering him,

Or man’s son that thou art looking in upon him?

Thou didst make him a little lower than angels;

With glory and honor thou didst crown him

And didst set him over the works of thy hands.

All things didst thou subject under his feet.

Ps. 8:4–6 is introduced by δέ, but only in a general way even as “one somewhere” is quite indefinite. The readers know that David wrote these lines; their importance is indicated only by the verb “did solemnly testify,” which is quite sufficient. No “but” and not even “moreover” are suggested by the connective. The first two questions express well-grounded surprise because of the fact that God remembers man and keeps looking in upon him, namely with his constant care for him.

The two ὅτι are consecutive: “so that thou,” etc. (R. 1001; B.-P. 938). Modern skepticism, especially Deism and philosophy, observing man’s insignificance, imagine that, if there is a God at all, he certainly cannot bother with us little creatures. Like Paul in Acts 14:15–17, David sees that God ever remembers man and looks in upon him to supply his needs and thus to attest himself to man in a thousand ways. The fact that he also sends calamities, etc., is no upsetting mystery to them, for they know man’s sin and God’s judgments that would lead sinners to repentance.

Hebrews 2:7

7 As if giving an answer to his own questions David continues: “Thou didst make him (only) a little lower than angels,” literally, “thou didst lower him (only) a little as compared with angels,” those beings who appear so exalted to us in their heavenly powers and glories. Man, too, has an immortal spirit, personality, reason, will although these are found in a human body. Βραχύτι might mean “a little while” (temporal) instead of “a little” (degree); but the latter is the sense of the psalm, and this quotation nowhere indicates that it is intended as a modification of the original. This creature, man, does not belong in the same class with the brutes and the lower creation but rather with angels.

The next lines show where God ranks man and why he remembers and looks in upon him: “With glory and honor thou didst crown him,” which explicative καί explains: “and didst set him over the works of thy hands” (a line which some texts omit, yet for no sound reason since it is so necessary to the picture of man’s high place in the creature world).

Hebrews 2:8

8 The final line makes this still plainer: “All things didst thou subject under his feet.” This verb ὑπέταξας significantly repeats the ὑπέταξε occurring in v. 5 and thus, as in a flash, reveals the connection between David’s description of man and the opening statement of v. 5 that God “did not subject” the world to come to angels. God “did subject” all things beneath the feet of man. What, then, is the place of man? With a few simple, exegetical strokes the writer makes the whole matter plain: In that he (God) subjected all the things to him (man) he left nothing unsubjected to him. That last line quoted from the psalm should not be disregarded; in that line πάντα means just what it says, what the writer of Hebrews, who repeats it with the article of previous reference, τὰπάντα, likewise says, namely that God excluded nothing in his act of subjecting “all things” (aorist) to man. This is the first point.

Now, however, not yet do we observe all the things subjected to him (perfect participle with its connotation of durative present). The fact is that so many things on this present earth are still far beyond man’s control. As far as the inhabited earth to come (v. 5) is concerned, this, as the writer himself says, is yet to come, and we ourselves are called “they who are to come to inherit salvation” in the new earth (Rev. 21:1). So much for the second point when we place v. 5 alongside of the lines quoted from David’s psalm, especially the last line. What, then, clears up this matter? The fact that the incarnate Son who suffered and was glorified tasted death for the benefit of every man.

There is no need to go into the whole story of man’s sin and its consequences. The presentation selects one brief, direct line of thought and counts on the intelligence of the readers to supply the obvious additional thoughts that are implied. That coming world is one of completed “salvation,” of which we believers are the heirs (1:2, 14).

Before we go on we may note that some commentators refer the quotation, Ps. 8:4–6, to Christ. Insert “Christ” in v. 6 and note the sense of the passage; but in the rest of the quotation, in fact, through v. 8 the pronouns refer to “man” and “son of man” without change. The whole ancient Jewish exegetical tradition understood David to refer to “man” and not to the Messiah. It would have been extremely hazardous for a writer to Jewish Christians to insert the Messiah into a passage which does not speak of the Messiah in the original; faith cannot be confirmed by such methods. If we keep to what David said and to what the writer of Hebrews adds, all remains both clear and sure.

Elucidation: The Suffering Jesus Brings Us to Glory, v. 9–18.

Hebrews 2:9

9 God subjected all things to man (v. 8); not to angels did he subject the earth that is to come, it, too, is to be subject to man (v. 5); yet we do not see that even this earth is as yet subject to man. How, then, is this to be explained? Answer: But him who has been made a little lower than angels, him we do see, Jesus, because of the suffering of the death (he underwent) crowned with glory and honor in order that by God’s grace he should taste death for everyone.

A masterly statement, indeed, masterly in covering every point with simple brevity. What we “observe” (ὁρῶμεν), what we have before our eyes wherever we look in this world, is by no means the whole of it, namely all things not yet subjected to man (v. 8); we Christians “glance at” (take a look at, βλέπομεν) “him who has been made a little lower than angels, at Jesus.” And what do we see in him? A man like ourselves, “Jesus” being the name he bore here on earth, but now “crowned with glory and honor” (v. 7), which means “all things in subjection under his feet” (v. 8), this even in a higher sense than David predicated it of man, who spoke only of this present earth and did not speak of the fact that in our present sinful state this subjection of all things to man is not yet realized (v. 8).

How did this man Jesus come to be crowned thus? “Because of the suffering of the death,” the articles to indicate “the particular suffering” and “the particular death” he underwent, a sacrificial, expiatory, substitutionary death which is known as such to the readers. Jesus did not suffer and die in a general way, merely die some kind of a death as all sinners suffer more or less and finally die. Of such suffering and death it could not be said that “because of it” a person is crowned with glory and honor. The soul that sinneth it shall die. It is sin that produces death. Jesus’ death was a sweet-smelling savor to God, who therefore crowned him.

The weight of the statement lies in the purpose clause which, however, does not modify the participle “crowned” but the phrase, the reference to Jesus’ death. The construction is ad sensum: made lower than angels so as to suffer and to die had the purpose for Jesus that thereby he not only achieved crowning with glory and honor for himself but also the purpose “that by God’s grace he should taste death (genitive after a verb of tasting) for everyone.” The implication is that by virtue of this death of Jesus’ everyone might attain glory and honor; this implication is reserved for actual statement in v. 10: “getting to bring many sons to glory.”

“To taste death” = to undergo all its dread bitterness; it is not a softening but rather a strengthening of the simple verb “to die.” Jesus tasted death, not by merely sipping, but by fully draining the cup. The emphasis is on ὑπὲρπαντός, masculine: “for the benefit of everyone.” The fact that this includes universality as well as substitution is rather plain although neither idea is in the foreground, this being the idea of benefiting everyone by opening up to him the avenue to eternal glory and honor.

The writer of Hebrews does not make Psalms 8 Messianic, but he does read David’s language in the Messianic light as all Scripture should ever be read. Two expressions are here read in that way. When Jesus became incarnate he, too, like all men, “was made a little lower than angels,” certainly not according to his deity, which is immutable, but by assuming our human nature with its present earthly weakness. How completely he thus became one of us is plain. David’s statement in v. 7 refers to man alone and is so used by the writer with reference to the God-man.

The perfect participle indicates a condition that endured and ended, its graph is——— “A little lower” (degree) is unchanged from v. 7, and neither there nor here means “a little while.” “Having been crowned with glory and honor” repeats this expression which was used in the psalm of David, who applied it to man’s present state of superiority over all earthly creatures. Yet v. 8 points out that this really implies more, that all things without exception were to be beneath man’s feet, a condition which man has not as yet reached. For it cannot be God’s intention that man is to be over all things only in this transitory earthly life, that his superiority is to end with that. His present still imperfect superiority must be, as the writer of Hebrews says, the forerunner of a final complete superiority which is to be attained in the world to come (v. 5). This is already attained by Jesus whose human nature is now exalted, “having been crowned with glory and honor” after having been, like us, made lower than angels. This perfect is, however, the reverse of the former, its graph is ———, starting in the past, at his resurrection and exaltation, and extending to all eternity. In and through him we, too, are to attain what v. 5 implies of us.

The correct reading is χάριτιΘεοῦ: “by God’s grace” Jesus tasted death’s bitterness for the benefit of every one, “who died for our advantage on the cross.” “By God’s grace for everyone” is significantly adjoined, for this undeserved favor of God pertains to us guilty and doomed sinners and not to Jesus who died for our sins. Yet some interpreters prefer the variant χωρὶςΘεοῦ, “apart from God” Jesus tasted death, and then refer this to Mark 15:34 or state that Jesus suffered only according to his human nature and not according to the divine. “Apart from or without God” says too much, for God willed the death of Jesus, and Jesus drank the cup in obedience to God’s will. The plea that the more difficult reading, the one that is textually least explainable, is probably the correct reading has only too often prolonged the life of even senseless readings.

The full and final glory, which is intended for man by God, is secured for him only through Jesus’ suffering and death, who for this purpose, like us, was made lower than angels, tasted death’s bitterness, was then exalted in eternal glory. Yet, remember that 1:1–14 precedes: this suffering, dying Jesus is the eternal Son. The writer presents the suffering Messiah who was such an offense to Jews, from whom the writer’s converted Jewish readers were inclined to turn away. Himself a former Jew, the writer says to his readers: We see this Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of his death, that death which was intended for the benefit of every man. Jesus beckons us so that through his suffering and death we, too, enter into his glory.

Hebrews 2:10

10 So far should Jewish Christians be from taking the last offense at the suffering Messiah that they should rather see how it befitted God to make the Author of their salvation such an Author by means of suffering. For it was fitting for him, on account of whom (are) all the (existing) things and through whom (are) all the (existing) things, that he as bringing many sons to glory make the Author of their salvation complete by means of suffering.

In the case of the Messiah suffering is so far from being an outrageous idea that in the accomplishment of God’s grace, that of bringing many sons to glory, it positively accorded with his own nature and his relation to all things to make the Author of their salvation the Author that he is by means of suffering. Nothing else would have befitted God, all Jewish and all human preconceptions to the contrary notwithstanding.

The writer does not speak of necessity although one might say that what is fitting and proper for God is, therefore, also necessary for him, for God cannot act in a manner that is unbefitting him. The fact that αὐτῷ refers to God and not to Jesus needs no proof. God is the agent of the passive participles used in v. 9 as he is the agent also of this new sentence. To aid us in understanding his thought the writer does not merely say that “it is fitting for God” but that it is fitting “for him on account of whom all the (existing) things (are) and through whom all the (existing) things (are),” τὰπάντα as in v. 8. The two διά clauses declare that all the things that exist and occur do so “because of him” and “through him”: they are on God’s account, for his sake (i. e., for his glory), as they are also due to his agency (his hand being involved in them all.)

The question in regard to the origin and the existence of evil is not a part of Τὰπάντα, which τὰἔργατῶνχειρῶνσου have already defined sufficiently in v. 7. Since everything centers in God’s interest and his hands, everything that he does befits him; in fact, that is axiomatic for any normal thought about God. You and I may do things that are not fit and proper for whom and what we are and for our relation to the persons and the things dependent on us; such an action is unthinkable in regard to God. One must have an entirely perverted idea of God (such as paganism or the moderns have) in order to think that God could or would do what does not befit himself in regard to any single thing.

The object considered is God’s leading or bringing many sons to glory. This is the glory of the earth to come which is mentioned in v. 5, our coming inheritance of salvation (1:14), our participation in the glory and honor with which Jesus has already been crowned (v. 9). As his “many sons” God wants to bring us from this sinful, unglorious earth to the everlasting glory of Christ in the earth to come. “Sons” is significant (Gal. 3:26, where the word is “sons” and not “children,” A. V.). Sons are like their father.

Jesus tasted death “for everyone.” While that point is not stressed, not all will be sons brought to glory—some refuse to be sons of God. The accusative ἀγαγόντα is this case because it serves as the subject of the infinitive τελειῶσαι; the attraction to the infinitive is stronger than that to the dative αὐτῷ would be, which also makes for clearness. It is not a lack of assimilation as R. 1039 regards it; it is quite classical. The aorist ἀγαγόντα is not due to a relation of the tense to the infinitive but is simply factual: as far as the fact of bringing many sons to glory is concerned.

To bring many sons to glory, to effect this, it was fitting “that God make the Author of their salvation complete by means of suffering.” The verb means to make τέλειος, to bring to a certain τέλος or goal, the goal implied in the object of the verb and in the context. The sense is: “by means of suffering to make the Author of the salvation of the many sons, whom God intended to bring to glory, complete as this Author of their salvation.” Expressed negatively: without suffering death as Jesus did he would not have been a complete Savior, could not have brought any men to glory as God’s sons. He had to come as the High Priest with the blood of atonement even as this epistle in v. 17 of this chapter and in the following chapters unfolds at length. Only the suffering Savior could save, Isa. 53. It was the Father’s will that he drink the cup (thus the prayers in Gethsemane). To be the Prophet and the King was not enough; to be the High Priest and to come with his blood and his death had to be added. So alone was he the Author of the salvation of the many sons of God, they were made such sons by him and by his salvation.

When Luther translates ἀρχηγός Herzog he follows the LXX’s use of the word, which cannot apply here. Jesus is not the leader who enters salvation and glory with all these sons of God following him. The illustration given by Dods is inadequate: “He is the strong swimmer who carries the rope ashore, and so not only secures his own position but makes rescue for all who will follow.” Jesus was not saved; he had no sins from which to be saved. He does not merely help us in saving ourselves. However well Dods intends his illustration, it is not in accord with the facts. Ἀρχηγός = αἴτιος of eternal salvation (5:9); the former is a personal term: “Author of their salvation,” Urheber; the other an impersonal term: “cause of eternal salvation,” Ursache; both state that Jesus caused and causes our salvation in toto. See C.-K. 179, etc.

It is a striking paradox to say that God’s bringing us to glory should make it fitting for God to use the suffering of death for making the Author of our salvation the complete Author he had to be and, of course, is. Yet the fact stands, stands as a matter that is in every way befitting God who is back of all that this Author of salvation did, said, suffered, and obtained for us. This does not yet explain the whole matter, more must be said and is said in the following. Those who know God and his true relation to τὰπάντα are put on the right track as to the connection existing between the suffering and the death of Jesus which crowned his human nature with glory and honor and enables God to lead so many to the same glory as his sons.

Weiss holds the view that God made Jesus morally perfect by means of suffering; that suffering was the opportunity which was arranged by God that enabled Jesus to rise to the height of moral perfection. But was Jesus ever morally imperfect, morally incomplete? Our versions with their translation “make perfect” might mislead their readers, but the Greek infinitive will never do so. Riggenbach is unclear when he speaks of die Vollendung seines persoenlichen Lebens-standes. This view is not made any clearer in his footnote: the old covenant institution of salvation is called faulty and incomplete, Jesus brought its completion, yet not by his suffering and death but only by his heavenly glorification. But the old covenant was complete at every stage; all the Old Testament sons of God were brought to glory through it just as the New Testament sons are.

The promise (old covenant) was as complete as its fulfillment is (new covenant). The promise ever involved the fulfillment, and vice versa.

As far as Jesus himself is concerned, the writer of Hebrews declares him to be the Author of our salvation who is complete as such in every way by means of his suffering death for everyone, and he does not postpone this completeness to the ensuing glorification. The victor is merely crowned. His victory is complete before he is crowned (v. 9); only “because of the suffering of the death” (διά) was Jesus crowned, because his victory was complete, and certainly not in order to help to bring it to completion.

Hebrews 2:11

11 “For” carries the explanation a step farther. He who was made lower than angels and because of the suffering and the death on the cross was raised to glory; he for whom the Creator and Ruler of all things fittingly used suffering to make him complete as the Author of our salvation: he is our very brother. We should not forget that he is the heir of all things (1:2), and that to be brought to glory means that we inherit salvation, i. e., become joint heirs with him (Rom. 8:17). Is it not plain that he and we must thus be brothers? Also that the angels do not belong to this brotherhood? They are not to sit on his throne with Jesus and reign with him, only we are to do that.

They never had “blood and flesh” (v. 14) which made it necessary that the Author of their glory state become incarnate. The heir, with whom we are to inherit, had to stoop down to become our brother. We should not, however, think of the modern way of inheriting which puts all heirs on the same level, but of the old way where the first-born is the supreme heir, especially in the case of royal inheritance (1:6 and all of v. 5–14); our inheritance is wholly dependent on Jesus who is the heir, on him as our royal brother.

He stooped down to us in order to enable God to lead us, his many sons, to glory. He won the glory which we are to share with him. He won it by suffering death and thereby became the Author of our salvation, which is complete in every way. We shall not understand this properly unless we bear in mind all that precedes. Verse 10 itself and v. 9, too, rest on the basis that is laid in all that precedes.

For both the one sanctifying and the ones sanctified (are) all from one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying:

I will announce thy name to my brothers;

In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praise.

And again:

I myself will be trusting him.

Behold, I myself and the dear children whom God gave me.

“Jesus” (v. 9) and we are “brothers”; πάντες, which is placed emphatically at the end, includes him and us. He and we together with him are all “from one” as possessing “blood and flesh” (v. 14). This “one” is not God, the Creator, for then “all” could not exclude the angels who have been so clearly excluded although God created also them. This “one” cannot be Abraham, for “blood and flesh” are not restricted to him, nor did Jesus suffer death only for Abraham and for his physical descendants but “for everyone” (v. 9) although everyone does not obtain the salvation and the glory bought for them at so great a price. This “one” is Adam.

“Those sanctified” include also the Old Testament saints, Adam himself and some in the Old Testament who were not of Abrahamitic descent, and then all those of the New Testament, so many of whom are Gentiles. Here we have the incarnation by which the Son (1:2) became man, our brother, like ourselves, “a little lower than angels” (2:7, 9).

Here we have an added point for explaining the suffering Messiah. By his death for everyone he won eternal glory and honor for his human nature as Jesus (v. 9); by his suffering death he was made completely the Author of our salvation so that God might lead many sons to glory, the glory which Jesus has won (v. 10); and now, an additional step and approaching the climax reached in v. 14, 15, Jesus, our brother, sanctifies and sets us apart for God as his sons, as no longer belonging to the world but to God (John 17:14–20), as sanctified by the suffering and the death of Jesus.

“The one sanctifying” is already a high-priestly term; “High Priest” follows in v. 17, and further on we shall hear all about this High Priest. Not merely because we are human beings with blood and flesh did our Sanctifier have to be our brother and also be derived from Adam, but because, in order to sanctify us, he had to offer better blood than that of animals, his own blood which alone cleanses us from all sin and thus makes us “the ones sanctified.” We are beginning to enter the Holy of Holies of our faith. The great veil is being drawn back in these two terms: “the one sanctifying,” “the ones sanctified,” two substantivized timeless, characterizing present participles. Besides the expiation that sanctifies and washes away all sin and guilt we shall see in the brotherhood of Jesus with us, whom he thus sanctifies, also all else that draws him so closely to us as the High Priest in understanding our temptation and in sympathy with us.

Verily, God knew what he was doing when in bringing many sons to glory he made the Savior our brother!

Hebrews 2:12

12 The writer of Hebrews again lets the Old Testament speak to his Jewish Christian readers with its convincing power. This our sanctifier, who is one with us through Adam, is for this very reason “not ashamed to call us brothers,” for instance in the great Messianic psalm (22:22): “I will announce thy name to my brothers.” The point is in the words “my brothers.” The quotation is the more effective because this is the psalm of the suffering Messiah and is so completely prophetic of the way in which Jesus died. By using ἀπαγγελῶ in place of the LXX’s διηγήσομαι the writer proves that he is above mechanical quotation of minor words. “Thy name” is Yahweh’s great name or revelation which centers in the Messiah, in his suffering and his exaltation for our salvation. His deity and also his exaltation might lead us to think that he would be ashamed to call us his “brothers”; but we are this. Jesus calls us that in John 20:17; his incarnation made him this, for by suffering as a man, by this alone could he be the complete Author of our salvation, our high-priestly sanctifier.

The second line is added: “In the midst of the assembly (ἐκκλησία) will I hymn thee,” i. e., sing praiseful hymns to thee, Yahweh, as one among this assembly of my brethren. So Jesus went to the Temple in Jerusalem and sang the psalms of worship among his brother worshipers.

Hebrews 2:13

13 A second Old Testament word testifies: “I myself will be trusting him” (Isa. 8:17). The Hebrew: “I will look for (or to) him,” means in trust and hence is the same as: “I will trust him” (Yahweh). The LXX does not have ἐγώ, but it appears in the next verse. Hebrews adds it to the quotation from Isa. 8:17 in order to bring out the fact that the Messiah is referred to. Because it is added ἔσομαι is placed before its participle. The writer of Hebrews makes the prophet Isaiah a type of the Messiah in this utterance or conceives the Messiah as speaking these words.

Although he was himself God and omnipotent, in his humiliation and in his human nature here on earth Jesus depended on God in complete trust. Remember all his prayers. On the cross he commended his human spirit into his Father’s hands. In all this he was like all God’s sons, living and then also dying in trust in God. The second perfect πεποιθώς is always used as a present so that it forms a periphrastic future form with ἔσομαι and not, as R. 375 says, a periphrastic future perfect.

The third Old Testament witness is taken from Isa. 8:18, and although it follows v. 17 it is introduced here as an independent witness by the preamble: “And again.” “Behold, I myself and the dear children whom God gave me” is quoted because of the combination “I and the children.” Both have the same human nature. That is why the quoted words include no more. Some would extend the meaning: “Behold, I myself”—ready for thy service, “and the dear children”—ready to aid me. But that is not the meaning in the original Hebrew or in Hebrews. “Behold” means: wir stellen uns dir anheim (Delitzsch): in the midst of Yahweh’s judgments the prophet and his children place themselves into God’s hands. Delitzsch adds that in Heb. 2:13 the words of Isaiah are made words of Jesus because the spirit of Jesus was in Isaiah; the family of Isaiah was a shadow of the reality, of Jesus and of the sanctified sons of God who are saved from the massa perdita.

The word used is not τέκνα but παιδία, the diminutive has the sense of “dear children,” the word refers, not to birth, but to age, namely to littleness and dependence. The two points are these: 1) I and these children—human; 2) they are dependent on me as having been given to me by God. We have the same relation as that of sanctifier and sanctified in v. 11. “The dear children” means neither children of God nor children of the Messiah Jesus but children “from one” (Adam), v. 11. “Whom God gave to me” = John 10:29; 17:6, 9, 11, 12.

Deduction: How much the Suffering of Jesus Means, v. 14–18.

Hebrews 2:14

14 Since, then, the dear children have been in fellowship of blood and flesh, he, too, likewise shared the same in order that by means of the death he might put out of commission him who has the might of the death, that is, the devil, and free these, as many as by fear of death were their life long subject to slavery.

The first clause merely restates what the previous quotations contain although this is now put in a short and a direct way by taking over τὰπαιδία from the last quotation: these dear children, these brothers, these sanctified ones, these many sons of God, have ever had only human nature, “have been in fellowship of blood and flesh,” are physical creatures. The perfect tense reaches back to Adam and continues on from that point; yet κοινωνέω, “to fellowship,” implies that “blood and flesh” is not, as in the case of the brute creatures, the whole of their being; their soul or spirit, their real person exists only in fellowship with a physical body. The genitives of the thing after κοινωνέω are good classical Greek.

Thus “also he,” the Author of this salvation, makes them his brothers: “he, too, shared the same” (blood and flesh) in order to accomplish their salvation. The order is “blood and flesh” probably because in Jewish literature the common expression “flesh and blood” designates the powerlessness of man over against God while “blood and flesh,” as also in Eph. 6:12, states the physical substance of man. But we have the historical aorist (not the perfect) to mark the moment and the fact of the incarnation. This tense in no way implies that this sharing lasted only for a time and then ended. The incarnation is not indicated here for the first time; it is implied already in 1:2 and in all that follows, note especially “having been made a little lower than angels” in v. 9. Here, however, “he shared the same” is direct.

The adverb παραπλησίως does not reduce the sharing or indicate a difference between Jesus and these children of Adam, it rather enhances the verb: “likewise,” “correspondingly” he shared our physical nature (10:5b). The fact that the eternal Son had no human father, that his incarnation was miraculous, is understood by all who know the eternity of his deity, which has also been fully indicated in the final clause of 1:2.

The point of the sentence is in the purpose clause: “in order that by means of the death he might put out of commission him who has the might of the death, that is, the devil, and free these, as many as (i. e., all these children) by fear of death were constantly living subject to slavery.” In order to accomplish this purpose (actually to put out of commission, aorist) the Author of our salvation made himself one of us. As a man with blood and flesh he could and did die and by the death itself freed us from the death by which the devil held us. The statement is paradoxical: death freed from death; but it is the fact. One might think that Jesus’ death wrecked him as death wrecks other men, but the extreme opposite is the fact—it saved us from death.

Καταργέω (one of Paul’s favorite words) is to be translated according to the context. Here its object is the devil, “he who has the might of the death” and exercises this might, κράτος itself means might put forth. “Destroyed” (A. V.) is thus inexact; the murderous (John 8:44) devil still exists and murders. “Bring to nought” (R. V.) is better: the devil cannot murder us, we are freed by the death of Jesus; this murderer was put out of commission for us. The fact that Jesus tasted death “for everyone” is stated in v. 9 (no limited atonement); but so many prefer death to freedom from death and thus remain in the murderer’s might: “Why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Jer. 18:31.

It is not necessary to say that διὰτοῦθανάτου, without αὐτοῦ, means “by means of his death,” the article is used with the force of the pronoun. This same τοῦθανάτου follows, but in this case the article cannot mean “his death.” To be sure, “his” (Jesus’) death freed us. By leaving out the pronoun αὐτοῦ the sense is “the death.” As the means for putting out of commission “the thing properly called death” Jesus used “the very thing” that the devil’s might wielded upon its helpless victims. By death Jesus smote death; both terms are objective.

There is no need to explain to these Jewish Christians how the devil got the might of death and its killing power into his hands; they know Gen. 3. In John 8:44 Jesus, too, needs to state no details regarding this matter. So also the manner in which “the death” that Jesus used struck from the devil’s hand “the death” he was using is not elucidated although an elucidation follows. The point is the fact that Jesus became the Author of our salvation by tasting the bitterness of death, that God made him complete as this Author by means of suffering, and that this was fitting for God to arrange as being the One whose interest and governance are involved in everything, so that no Jewish Christian should ever again return to the Jewish dislike of the suffering Messiah and become offended at the cross. God thought this the fitting way to save us. Here there are no abstract reasoning and proof that this was fitting for God.

Here are the facts themselves with their factual results. These are allowed to speak for themselves. These prove that God acted fitly in giving us the suffering Savior. No man who is saved from the devil and from death by means of this Savior’s death will say that God used unfit means for saving him. The writer of Hebrews is truly Pauline in stating facts and the logic and the power of the facts as facts. Like Paul, he is a fact theologian.

That is what makes these writers invincible.

Hebrews 2:15

15 Another aorist states still more of the blessed fact that was achieved by “the death” which Jesus used in accomplishing God’s purpose: by means of this death, which robbed the devil of his might, Jesus “set free these, as many as by fear of death were their life long subject to slavery.” Ἀπαλλάσσω = durch Entfernung anders machen (G. K. 253), “to make other by removal,” hence “to free.” We frequently find “all, as many as” here we have “these, as many as”; fear death, meaning all men. All are set free from the power of death, from the fear of death, although so many refuse this freedom. Τούτους does not restrict ὅσοι only to the saved.

The doomed are graphically described: “all who by fear of death (no article) were their life long subject to slavery.” Pitiful indeed! From this fear Jesus’ death set us free. This slavery his death broke. Διὰπαντὸςτοῦζῆν belong together, the infinitive is made a noun: “through the whole life (living)” = “their livelong lives,” “all their lifetime” (our versions); it is found only here in the New Testament and is good Greek (Moulton, Einleitung 342; R. 1052). The genitive after ἔνοχοι is frequently found, its meaning is determined according to the context; here it means der Sklaverei verfallen, “subject to slavery.” Men rightly fear death, for they are actually in its slavery because they are in the devil’s might. Jesus’ death changed this, it shattered the murderer’s might; in the power of Jesus’ death we escape.

Hebrews 2:16

16 For certainly (it needs hardly to be said) not of angels does he take helpful hold, but of Abraham’s seed he does take helpful hold.

Although in the classics ἐπιλαμβάνομαι is not used in the sense of helpfully taking hold of someone, for which reason also the old Greek interpreters as well as the A. V. thought of the assumption of the nature, not of angels, but of Abraham’s seed, yet that is the meaning here (C.-K. 659 and others). But why say that Jesus succors Abraham’s seed? The answer is not that there is throughout a reference only to Jesus’ descent from Abraham even in v. 11 (ἐξἑνός is then said to mean “from Abraham”) and thus now to Abraham’s seed, whether his physical or his spiritual seed. Both verbs are not historical aorists but present tenses to indicate the universal, enduring, helpful taking hold. Abraham’s seed is referred to in order to show that even these, the chosen people, needed succor and not merely the Gentiles, a thing that Jews and Christian Jews who were inclined to revert to Judaism might think. To such Jewish Christians this epistle is addressed.

Hebrews 2:17

17 Hence he was obliged in all respects to be made like his brothers in order to be merciful and a faithful High Priest as to the things pertaining to God so as to expiate the sins of the people.

Ὅθεν occurs six times in Hebrews but never in Paul’s writings; it is used like our “hence,” not only in order to draw strictly logical conclusions but also to present natural results: “whence it comes that,” “with which the result is connected.” It is so used here; when he was taking helpful hold of the seed of Abraham, Jesus, the Author of our salvation, “was obliged to be made like his brothers κατὰπάντα, according to everything,” i. e., in all respects. We now see why Abraham’s seed is mentioned in v. 16, namely not in order to exclude the Gentiles or to leave them out of the present discussion. When the Author of our salvation assumed our human nature, “blood and flesh,” he could not have become a Gentile in order to effect our salvation, he was obliged to become a Jew, one of the seed of Abraham.

The emphasis is on the phrase “in all respects,” which, of course, has nothing to do with becoming a sinner like either the Gentile or the Jewish sinners. The phrase refers to the purpose clause: the likeness to the brothers had to extend far enough to enable Jesus to be the High Priest and to expiate the sins of the people of Israel. An incarnation in blood and flesh that did not take care of this essential purpose would have been in vain.

It was not necessary to explain either expiation or high priesthood to former Jews or to state what these are and what necessity there is for them. They knew all about the Old Testament Great Day of Atonement when the high priest killed the bullock and then the goat and brought their blood within the veil and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat to remove the sins, not of this or of that individual, but of the whole people; for despite all the individual sacrifices throughout the year so many sins remained that this comprehensive, annual expiation by the high priest had been arranged of God. Much more will be said in the following. All of it prefigured the great and final expiation of Jesus.

It is here connected with Jesus. For this he became incarnate, was “made a little lower than angels” (v. 9), was “not ashamed to call us brothers” (v. 11–13), he and we being “from one” (v. 11), he sharing our “blood and flesh” (v. 14). This explains how “he tasted death for everyone” (v. 9), was made a complete Savior “by means of suffering” (v. 10), “by means of the death” freed us from death (v. 14, 15). Thus he became “the Author of our salvation” (v. 10), “the one sanctifying” those who are truly sanctified, our “faithful High Priest” (v. 17)—these three terms are cumulative.

A wonderful developing and unfolding runs through this section; we are now at its climax. We also see why “it was fitting for God” to make Jesus what he is “by means of suffering” (v. 10), and why Jesus “was obliged to be like his brothers in all respects,” also in his descent from “the seed of Abraham,” because he took hold helpfully of this seed in the expiation of sins. Were not the Jews the only people to whom God had given the Old Testament high priesthood and the Great Day of Atonement, which prefigured the final expiation of the sins of the whole world? How can Jewish Christians think of disowning this their final High Priest? Some interpreters think that the term “High Priest” is introduced unexpectedly and without preparation on the part of the readers. Not at all.

The whole of v. 9, etc., is the most adequate preparation. When the author called him “the Author of our salvation,” “the one sanctifying,” this demands that “High Priest” should now be added, which thus floods all that precedes with light.

Our versions have but one predicate: “in order that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest” yet “merciful” is placed before the verb and is thus made emphatic so that we evidently have two predications: “made merciful (toward his brothers) and a faithful High Priest” (toward God). Yet the two predications are not independent, for the one has no noun. This appears the more certain because the adverbial accusative belongs only to πιστός: “faithful as to the things pertaining to God.” As our High Priest Jesus was like the Old Testament high priests, and yet in one respect he was not like them, for these high priests only killed the sacrifice for the expiation while Jesus himself suffered the death. In this there was manifested his mercy toward us all: his own suffering and death freed us from the fear of the devil and of death. Ἔλεος, the adjective of which is used, is the feeling of pity for the wretched, their wretchedness being described in v. 15. On the other hand and joined with this is the faithfulness in regard to the things pertaining to God; for in order to rescue the wretched from their terrible state Jesus had to expiate their sins and omit nothing in restoring them to God.

We construe: “to be (aorist of actuality) … a faithful High Priest as to the things pertaining to God so as to expiate the sins of the people.” This is not separated from his being merciful yet is itself a unit and is joined to his mercy. Εἰςτό indicates the purpose or the contemplated result of this High Priest’s faithfulness in the things regarding God. Our versions’ translations of ἱλάσκεσθαι do not sufficiently exclude the idea that God is reconciled or made propitious, which is a pagan notion. This word means suehnen, “to expiate.” It is found only here and in Luke 18:13 (intransitive) in the New Testament and applies to “the sins of the people.” C.-K. 519 says: “God’s mind needs no alteration. But that he may not need to adopt a different procedure toward the sinner, an expiation of the sin is needed (a substitutionary intervention to obviate the penalty), and that an expiation, the institution and gift of which has gone out from himself and his love, whereas man in and for himself could not dare and could not find an expiation over against the wrath of God.… By the institution of the expiation God’s love steps in in advance and meets his justice. By the accomplishment of the expiation man escapes the revelation of the wrath of God and remains in the bond of grace which does not withdraw itself from him. It is not that something happens to God as in the secular domain; the sacrifice is no tribute which is to satisfy or can satisfy God.

Therefore we never read ἱλάσκεσθαιτὸνΘεόν. Rather something happens to man, who is removed from the wrath to come (Matt. 3:7; Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 5:9).” We need not discuss the LXX and the Hebrew kipper, on which see C.-K.

Note the present tense in εἰςτὸἱλάσκεσθαι: the one act of Jesus (10:12) is viewed in its continuous application to the sins of the people. There is no doubt that ὁλαός refers to the people of Israel as does “seed of Abraham” in v. 16. Yet here, too, not as excluding the Gentiles but in the sense that, if Israel needed this High Priest’s expiation, all other men needed it no less.

Hebrews 2:18

18 One additional point is added in order to describe the suffering Savior. Instead of turning from him the Jewish Christians ought to be drawn to him the more. This point, too, rests on the incarnation, on his being made like unto his brothers, and thus on his suffering. Γάρ does not introduce a proof; it only adds an elucidation. In v. 16 Jesus “takes helpful hold of” and in v. 17 he is “merciful.” These expressions refer to his expiation of the sins, yet, as “for” now explains, this goes farther. For in that he has suffered, he himself having come to be tempted, is able to help those who are tempted.

The new point is the temptation; the verb is to be understood in the usual sinister sense. But αὐτὸςπειρασθείς should be construed together; not πέπονθεναὐτός as our versions translate: “he himself has suffered.” The fact that Jesus suffered and is the suffering Savior has been stated repeatedly; this needs no emphasis even as αὐτός is not placed before “he has suffered.” The point is that “he himself was tempted.”

We have a study in tenses here. The perfect includes the whole duration of the suffering which ended with the death; the graph is———— The aorist participle notes only the past fact that Jesus “was himself tempted” and connects this fact with his suffering. We may think of Gethsemane when Jesus wrestled with God in prayer. The present tense “he is able” = enduringly able. The present participle is iterative: “those being tempted from time to time.” The final infinitive is an effective aorist: “actually and effectively to help.”

One who suffered as Jesus did, being tempted as he was, is certainly able to help those who must ever and again undergo temptation. The fact that Jesus conquered the temptation is implied in the entire statement, especially also in the statement that “he has suffered,” for the temptation consisted in this that he should evade this awful suffering and the death on the cross. His answer was: “Not my will be done, but thine!” and then he himself placed himself into the hands of his enemies (John 18:4–9).

The question regarding the temptation of Jesus is not acute here. Yet let us refer to The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 155, etc., where it is shown that the temptation was real although Jesus could not fall—a point that confuses many. All of the preliminary temptations as they are recorded in Matt. 4:1, etc.; 16:21, etc., were only preludes to the final one in Gethsemane although the Gospels do not call Jesus’ experience in Gethsemane a temptation. The victor is ever able to help those who are in the fight, to help them successfully (aorist).

Two questions have been raised: Was Jesus our faithful High Priest only when he entered heaven with his atoning blood or already when he entered his suffering; and was he perhaps High Priest in one way before and in another way after (Riehm)? As the Jewish high priest was the same before he entered the Holy of Holies as he was afterward, so also was Jesus. Why make a distinction? Again: Did Jesus’ suffering cause his temptation, or did his temptation cause his suffering? This alternative is misleading. The expiation of our sins made his suffering necessary; the devil caused his temptation as he does ours.

Verse 18 was so effective for the first readers of this epistle because they were compelled to suffer and were thus inclined to return to their old Judaism. Read the introduction. If they were the converted Jews in Rome, we can even visualize their situation. With v. 18 pointing to the suffering Savior and his temptation the way is open for the great admonition which brings his help effectively to the readers in their temptations.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.