Q. Heb. 2:11-1811For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. 13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. 14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17Wherefore in all things it behoved 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. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:11‑18).-(1.) What is the force of “all of one?” (2.) The connection of the three passages of the Old Testament that follow? (3.) What is the difference between being “partakers of flesh and blood,” and taking “part of the same?”
What is the exact meaning and aim of “likewise” here?
What is the place given to death in the next words? (6.) How does verse 16 connect itself with what precedes and follows? (7.) “To make reconciliation for the sins of the people” sounds strange as compared with the reconciliation of the believers and the universe elsewhere revealed: is it correct? (8.) Temptation—what? Z.
A. (1.) “All of one” is purposely abstract (ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες). The phrase is fairly rendered in the Authorized Version. The reference to God the Father is set aside by what follows; for if the point were a common Fatherhood in the higher sense, where would be the propriety of adding, “on which account he is not ashamed to call them brethren?” It would then be a necessity of relationship. On the other hand, there is the most careful guard throughout against such an undue enlargement of the sphere as would associate Christ with all the human race in its actual state. It is a question of real humanity in both the Sanctifier and the sanctified, not of the state in which He took it or they had it. They were “all one-wise,” but not all in a condition absolutely identical. I would add that it is incorrect to say that the present (οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι) means necessarily a process going on, the perfect God's purpose respecting them. The present participle is often used with the article for a person or persons in any given way designated, apart from the question of time. But when the perfect is employed, as ἡγιασμένοι in Heb. 10:1010By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10), it is expressly not future purpose or potentiality, but present application and character founded on a past fact—in this case the actual result of the finished work of Christ to the believer. Dean Alford is in every respect mistaken here.
The first citation (from Psa. 22:2222I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. (Psalm 22:22)) shows that the relationship of brethren is properly declared in resurrection, as we see plainly in John 20:1717Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17). The next citations (from Isa. 8:17, 1817And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 18Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. (Isaiah 8:17‑18)) connect the godly in Israel with Christ, the great prophet, in His path of reliance on God, apart from all the unbelieving confederacies of men—not as His brethren, for they were not yet so marked out, nor as His children exactly, but as the children whom God gave Him. It is the righteous remnant associated with the Messiah morally separate from the mass. This is kept up in “the children” of the following verse (14).
To bring about this relationship to Himself incarnation was requisite with a view to redemption. Since then the children partake, or are partakers of (κεκοινὠνηκεν) blood and flesh, He Himself also similarly participated in (μετέσχεν) the same. The former verb supposes a common share in what belonged to the children, as indeed to all men. For there is no difference in the human nature of godly and of ungodly. The latter verb means to take or get a share in anything (in this case, humanity).
(4.) “Likewise,” “in like manner,” “similarly” (as I have rendered it), is the true force of παραπλησίως. It is not correct to say that the rendering in our common Bible is not sufficiently strong. Bengel gives similiter and remarks, not that it is equivalent to but “idem feer atqne mox κατα πάντα per omina v. 17, c. iv. 15.” The Docete may have perverted the word to their own wicked folly; but no scholar who examines the matter can deny that Fr. does not go as far as (Sudan or rows; but as Alford justly remarks, it expresses “a general similitude, a likeness in the main: and so not to be pressed here, to extend to entire identity, nor on the other hand to imply, of purpose, partial diversity; but to be taken in its wide and open sense—that He Himself also partook, in the main, in like manner with us, of our nature.” The Docete did not believe that Christ really μετέόχεν τῶν αῦτῶν, which words do predicate sameness in essence. It is ignorance to found this on παραπλησζως, which simply asserts similarity of manner: while on the other hand, even this could not have been truthfully said, had not the Word been made flesh οῦ δοκητῶς ἀλλ ἀληθινὠῶς, οὐ φανταστικῶς ἀλλ’ όντως. (Comp. Phil. 2:2727For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. (Philippians 2:27).)
Christ took human nature most really, though not in a state identical with ours (as is more fully explained—strange that it should be needed by the believer!—in chap. iv. 15); but He took it to die, that through death He might destroy (annul, render void) him that has the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver, &c. To avail for God's glory or even for us, it was into death that grace led the Savior. There only could Satan's might be brought to naught; thus only could redemption be wrought, a ruined creation be reconciled to God, guilty souls be atoned for effectually and forever. All this and more was done by the death of Christ, though its power be displayed in resurrection alone. All else fails to vindicate God, annul Satan, or deliver man.
The English version of verse 16 is false in itself and destroys the connection. For of course Mum) it is not angels He takes up (i.e., helps), but He takes up Abraham's seed. It is not a question here of assuming a nature, but of the reason why He did so; and this is His undertaking the cause of the seed of Abraham—not of Adam, as such. The ancient expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, &c) and “great divines” (as Luther. Calvin, Beza, &c.) misled the authorized translators and the error in sense led to the further error in form; for they could not adhere thus to the present tense of ἐπιλαμβάνεται and hence were forced into the monstrous blunder of rendering it, “He took,” &c. Next, the thread of sense is cut, and a mere and feeble reiteration of the truth of verse 14 is imported into verse 16—a needless denial that angelic nature was assumed. Whereas, the affirmation of His special interest in Abraham's seed links on with the previous statement of His incarnation and His death for redemption purposes, and most fitly leads into the inference that follows.
To make expiation or propitiation is the true rendering of ἱλάσκεσθαι. The sinner needs to be reconciled, his sins to be expiated. See the opposite error in the Authorized Version of Rom. 5:1111And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Romans 5:11), where the margin gives the true sense—reconciliation.