Christ is Superior to the Angels Despite His Humanity
Without question the greatest obstacle to the author’s argument about the superiority of the Son is the authentic humanity of the Son, which involved him in both suffering and death. For the first time our author uses the name of the man from Nazareth, Jesus (v. 9). The humanity, the suffering, and the death of Jesus all seem to point with unmistakable clarity to his inferiority in comparison with the angels. The matter obviously demands attention, if the author’s argument is to stand; and rather than shrinking from the problem, he effectively turns it to his advantage.
2:5 Although in Jewish thought the present world was regarded as in some sense subject to angels, this is not the case in the world to come. When our author adds about which we are speaking, we encounter the tension between fulfillment and consummation that runs through all of Christian theology. That is, there is a sense in which the world to come has come already and yet also a sense in which it is yet to come. We have already encountered this tension in considering the meaning of the phrase “these last days” (1:2) and the quotation in 1:13. The Son has been exalted to the right hand of God, the position of all power, and yet some time is to elapse before his enemies are put under his feet. The reality of the Son’s finished work, the essence of the gospel, has nevertheless brought the world to come in the present and to the church. Thus our author has both a future and a realized eschatology. The latter is vividly expressed in 6:5 where he describes Christian experience as a tasting of “the powers of the coming age.” (See also the “you have come” of 12:22–24.) In point of fact, the world of which the author has been speaking is that new reality already brought into existence by the exaltation of the Son but the end result of which remains yet to be experienced; hence it remains that world yet to come. This tension is further manifested in the following verses.
2:6–8a This quotation from Psalm 8:4–6 provides another indication of our author’s christological understanding of the OT. As originally written, the psalm extols the glory of the created order, in comparison with which human beings look woefully insignificant: “When I consider your heavens … the moon and the stars … what is man?” At the same time, however, according to the Genesis narrative (1:26, 28) humanity was given dominion over the rest of creation, over all animals, birds, and fish, and this position of honor is celebrated by the psalmist. Our author understands the psalm to refer to Christ, as well as to humanity, in this instance not merely because of the possible messianic associations of the psalm (i.e., in the last two lines of the quoted material) but, rather, because he regards the Son as the archetypal human being. That is, Jesus is the true embodiment of humanity, the last Adam who realizes in himself that glory and dominion that the first Adam and his children lost because of sin. In him the words of the psalmist have their fulfillment. If the words were meant originally to apply to human beings, they find their fullest realization in the one who is preeminently human, who reveals humanity as humanity was meant to be.
The application of the psalm to Jesus was clearly facilitated by the words son of man, the title that Jesus himself preferred during his ministry. This title may be rendered as “mere man” (so GNB), which is indeed the nuance of the original Hebrew (as can be seen by the parallel man in the preceding line), but which has the disadvantage of concealing what must have jumped out at our author and his readers. For them, the son of man was understood to be Jesus. Once the mind turns to Jesus in verse 6, the temporal sequence of incarnation and exaltation can readily be perceived in verse 7. The last line of the quotation has a close tie with the author’s favorite exaltation text (Ps. 110:1, quoted in 1:13) and put everything under his feet, more literally: “having subjected everything under his feet.” Thus the OT passage is effectively utilized by the author in his argument. The Son was indeed made man, and accordingly, lower than the angels. NIV takes brachy ti in the sense of degree and thus as modifying “lower,” hence a little lower. To be preferred here, however, is the alternate understanding of the words in the sense of time, hence as in NIV margin, “for a little while” (thus NASB, RSV, GNB). The author’s argument is not concerned with the degree to which Jesus was made lower than the angels. But if the words are taken in the sense of time, “for a little while,” they fit perfectly as a description of the temporary humbling of the Son in the incarnation (cf. the same problem in v. 9). Thus temporarily the Son was humbled to a status lower than the angels, but now he has been exalted (to the right hand of the Father), crowned … with glory and honor, thus having everything put in subjection under his feet. What humanity once had, but lost, has now been gained by the one who became a human being for that very purpose. In him humanity has begun to realize its true inheritance.
2:8b–9 In these verses we encounter the first instance of our author’s midrashic treatment of an OT passage—that is, where he presents an interpretation of the quotation, utilizing specific words drawn from the quotation itself. (See the same phenomenon in 3:7–4:11; 10:5–14; 12:5–11.) The result may fairly be described as a Christian commentary (i.e., seen from the perspective of the fulfillment brought by Christ) on the passage that enables the author to drive home his point and thereby also to demonstrate the continuity he finds between old and new.
The three occurrences of the pronoun him in v. 8b can be understood as referring to humanity, in keeping with the original meaning of the portion of Psalm 8 that has just been quoted. But if, as we have argued, the latter is meant, especially through the reference to “the son of man,” to allude to Jesus (cf. v. 9), then the pronouns here may also have a deliberate ambiguity. Almost certainly the author intends here, as in the quotation, to refer not merely to humanity but also to Christ.
It is clear that the author understands the quotation from Psalm 8 to refer to Christ as well as to humanity by his application of specific words from the quotation to Jesus in verse 9: who was made a little lower (or better, “for a little while lower”; see comment on v. 7) than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor. Jesus, already so crowned, has in principle “everything under his feet” (v. 8a). We do not, however, yet see that reign in the present world. Indeed, the delay is already alluded to in a key text previously quoted (1:13): “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (Ps. 110:1). In fact, now we see neither man nor Christ ruling over all things; but Christ’s rule will in the future be fully consummated, and when that occurs, mankind will experience the full realization of the rule spoken of in Psalm 8 (cf. Phil. 3:21). God left nothing that is not subject to him. Our author does not specify the obvious exception noted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:27: “It is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”
But we see Jesus. This is the first mention of the personal name Jesus, which is used deliberately here to focus attention upon his humanity. It is the incarnation that makes Jesus temporarily lower than the angels, and the purpose of the incarnation is to make possible his death on behalf of all, for everyone. Taste death means simply to suffer death, as the preceding clause makes clear, and not merely a partial experience of death (cf. Mark 9:1). The incarnation and its goal, the cross, are the glorious expression of the grace of God, God’s free mercy and favor. The exaltation of Jesus, his being now crowned with glory and honor, is because he suffered death. Since it was from an exalted position that Jesus was temporarily made lower than the angels, we should not press the causal aspect too far (cf. 12:2). What is primarily in view is the sequence exalted status—humiliation—exaltation (as, e.g., explicitly in Phil. 2:6–11). At the same time, the exaltation that follows the humiliation does have a new dimension of joy and triumph, standing as it does at the end of the accomplishment of God’s plan of salvation.
The full humanity of the Son, therefore, involves the greatest of advantages, including the superiority of the Son to angels as the one who makes salvation possible by fulfilling the will of God in suffering and death. Further benefits of the humanity of Jesus are explored by our author in the remainder of this chapter.
Additional Notes
2:5 It is presupposed that angels have an important role in the present age. Evidence indicates the widespread belief that angel-princes under God ruled the nations. Philo says that the Creator employs angels as his assistants and ministers for the care of mortals (On Dreams 1.22); according to 1 Enoch (89:59) seventy guardian angels have charge over the seventy nations (cf. Deut. 32:8 [LXX]; Dan. 10:20–21; Sirach 17:17). See Kohler, JE, vol. 1, p. 594. This vice-regency, however, apparently does not hold true when the Son of Man, Jesus, has accomplished his work.
2:6–8a The formula that introduces the quotation is unusual: there is a place where someone has testified. Other indefinite introductory formulae are found in 4:4 (“somewhere he has spoken”) and 5:6 (“he says in another place”). This usage of indefinite introductory formulae is unique in the NT. Elsewhere, the author clearly introduces Scripture as spoken by God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit. In only two places is a human speaker referred to (9:20; 12:21), and in both we encounter Moses as the speaker in the OT narrative. See R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 164–70. It is especially appropriate that the son of man be understood as the representative of humanity. The title includes readily the idea of the community of the faithful, as it does in one of the sources of the concept, Dan. 7:13f., 22. (Cf. John 1:51, which some apply to the Son and the community of believers.) For “Son of Man,” see O. Michel, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 613–34; P. Giles, “The Son of Man in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” ExpT 86 (1975), pp. 328–32.
The OT of NIV translates the first line of Ps. 8:5: “You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings.” The underlying Hebrew for “heavenly beings” is ’elōhim, “God” (cf. NIV margin). Hebrews depends on the LXX, whose translators indeed translated ’elōhim by angelous, “angels.” (A similar rendering of ’elōhim by a plural may be seen in Ps. 82:6, “you are gods” [John 10:34], which was probably understood as “angels.”) It is obvious that our author’s argument benefits from the LXX reading at this point, although ’elōhim could be understood also to substantiate the point being made. Although the Hebrew of Ps. 8:5 refers to the smallness of degree to which human beings are inferior, “thou hast made him little less than God” (RSV), the LXX quoted in Heb. 2:7 can also be understood in a temporal sense, hence “you made him for a little while lower.” The temporal understanding of the phrase is supported by the argument of v. 9. See brachys, BAGD.
Many manuscripts add to v. 7 the words “you made him ruler over everything you made.” Despite the textual witness in favor of its inclusion (but it is missing from P46 and B), the line is almost certainly an adaptation to the LXX, and therefore the shorter reading is to be preferred.
2:8b–9 Four key phrases in the Greek text are picked up verbatim, or nearly so, from the preceding verses in a midrashic exposition of the quotation from Ps. 8. These are reflected in NIV’s putting everything under him; everything subject to him; was made a little lower; and crowned with glory and honor. It would not be inappropriate to put these phrases in quotation marks. In midrashic exposition the author constructs an argument by using phrases from the quotation, and hence produces a kind of commentary on the chosen passage. The author of Hebrews is a master of this technique, and in his frequent use of it he reflects his basic theological conviction that Christ and his work represent the fulfillment of the OT, not only as the fulfillment of direct prophecy, but also as the fulfillment that occurs in corresponding patterns of events that find their telos, or goal, in Christ. The author of Hebrews makes extensive use of midrashic commentary on OT texts in his treatise; indeed, he seems eager to derive his arguments from the Scriptures, and this undoubtedly reflects the importance of the OT to his readers. (See Introduction, under “Form and Structure.”)
Commentators are almost equally divided concerning whether the pronoun him in v. 8b refers to man OT to Jesus. But, as F. F. Bruce correctly points out: “the crux is only a minor one, because in any case Christ is in view as the representative Man” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964], p. 37, n. 35).
In v. 9 so that (hopōs) … he might taste death should be linked with the statement that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, despite the fact that the clauses are not consecutive in the Greek text (cf. GNB, and contrast the awkwardness of NASB for example).
That a few manuscripts and some early Fathers witness the more difficult reading chōris theou (“without” or “apart from God”) for chariti theou (by the grace of God) has produced much discussion. Although it is difficult to explain the origin of the former reading, and although generally the more difficult or awkward reading is to be preferred in textual criticism, here the manuscript evidence for by the grace of God is overwhelming (including the very early P46). Moreover, the phrase makes good sense as it stands and therefore is to be accepted as the original reading. On grace (charis), see note to 4:16. In he might taste death for everyone, we have the teaching of substitutionary atonement, a doctrine central to Hebrews (cf. 5:1; 7:27). On this use of the preposition for (hyper), see M. J. Harris, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 1196f. For a denial that v. 9 and chaps. 1 and 2 as a whole intend to assert the preexistence of Christ, see L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology, in memory of G. B. Caird; L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright, eds. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 151–64.
The Benefits of Christ’s Humanity
Pursuing his argument that Christ’s humanity makes possible the fulfillment of God’s saving plan and therefore involves no inferiority of Jesus to the angels, the author now focuses on the full reality and benefits of the Son’s humanity.
2:10 It was fitting refers to the full appropriateness of the way in which God accomplished his will through the death of Jesus. It was indeed the will of God, the sovereign creator of all, that brought about the incarnation and death of his Son. The creator thereby becomes also the redeemer of his creation. The death of Jesus involves, therefore, not weakness and inferiority, but strength and superiority. Jesus, fulfilling the plan of God, becomes the author of their salvation (lit., “originator” or “founder” of salvation). But the real point of the appropriateness referred to at the beginning of the verse is that the Son should become fully like human beings, sharing their suffering, which here means identification with humanity to the point of death, in order that human beings may become fully sons and by Jesus be brought to glory. Jesus became like us that we may become like him. (For a similar exchange, see 2 Cor. 5:21.) Making Jesus perfect through suffering refers primarily to the accomplishment and fulfillment of God’s purposes. The perfection is not a moral or ethical perfection, for Jesus in this sense was always perfect. Jesus was made perfect in the sense of being brought to a certain “completeness” associated with the fulfillment of God’s plan. In his suffering and death there is therefore a completeness to his humanity that corresponds to his completeness as God’s Son. For whom and through whom everything exists applies to God—language that is applied to the Son in 1:2 (“through whom”; cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; John 1:3). In bringing many sons to glory expresses at once the purpose of the incarnation, suffering, and death of Jesus. Glory and salvation stand as parallel terms describing the goal that Christians attain through Christ’s work. The One who “brings” them to this blessed state is thus the “pioneer of their salvation” (RSV).
2:11 The work of Jesus, wherein he makes people holy, is accomplished by his death, which in turn depends upon his humanity (cf. the words of 10:10: “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”). In his humanity Jesus is fully one with us, and therefore we all are of the same family (lit., “are all from one”). Jesus has identified with us to the extent that he is our brother and is not ashamed to call us brothers. Three OT quotations are provided by the author to support this claim.
2:12 Again the author’s christocentric interpretation of the OT emerges. The first quotation he presents is from Psalm 22. The opening words of this psalm were quoted by Jesus from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34; Matt. 27:46). Certain details in the psalm correspond strikingly with the Gospel narratives concerning the crucifixion (e.g., the physical agony, vv. 14–17; the mocking, vv. 6–8; the gambling for and dividing of Jesus’ clothes, v. 18); and the evangelists allude to the psalm in this connection. It is obvious that the early church regarded the whole of Psalm 22 as exceptionally appropriate on the lips of Jesus. If Jesus speaks the psalm to God, then—much to the delight of our author—he refers to the people in the assembly as his brothers. It is a man among humans who speaks concerning God. Thus our author has found an ideal passage to buttress his argument about the full humanity of Jesus.
2:13 Jesus is also seen to be the speaker in the next two brief quotations, each of which the author introduces with the simple “and again.” These quotations are from consecutive verses in Isaiah 8 (vv. 17 [LXX] and 18). Here, unlike the preceding quotation, we do not encounter an immediately evident rationale concerning how Jesus may be understood to be the speaker of these words. Since in the OT Isaiah is the speaker, it is commonly argued that similarities between Isaiah and Jesus, as well as the “messianic tone” of the larger passage (which is, however, difficult to see in these verses), explain how Jesus can be thought of as the speaker. This type of argument, however, is much too weak to establish our author’s point. Instead, the solution is to be found in the fact that according to the LXX, which is obviously being used here (cf. the first quotation with Isa. 8:17), the Lord, and not Isaiah, is the speaker of the words in question. Accordingly, the references to “Lord” in the LXX of Isaiah 8:17 are changed to “God.” Thus it is the “Lord” (kyrios) who speaks to “God” (theos). It was of course very common in the early church to identify “the Lord” in the OT as Jesus, especially when the context favored such an identification. Indeed, we have already encountered this identification of Jesus with Yahweh in the quotations in 1:6, and 1:10–12. If the Lord speaks to God, reasons our author, what else are we to understand but that Jesus here speaks to his Father? If this is true, then here are places where Jesus identifies himself with humanity rather than with God. He, like them, puts his trust in him (i.e., God); he associates himself with the children God has given me.
2:14 As the word brothers at the end of verse 11 anticipates its occurrence in the quotation in verse 12 (it occurs again in v. 17), so, similarly, the word children is obviously drawn from the preceding quotation. There is no new thought in the first half of this verse, but only a higher degree of specificity: as humans have flesh and blood, following KJV and practically all English translations (the order of the Greek is reversed by NIV) so he too shared in their humanity (lit., “partook of them,” i.e., of flesh and blood.) Again, as the aorist tense (in Greek, that tense which usually refers to completed action in the past) indicates, what is in view is a preexistent being who at a particular point in time took upon himself human nature. The second half of the verse consists of a purpose clause that again links the incarnation with its goal, his death. But whereas in the previous statements of this purpose the goal is stated positively as salvation or the purifying from sins, now it is expressed negatively, that he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil. Again it is necessary to distinguish between fulfillment and consummation. The devil has been defeated in principle in and through the ministry of Jesus (Luke 10:18) and especially through the cross (cf. John 10:31), and yet he is not destroyed, but continues to have real, if limited, power (cf. Eph. 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim. 3:7; James 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:8). In a similar way, the NT can say that Christ “has destroyed death” (2 Tim. 1:10), and yet death continues to he a reality with which humanity must reckon. The devil and death are clearly overcome in Christ’s work, even if in this interim period between the cross and the return of Christ we do not see the full effects of Christ’s victory. The devil’s power of death is related to his role in introducing sin into the world, for death is the fruit of sin (cf. Rom. 5:21).
2:15 It is significant in light of the preceding comments that the deliverance now experienced, to which our author makes reference, is described not as deliverance from death, but from the fear of death. Death, indeed, may still occur, but it need no longer be feared. Its sovereignty, like the devil’s, is limited and soon to come to an end. Through the death of Jesus, and all that this means, Christians are set free from the fear that perpetually enslaves others. Our author would agree with Paul’s questions: “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Cor. 15:55). Jesus has come “to destroy the devil’s work” (1 John 3:8), and presents himself to John in Revelation 1:18 in these words: “I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”
2:16 Jesus was not concerned with the angels, but with humankind. This serves as a reminder of the reason that Jesus became for a little while “lower than the angels” (v. 7); had he come to redeem angels, it is implied, he might have assumed the nature of angels. Far from reflecting any inferiority in Jesus, the humility of Jesus demonstrates the faithfulness of God to his saving purposes for his people, here identified as Abraham’s descendants. Although it may well be that this is an allusion to Isaiah 41:8f., this is a far from necessary conclusion. The author may well deliberately refer to Abraham’s descendants to focus attention upon his Jewish readers. But since the church is the heir of the OT promises in Christ, it is not wrong to understand the expression in a wider sense as referring to the entire community of faith (cf. Gal. 3:7).
2:17 In order to help his brothers (alluding to the quotation in v. 12), by which the author means “to save them from their sins,” Jesus had to become fully like them, in every way (cf. v. 14). These last words, of course, are not to be taken literally since Jesus was not a sinner, an observation made by our author in 4:15 (cf. 7:26f.). The full humanity of Jesus enables him to perform the functions of a high priest. This is the first occurrence of what for the author is a most important title of Jesus, and one indeed that in the NT is applied to him only in Hebrews. A priest represents humanity before God (cf. 5:1), and in order for a priest to accomplish his task, he must be one with those whom he represents before God. When our author thinks of Jesus as performing a high priestly service to God, he has in mind, as we shall see in chapters 9 and 10, the all-important work of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. This work of this high priest, like those before him whose work foreshadowed his, is accomplished that he might make atonement for the sins of the people (cf. v. 11).
2:18 Although it is not strictly pertinent to the argument at this point, the writer cannot resist a brief pastoral note about the practical benefit of having Jesus as our high priest. Jesus, because of his full humanity and because of his suffering, is in a special position to help those who are being tempted and who call upon him. This application is made more explicit in 4:15, and almost certainly is prompted by the actual difficulties faced by the readers.
Additional Notes
2:10 Although the expression occurs in Jewish literature outside the Bible, this is the only place in the Bible where it was fitting (eprepen) describes God’s action. Should make the author of their salvation perfect brings the first occurrence of teleioō (“make perfect”) in the epistle. This important word occurs frequently in Hebrews (verb also found in 5:9; 7:19, 28; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:23; other forms of root: 5:14; 9:11; 6:1; 7:11; 12:2). Although some see the verb in Hebrews as often carrying a cultic significance (following its use in LXX), i.e., “being fit to approach the presence of God,” the verb more generally carries the idea of “bringing to perfection” in the sense of fulfillment or completeness. M. Silva argues persuasively that the idea of fulfillment is behind the various occurrences of the word in Hebrews. See “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” WTJ 39 (1976–77), pp. 60–71. See also G. Delling, TDNT, vol. 8, pp. 49–87.
Those who participate in the salvation Jesus has accomplished are here called sons and thus they share in Jesus’ own title (cf. v. 11) and relationship to the Father. The only other place in the book where “sons” is used absolutely is in 12:5–8. The author shares this concept with Paul (e.g., Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26; 4:6f.). To be “sons” means to be those who enjoy and are on the way to salvation and glory. It is ambiguous in the Greek whether God or Jesus is to be understood as the one who brings the sons to glory, although a slight probability favors God as the subject (see Hughes, pp. 101f.).
Jesus’ central role in the procural of salvation gives him the special title archēgos tēs sōtērias, which has variously been translated “captain of salvation” (KJV), “pioneer of salvation” (RSV), “author of salvation” (ASV, NIV), “leader of salvation” (Moffatt; Phillips, cf. NEB, JB). On salvation (sōtēria), see note to 2:3. The word archēgos has two related meanings: (1) leader, ruler, prince, and (2) originator, founder. “Pathfinder” or “trailblazer” is sometimes suggested as distilling the meaning of the word. It occurs also in Heb. 12:2, where it refers to Jesus as the author or pioneer of faith and is linked with “perfecter” (RSV). The only other references are Acts 3:15, “the author of life” and Acts 5:31, absolutely, “Prince.” See G. Johnston, “Christ as Archēgos,” NTS 27 (1981), pp. 381–85; J. J. Scott, “Archēgos in the Salvation History of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JETS 29 (1986), pp. 47–54. H. Bietenhard, NIDNTT, vol. 1, p. 168.
2:11 Makes men holy comes from the word often translated “sanctify” (hagiazō). This word in Hebrews can mean “to make holy” or “to consecrate” (as in 10:14, 29); but even in these instances the context speaks of an “offering” or of “blood,” and thus purification from sin may well be in view (cf. GNB). Elsewhere in Hebrews the word comes close to being a synonym for “make atonement” (9:13; 10:10; 13:12). See O. Procksch, TDNT, vol. 1, p. 112. Are of the same family is an interpretation of an indefinite Greek phrase, “from one” (ex henos). It is equally possible to construe the phrase to mean “one origin” (RSV), “of one stock” (NEB), or “same Father” (GNB). NIV appropriately opts for of the same family in connection with the reference to brothers. Although according to the Gospels Jesus calls his disciples “brothers” (Matt. 12:49f.; 25:40; 28:10), and although “brothers” is the most common designation for the Christian community in the NT, this is the only passage outside the Gospels where the community is called brothers of Jesus (apart, of course, from his actual siblings). See W. Günther, NIDNTT, vol. 1, pp. 254–58. Not ashamed is an example of a rhetorical device called litotes, whereby an affirmative statement is expressed by a negative (cf. 11:16; Rom. 1:16). On this passage, see G. W. Grogan, “Christ and His People: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Hebrews 2, 5–18,” VoxEv 6 (1969), pp. 54–71.
2:12 Your name. The “name” connotes not only who the Lord is, but what he has done. See H. Bietenhard, NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 648–55. In the presence of the congregation is literally “in the midst of the ekklēsia” or “church” (see KJV). Although in the LXX the “congregation” or “assembly” of Israel is meant, the author and his readers would quite naturally have had their minds turned to the church by this particular Greek word.
2:13 The readiness with which the early Christians identified the kyrios (“Lord”) of the LXX (for YHWH) with Jesus is evident throughout the NT (see, e.g., Acts 2:21, 34f.; Rom. 10:13; Phil. 2:9–11; 1 Pet. 3:15f.; Rev. 19:16), and accounts for the OT quotations in this verse which the author attributes to Jesus. See I. H. Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976), pp. 104–8. It is of no concern to our author that in the quotation of Ps. 22:22 in the preceding verse it is the one who is addressed, and not the speaker, who is kyrios. (The “Lord” addressed in the psalm is called God in its opening verses.) The focus of our author at this point is obviously on the humanity and not the deity of Jesus.
2:14 The stress on the flesh and blood in which Jesus shared puts Hebrews, along with the Johannine writings, among the strongest opponents of docetism in the NT writings. Docetism stressed the deity of Christ and argued that Christ was not really, but only appeared to be, human. This is a totally impossible view so far as the argument of Hebrews is concerned. (Cf. John 1:14; 1 John 1:1; 4:2.) See G. S. Hendry, “Christology,” DCT, p. 56. NIV unfortunately omits the adverb paraplēsios (“similarly” or “likewise”; cf. KJV, RSV, NASB) in its translation. The word indicates not merely an additional instance of the taking on of humanity (as in “too”), but emphasizes the likeness of Jesus’ humanity to ours (cf. Barclay: “in exactly the same way”). Devil and Satan are the two main designations for the supernatural enemy of God. They are used about equally often in the NT. Devil means “slanderer”; Satan, a Hebrew word, means “adversary.” The devil is “the prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). The connection between the devil and death was well known in the Judaism of the intertestamental period (see Wisd. of Sol. 1:13f.; 2:23f.). Death and Hades are thrown into “the lake of fire” consecutively according to Rev. 20:14 (cf. v. 10). This is the only occurrence of either word in Hebrews. See H. Bietenhard, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 468–72.
2:15 The Greek word underlying the verb free is apallassō (elsewhere in the NT only in Luke 12:58 and Acts 19:12) and not the more common word eleutheroō. In pursuing this argument about Jesus setting us free from the fear of death, it is remarkable that the writer fails to refer to the resurrection of Jesus. The author knows the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (6:2), but in the entire epistle the resurrection of Jesus is referred to only in 13:20, and even then the usual word for resurrection, anastasis, is not used. As far as our passage is concerned, it may be said that any reference to the death of Jesus as a victory, wherein the devil is destroyed and believers are delivered from the fear of death, necessarily carries with it the implication of his resurrection. Although not mentioned explicitly, the resurrection of Jesus and its significance for the present argument cannot have been overlooked by any of the Christian readers of this book. The resurrection of Jesus, after all, was the cornerstone of the early church’s faith and preaching.
2:16 It is difficult to be certain about the meaning of the verb translated as helps in this verse. The LXX (Isa. 41:8f.) passage that may underlie the verse uses the verb antilambanō, which in its context means “take” (i.e., “from the ends of the earth”). The verb in the present verse is epilambanomai, “to take hold of.” The latter verb can connote “to help.” It may be, however, that to opt immediately for an evident connotation rather than the basic meaning is to avoid something important to the author. The meaning “take hold of” may be understood in the sense of Jesus taking upon himself the nature of man, which as we have seen is the author’s main point. NEB translates appropriately: “It is not angels, mark you, that he takes to himself, but the sons of Abraham” (cf. JB). Similarly, Phillips: “It is plain that for this purpose he did not become an angel; he became a man, in actual fact a descendant of Abraham.” RSV’S “is concerned with,” however, is too weak. “Take hold” finds its fullest meaning in the present context, namely, “to become like in order to give help” (cf. the same verb, with the note of implied help, in “took” in 8:9).
2:17 The title high priest is applied to Jesus ten times in Hebrews. The development of this title and application of it to Jesus is, as far as we can tell from the other writings of the NT, our author’s original work. Obviously, the primary significance of the title has to do with the sacrificial ritual for atonement, as in the present verse (cf. 7:26, 8:1). The author, however, takes up opportunities for further application in such areas as help for those in difficulty (4:14f.; 6:20) and the good things brought by Christ (3:1; 9:11). Since the significance of the title composes a crucial, indeed central, part of the argument of Hebrews, there is no need to pursue it further in this note. See O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, pp. 83–107; J. Baehr, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 32–42. See A. J. B. Higgins, “The Priestly Messiah,” NTS 13 (1967), pp. 211–39; J. R. Schaefer, “The Relationship Between Priestly and Servant Messianism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 59–85.
Only here is high priest modified by the adjectives merciful and faithful, although they are appropriate for the title and would suit other contexts admirably well. Only in one other instance is an adjective used: “great high priest” (4:14). Sins is a very important word in Hebrews, occurring more often in Hebrews than in any other NT book except Romans. The reason is plain: Hebrews is an extensive treatise on the work of Christ, our high priest, in accomplishing atonement for sin. This was already announced in 1:3 and is the reason for the incarnation and death of Jesus, as we have seen from the present chapter. The author uses almost exclusively the word hamartia for “sin.” See W. Günther, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 577–83.
The words make atonement for the sins describe not so much the effect of the high priest’s work, as the work itself. The key Greek word (hilaskesthai) has been much debated by NT scholars. C. H. Dodd, on the one hand, argues that its meaning in the NT is “expiation,” i.e., reflecting action directed toward sins, in the sense of “to wipe away”; L. Morris, on the other hand, argues that it means “propitiation,” i.e., reflecting action directed toward God in the “appeasement of wrath.” RSV (“to make expiation”) and NEB (“to expiate”) reflect Dodd’s perspective. KJV (“to make reconciliation”) and NIV sensibly reflect what can be called a neutral position, without specifying how reconciliation or atonement is accomplished, and yet retaining an active statement of the work of Jesus. See the full discussion of the debate in H.-G. Link and C. Brown, NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 148–66.
2:18 The translation of peirazō by “test” rather than “tempt” (as in NEB) may be of some help in understanding this verse, although the distinction is not always easy to make (cf. James 1:13–15). See the discussion in C. L. Mitton, The Epistle of James (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1966), pp. 46–50. For the testing of Jesus, see Mark 3:21; 8:32; and esp. Matt. 4:1–11, material with which our author was familiar, if not from the written Gospels, at least from the oral tradition.
